8.1 Introduction

In India, only 44 percent of students in government schools can read Grade 2 texts in Grade 5 fluently, as measured by the ASER test, which focuses on decoding skills (Annual Status of Education Report [ASER Centre, 2018]). According to India’s national census conducted in 2011, 74 percent of the total population of India were considered literate, defined as having the ability to “both read and write with understanding in any language” (Education for All in India, 2011). Within India, there is, however, wide variation, with literacy rates being significantly higher in private schools (Reference Pal and KingdonPal & Kingdon, 2010) and in urban areas (Reference AgrawalAgrawal, 2014).

India – and the entire South and Southeast Asian region – is home to different types of writing systems and linguistic situations; however, literacy acquisition in the region is often defined by the use of alphasyllabic akshara orthographies and multilingualism. Both these characteristics have significant implications for the theory, practice, and policy of literacy acquisition in India. Although the scientific foundations and corresponding practical applications of reading development in monolingual contexts of alphabetic languages have been relatively conclusively established (Reference Castles, Rastle and NationCastles, Rastle, & Nation, 2018; Reference Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky and SeidenbergRayner et al., 2001; Reference Seymour, Aro and ErskineSeymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Reference Tunmer and HooverTunmer & Hoover, 2019), there is less research examining the psycholinguistic underpinnings of literacy acquisition in alphasyllabic akshara writing systems. The recent literature in akshara reading acquisition lends credibility to the universal mapping principle that learning to read depends on learning how a writing system encodes a spoken language (Reference PerfettiPerfetti, 2003; Reference Verhoeven and PerfettiVerhoeven & Perfetti, 2017), by highlighting the very specific reading processes necessary to decode the particularities of the akshara scripts (Reference Joshi, McBride, Joshi and McBrideJoshi & McBride, 2019; Reference Nag and PerfettiNag & Perfetti, 2014). The research on biliteracy acquisition has also grown over the past several years, especially in cases of literacy acquisition in two alphabetic language (Reference August and ShanahanAugust & Shanahan, 2006), but also in cases of morphosyllabic–alphabetic biliteracy acquisition (Reference Wang, Perfetti and LiuWang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005; Reference Zhang and KodaZhang & Koda, 2014). However, the research on akshara-alphabetic biliteracy acquisition in functionally multilingual contexts – especially wherein educational resources are very limited – remains relatively uncharted territory (see also Nag, Chapter 15 in this volume).

Our chapter focuses on literacy and linguistic diversity in the most populous nation in the world. We begin with a brief description of the historical and contemporary state of multilingual education policy and practice in India. In addition, the psycholinguistic underpinnings of learning to read in akshara orthographies and of biliteracy acquisition with at least one akshara orthography will be uncovered. Finally, future directions related to literacy development research and practice among diverse populations in India will be discussed.

8.2 Multilingual Education Policy and Practice in India

Functional multilingualism – as Reference Bhatia, Ritchie, Bhatia and RitchieBhatia and Ritchie (2004) call it – is widespread in India. Functional multilingualism refers to the ability for people to “function” in different domains of society using different languages. This has complex and multifaceted implications for improving reading outcomes due to large variances and mismatches between students’ oral-language abilities and the media of instruction in schools, as well as a lack of access to education in a child’s home language (Reference BallBall, 2011; Reference PinnockPinnock, 2009).

At a national level, multilingualism forces India’s education decision makers to craft policies that appropriately sequence the introduction of languages used as media of instruction. According to the 2011 census, there are 1,369 languages from at least 5 different language families spoken in India, and 121 of them have more than 10,000 speakers; however, more than 95 percent of the population speak one of 22 regional languages (Census; Government of India, 2011). In 1946, when India was drafting its Constitution, debate raged over whether to include languages other than Hindi as a national language (Reference JayasundaraJayasundara, 2014). While the Hindi-only camp declared that “people who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India” (Dhulekar, 1946, as cited by Reference JayasundaraJayasundara, 2014), several South Indian scholars and activists from non-Hindi-speaking regions of India pushed to maintain English as a national language as well, which resulted in both English and Hindi becoming official languages of the nation. In 1968, the National Policy in Education instated an education policy called the Three-Language Formula, which mandated that by the end of secondary school, all students should be learning three languages (Reference VaishVaish, 2008). In Hindi-speaking states, the three languages are Hindi, English, and another modern Indian language, preferably a South Indian one; and in non-Hindi-speaking states, the three languages are that state’s regional language, English, and Hindi.

In 2019, the central government of India released a draft New Education Policy, which makes amendments to the 1968 policy in that it refers to the “mandatory” teaching of Hindi in states where Hindi is not spoken, as well as inclusion of Hindi from the primary levels. These new directions have led to a backlash and widespread protests in non-Hindi-speaking regions (Reference DasguptaDasgupta, 2019; Reference ShankaranShankaran, 2019; Reference VenkataramananVenkataramanan, 2019), reflecting past protests against Hindi dominance in India. At the pre-primary level, the Draft National Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) Policy (Government of India, 2012) argues that the “mother tongue or home language of the child will be the primary language of interaction in the ECCE programs. However, given the young child’s ability at this age to learn many languages, exposure to the national language English in oral form, as required, will also be explored.” These policies reflect the decades-long tensions around this issue of the need to promote multilingual education policies in India, as well as highlighting the necessity for more research to be undertaken to inform the construction of effective multilingual education policies in the country.

At a regional level, there is a need to reconcile the increasingly strong parental and community preference for schools that emphasize English learning earlier in the elementary grades (Reference NagNag, 2014) with the multifaceted positive benefits of learning in the local language for a longer period of time. The preference for English stems mainly from the perception that English is crucial to enhancing a child’s life outcomes (National Council of Educational Research & Training [India], 2005), and from the growing evidence that English is indeed linked with socioeconomic mobility in India (Reference Azam, Chin and PrakashAzam, Chin, & Prakash, 2013; Reference Chakraborty and BakshiChakraborty & Bakshi, 2016; Reference ShastryShastry, 2012). In response to these parental preferences, some government schools, NGO-run schools, and private affordable schools in India have changed their policies and started using English as the medium of instruction from Grade 1 (Indo-Asian News Service, 2019; Reference KurrienKurrien, 2004; Press Trust of India, 2020). Yet research conducted on biliteracy acquisition in India indicates that students must attain a threshold level of reading skills in the local or regional language for a more effective transfer of skills from the local language to English and thus better biliteracy acquisition; it further indicates that this threshold level was not reached until Grade 4 or 5 by most students in a sample of thirteen urban and rural low-income schools in South India (Reference Nakamura, de Hoop and HollaNakamura, de Hoop, & Holla, 2019). Research also shows that about 80 percent of children from nursery to Grade 7 in one sample of low-income schools in urban South India had very small English vocabularies (Reference Nag, Ramkumar and MirandaNag, Rankumar, et al., 2014). International studies highlight a significant link between learning in the mother tongue and a positive sense of identity and self-worth (Reference Tollefson, Tsui, Tollefson and TsuiTollefson & Tsui, 2003; Reference TrudellTrudell, 2005). There is also a rising call from regional activists in India (Reference GejjiGejji, 2019), and the international education community (Reference BallBall, 2011; Reference Bender, Dutcher, Klaus, Shore and TesarBender et al., 2005; Reference BensonBenson, 2005) to maintain regional languages as the media of instruction for longer periods of time in early education. Clearly, more research is needed to inform an effective multilingual education practice that allows for a reconciliation between these complex, competing forces of increasing demand for earlier English learning vis-à-vis an increasing evidence base supporting the later teaching of English.

Also, regionally, policymakers and frontline workers in India face different sets of challenges in urban settings as compared to rural areas while implementing multilingual education policies. A typical child in Bangalore, an urban area in the south of India, may be exposed to – and use – up to four or five languages on a daily basis: a home language which may not be used in the school system at all (in some cases two home languages); a regional language different from the home language, which may or may not be used in schools; one school language as the language of instruction; a second regional school language; and a third language in school, such as Hindi (Reference ReddyReddy, 2011). Indeed, it is common for students in low-income community schools in Bangalore to come from several different L1 backgrounds, including commonly Telugu, Tamil, Hindi, Urdu, Tulu, and Malayalam, with only 15–20 percent speaking the regional language of Kannada (Reference Nag, Snowling, Quinlan and HulmeNag, Snowling, et al., 2014; Reference ReddyReddy, 2011), making mixed mother-tongue-language classrooms relatively common. Reference Mohanty, Panda, Pal, Menken and GarciaMohanty, Panda, and Pal (2010) note that language heterogeneity within classrooms leads to teachers and field-level educational administrators having difficulties navigating prescribed curricular and pedagogic practices alongside the realities of the children’s language capabilities.

In contrast, in rural areas, most children are likely to speak the same language, but they may come from homes that speak marginalized languages and dialect varieties, especially in states with significant tribal populations such as Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. In these cases, the mismatch between the state language and the children’s mother tongue results in well-documented negative consequences, such as a lack of opportunity to learn in a language the child understands that leads to stunted learning outcomes as well as high rates of dropouts (Reference JhingranJhingran, 2005) (see also Asfaha & Nag, Chapter 16 and Friedlander & Goldenberg, Chapter 18 in this volume).

At the household level, parents and the home literacy environment play a crucial role in children’s language acquisition (Reference Sénéchal and LeFevreSénéchal & LeFevre, 2002), mainly through students’ exposure to a language outside of school (Reference Nag-ArulmaniNag-Arulmani, 2000). There is significant variation in degrees of adult literacy and proficiency in different languages (including the languages of school instruction), and thus there are gaps in the language abilities of parents as well as children, especially in reading, which also hinders the ability of parents to support their children’s literacy acquisition. Likewise, there is also evidence from a sample of about 500 students from 6 low-income communities in South India that there is a dire lack of print materials in any language in many homes (Reference ReddyReddy, 2011). When print was found in homes, the most common print-related items were religious books or decorative or functional items, such as calendars or newspapers used for wrapping goods.

Another key factor determining the success of multilingual education policy in India is the capabilities of the teachers. Reference Nag-ArulmaniNag-Arulmani (2000) found that one of the most important factors in English learning in India is the teacher’s English-language proficiency. Reference KurrienKurrien (2005) identified four types of schools: (a) English-medium middle-high-cost private schools, where teachers are proficient in English, but students have differing levels of knowledge of English; (b) English-medium low-cost private schools, where teachers and students have limited proficiency in and exposure to English, but parents view English as an instrument for upward mobility; (c) government-aided regional schools, where teachers have varying levels of English proficiency, with students from a variety of backgrounds; and (d) government regional schools run by district and municipal education authorities, where both teachers’ and students’ English proficiency and exposure are limited. The National Council of Educational Research & Training (2005) argues that the language proficiency of teachers varies remarkably across schools, with a strong difference observable between government and private schools. Thus, depending on the type of school, the English proficiency levels of teachers differ and, arguably, the teachers’ proficiency, in turn, differentially affects the language proficiency of the child (Reference Shenoy, Wagner, Joshi and McBrideShenoy & Wagner, 2019).

Curricular pace and pedagogical practices are another manifestation of how language choices play out in the classrooms of low-income communities in India. Despite some evidence from private unaided English-medium schools in urban low-income communities that phonics is a more effective teaching method for early decoding and encoding outcomes (Reference Dixon, Schagen and SeedhouseDixon, Schagen, & Seedhouse, 2011), these methods are rarely used in low-income urban communities in Bangalore (Reference Shenoy, Wagner and RaoShenoy, Wagner, & Rao, 2020). In an in-depth qualitative observation of four students in an English-medium school in India, Reference GuptaGupta (2013) reveals that pedagogical practice proceeds through the following stages: teaching isolated letters; then spelling individual words, without any explicit connections to meaning or context; learning grammar by copying sentences and recitation; and finally learning grammatical explanations and terms such as “proposition” and “conjunction” at age five. The study also showed that there was no focus on storytelling, storybooks, or any print support in the classroom other than the textbook. Reference Nag, Ramkumar and MirandaNag, Ramkumar et al. (2014) find similar trends at the preschool level, with disproportionate time spent on copying texts by hand and no activities including storytelling or dialogue or interactive sessions, and short bursts of teaching in both the regional language (Kannada) and English. These findings also highlighted that Kannada was used mainly for punitive commands and teachers were not confident in teaching even in Kannada – which was the teachers’ native language, but a later-acquired language for the students – because of their perception that the students did not have enough linguistic knowledge in that language to learn concepts.

Finally, a paucity in schools of appropriate learning materials that support and augment learning also adversely affects the practice of multilingual education. There are two ways in which this scenario of resource deprivation operates: (1) schools are under-resourced and are not able to provide adequate learning materials such as books and other print materials to their students in any language, and (2) learning materials in a particular language – most likely the regional languages or dialectical varieties – are not available in the learning ecosystem due to the lack of demand from parents and communities for teaching in these languages to take place, and thus the limited supply of such materials. Reference Nag-Arulmani and GhoulandrisNag-Arulmani (2003) notes that there could be wide variations between different types of schools (government vs. private) in terms of learning opportunities, class libraries, culture, and management, which eventually lead to a similar divide in students’ levels of oral-language and reading proficiency. Additionally, a lack of learning materials in vernacular languages, especially in science, can hinder learning among children (Reference Mohanty, Garcia, Skutnabb-Kangas and Torres-GuzmanMohanty, 2006).

In sum, there are immense challenges to the successful implementation of the Three-Language Formula in India’s complex multilingual environment; however, there are also significant opportunities for success with multilingual education in a country that is dedicated to the teaching of more than one language in its policy.

8.3 Psycholinguistic Processes Underpinning Akshara Literacy Acquisition

While many early classification frameworks put forth the notion that there are three main categories of writing systems – logographic (now more commonly called morphosyllabic), syllabic, and alphabetic (Reference GelbGelb, 1952)– more recent frameworks also include the West Semitic abjad as well as the alphasyllabary (Reference Nag and PerfettiNag & Perfetti, 2014; Reference PerfettiPerfetti, 2003). The akshara writing system, along with Korean Hangul and the Ethiopian Ge’ez scripts, commonly fall into the latter category.

Share and colleagues (Reference ShareShare, 2014; Reference Share and DanielsShare & Daniels, 2016) go a step further in unpacking the alphasyllabary category to highlight some of the key features that distinguish the ancient Brahmi-derived orthographies of the Dravidian and Sanskrit languages, akshara,Footnote ¹ from alphabetic and syllabic scripts. Examples of such distinction from both alphabetic and syllabic writing systems include the visual prominence of the consonant in the syllabic clusters; the lack of visual resemblance between primary word-initial vowel forms, or their nondiacritic forms, and their secondary diacritic forms (for example, the difference between ಆ, the primary vowel form of /a/ versus , the secondary diacritic form of /a/); the lack of any graphical representation of the common schwa following consonants (which is hence called the inherent vowel); and the lack of case (majuscule and minuscule letters).

The basic orthographic representations of akshara are vowels and consonants, with the mid central vowel (schwa) inherent to each consonant. Consonants and vowels can be added to the base akshara consonant while keeping the syllabic form intact and prominent. Thus, each syllabic orthographic representation can be a vowel (V) ಅ /a/, a consonant with schwa (Cə) ಸ /sə/, a consonant plus a vowel diacritic marker (CV) /s/+/a/, a consonant with a consonant diacritic marker and vowel diacritic marker (CCV) /sh/+/r/+/i/, or even a consonant with a consonant diacritic marker, a second consonant diacritic marker, a vowel diacritic marker, and a long vowel diacritic marker (CCCVV) /s+th+r+i+long vowel marker/. Each of these configurations are represented as single symbol blocks that are visually approximately the same size, retaining syllabic prominence in the orthography (Reference Nag, Cain, Compton and ParrilaNag, 2017).

Reflecting these orthographic features of the akshara, studies are beginning to unpack the psycholinguistic mechanisms that underlie early akshara reading acquisition. One of the central themes in most recent studies is that there is a need for dual syllabic and phonemic sensitivity in order to successfully acquire akshara-decoding ability (Reference NagNag, 2007; Reference Nakamura, Joshi and JiNakamura, Joshi, & Ji, 2018; Reference Koda, Gass and MackeyReddy & Koda, 2013; Reference Sircar, Nag, Winskel and PadakannayaSircar & Nag, 2013; Reference Vaid and GuptaVaid & Gupta, 2002; Reference VasantaVasanta, 2004; Reference Winskel and IemwanthongWinskel & Iemwanthong, 2010), as there is for decoding skills in other alphasyllabaries such as Korean Hangul and the fidäl symbols used in the Ge’ez scripts of Ethiopia (Reference Asfaha, Kurvers and KroonAsfaha, Kurvers, & Kroon, 2009; Reference Cho and McBride-ChangCho & McBride-Chang, 2005; Reference Kim and DavisKim & Davis, 2004; Reference Kim and PetscherKim & Petscher, 2011). Interestingly, however, the precise nature of the sublexical phonological sensitivity required at different stages of early akshara acquisition is still emerging and the evidence is inconclusive. For instance, due to the salience of the syllabic structure in the orthography, studies demonstrate that syllabic sensitivity remains a stronger predictor through the akshara-decoding acquisition process (Reference Nakamura, Joshi and JiNakamura et al., 2018), and phonemic awareness is slower to emerge (Reference NagNag, 2007). However, studies are also highlighting that phonemic-level sensitivity is significant for the mastery of the entire repertoire of symbols (Reference Nesan, Sadeghi, Everatt, Joshi and McBrideNesan, Sadeghi, & Everatt, 2019; Reference Wijayathilake, Parrila, Inoue and NagWijayathilake et al., 2019). Accordingly, there is a wide consensus that akshara-decoding skills require dual syllable–phoneme phonological sensitivity, but the degree to which both are needed in different stages of the acquisition of decoding skills in akshara is a question that remains ripe for further investigation.

A second key feature of akshara is the size of the orthographic registry that needs to be learned. The “extensive” symbol set size (Reference NagNag, 2014), the large set of complex diacritic ligaturing rules, and the need for dual syllable and phoneme awareness lead to a longer acquisition trajectory of approximately four–five years to master decoding skills in the Indic akshara compared to approximately one–two years in most alphabetic languages (Reference NagNag, 2007, Reference Nag2014; Reference Reddy and KodaReddy & Koda, 2013). Scholars have recently begun referring to this as the “orthographic breadth” (Reference Inoue, Georgiou, Muroya, Maekawa and ParrilaInoue et al., 2017; Reference NagNag, 2014), adding a critical dimension of breadth to the much-researched implications of the depth spectrum (Reference Katz, Frost, Frost and KatzKatz & Frost, 1992; Reference Seymour, Aro and ErskineSeymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003) on early decoding-acquisition ability.

Another key feature of akshara orthographies that makes them distinct from alphabetic orthographies, as well as leading to some challenges for young readers, is the nonlinear arrangement of the symbols. While alphabetic languages spatially arrange their letters in the same sequence as their corresponding sounds, noninitial vowel or consonant phonemic components of akshara are ligatured to the primary consonant in positions above, below, to the right of, and even to the left of the consonant (Reference Share and DanielsShare & Daniels, 2016). For instance, in the word /hindi/ the diacritic /i/ appears before the ह् /h/ consonant, leading to nonlinear spatial configