Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-gtgcz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-19T16:01:52.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EFFECTS OF TASK TYPE AND L2 PROFICIENCY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN L1 AND L2 IN READING AND WRITING

An SEM Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2017

Tae-Il Pae
Tae-Il Pae*
Affiliation:
Yeungnam University
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Tae-Il Pae, Department of English Language Education, School of Education, Yeungnam University, Dae-dong, Gyeongsan, Gyeongsangbuk-do, South Korea 712-749. E-mail: paet@ynu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study systematically examines the moderating effects of task type and L2 proficiency on the relationship between L1 and L2 simultaneously across reading and writing tasks with different levels of cognitive complexity. Main and moderating effects were evaluated through structural equation modeling analyses. First, both L1 skills and L2 proficiency were significant independent predictors of L2 reading and writing performance across tasks with different levels of cognitive complexity. Second, L2 proficiency had a much greater effect on L2 reading and writing performance across tasks with different cognitive loads than L1 skills. Third, the strength of the relationship between less cognitively demanding L1 and L2 reading tasks showed no significant difference between the low- and high-L2-proficiency groups. Fourth, the strength of the relationship between more cognitively demanding L1 and L2 reading tasks showed a significant difference between the low- and high-L2-proficiency groups. Fifth, the strength of the relationship between L1 and L2 writing tasks with different levels of cognitive complexity varied significantly depending on the level of L2 proficiency. These results are discussed theoretically and pedagogically.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 63 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

The author is grateful to the reviewers of SSLA for their insightful comments and suggestions. The author also thanks the editors of SSLA.

References

REFERENCES

Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In Alderson, J. C. & Urquhart, A. H. (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 122–135). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Alptekin, C., & Erçetin, G. (2011). Effects of working memory capacity and content familiarity on literal and inferential comprehension in L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ardasheva, Y., Tretter, T., & Kinny, M. (2012). English language learner and academic achievement: Revisiting the threshold hypothesis. Language Learning, 62, 769–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhardt, E., & Kamil, M. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceiling, and short-circuits: The relation between L1 reading and L2 reading and L2 knowledge. AILA Review, 8, 45–60.Google Scholar
Brisbois, J. (1992). Do first language writing and second language reading equal second language reading comprehension? An assessment dilemma (Unpublished PhD thesis). The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2007). Principle of language learning and teaching. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 12, 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carson, J. E., Carrell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990). Reading-writing relationships in first and second language. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, M. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29, 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence hypothesis and educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 22–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1991). Conversational and academic language proficiency in bilingual contexts. AILA Review, 8, 75–89.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cziko, G. A. (1976). The effects of language sequencing on the development of bilingual reading skills. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 534–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purposes, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fincher-Kiefer, R. (1992). The role of prior knowledge in inferential processing. Journal of Research in Reading, 15, 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (2001). Learning difficulties and foreign language learning: A review of research and instruction. Language Teaching, 34, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. London, UK, and New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Greaney, V. (1977). Review of reading research in the Republic of Ireland. In Greaney, V. (Ed.), Studies in reading. Dublin: Educational Co. of Ireland.Google Scholar
Hamp-Lyons, L., & Mathias, S. P. (1994). Examining expert judgments of task difficulty on essay tests. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between consumer satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 43–66.3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, E., & Yamashita, J. (2014). L2 reading comprehension and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 64, 160–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
KICE (2010). Test Manual of the Korean College Scholastic Aptitude Test: English Subtest. Seoul, Korea: KICE.Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Kwon, O. (2014). The usefulness of item types in the Korean College Scholastic Ability Test of English. English Language Assessment, 9, 1–21.Google Scholar
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J.-W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. Y. (2005). Facilitating and inhibiting factors in English as a foreign language writing performance: A model testing with structural equation modeling. Language Learning, 55, 335–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2011). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York, NY: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Pae, T.-I. (2008). A structural model for Korean EFL students’ writing performance. English Teaching, 63, 121–137.Google Scholar
Pae, T.-I. (2011). Examining factors affecting complex versus non-complex task performance of Korean EFL writers. English Language Teaching, 23, 153–168.Google Scholar
Pae, T.-I. (2012). Causes of gender DIF on an EFL language test: A multiple-data analysis over nine years. Language Testing, 29, 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pae, T.-I. (2013). Skill-based L2 anxieties revisited: Their intra-relations and the inter-relations with general foreign language anxiety. Applied Linguistics, 34, 232–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pae, T.-I., & Park, G.-P. (2006). Examining the relationship between differential item and differential test functioning. Language Testing, 23, 475–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, G.-P. (2004). Comparing of L2 listening and reading comprehension by university students learning English in Korea. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 448–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennington, M. C., & So, S. (1993). Comparing writing process and product across two languages: A study of 6 Singaporean university student writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prevoo, M. J. L., Malda, M., Emmen, R. A. G., Yeniad, N., & Mesman, J. (2015). A context-dependent view on the linguistic interdependence hypothesis: Language use and SES as potential moderators. Language Learning, 65, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Carlo, M. S., & Snow, C. (2006). The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, C. P., August, D., Snow, C., & Barr, C. D. (2010). The interdependence continuum: A perspective on the nature of Spanish-English bilingual reading comprehension. Bilingual Research Journal, 33, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reise, S., Widaman, K., and Pugh, R. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, M., & Hirose, K. (1996). Explanatory variables for EFL students’ expository writing. Language Learning, 46, 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoonen, R., van Gelderen, A., de Glopper, K., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003). First and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shohamy, E., & Inbar, O. (1991). Validation of listening comprehension tests: The effect of text and question type. Language Testing, 8, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P., Foster, P., & Mehnert, U. (1997). Assessing and using tasks. In Renandya, W. & Jacobs, G. (Eds.), Learners and language learning. Singapore: RELC Anthology Series 39.Google Scholar
Sparks, R. (1995). Examining the linguistic coding differences hypothesis to explain individual differences in foreign language learning. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 187–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-term cross-linguistic transfer of skills from L1 to L2. Language Learning, 59, 203–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taillefer, G. F. (1996). L2 reading ability: Further insight into the short-circuit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 80, 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takakuwa, M. (2005). Lessons from a paradoxical hypothesis: A methodological critique of the Threshold Hypothesis. In Cohen, J., McAlister, K. T., Rolstad, K., & MacSwan, J. (Eds.), ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on bilingualism (pp. 2222–2232). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Toukomaa, P., & Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1977). The intensive teaching of the mother tongue to migrant children of pre-school age and children in the lower level of comprehensive school. Helsinki: The Finnish National Commission for UNESCO.Google Scholar
Tsui, A., & Fullilove, J. (1998). Bottom-up or top-down processing as a discriminator of L2 listening performance. Applied Linguistics, 19, 432–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, G. R. (1975). The development of reading skills within a bilingual program. In Smiley, S. & Towner, T. C. (Eds.), Language and reading. Bellingham, WA: Western Washington State College.Google Scholar
Vandergrift, L. (2006). Second language listening: Listening or language proficiency? Modern Language Journal, 90, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gelderen, A., Schoonen, R., Stoel, R., Glopper, K., & Hulstijn, J. (2007). Development of adolescent reading comprehension in language 1 and language 2: A longitudinal analysis of constituent components. Journal of Education Psychology, 99, 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44, 381–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, L., Munro, J., & Rickards, F. W. (1998). Teaching inferential reading strategies through pictures. Volta Review, 100, 87–104.Google Scholar
Walsh, G., Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2008). Identification and analysis of moderator variables: Investigating the customer satisfaction-loyalty link. European Journal of Marketing, 42, 977–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, D. (2012). Vocabulary and grammar knowledge in second language reading comprehension: A structural equation modeling study. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 558–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar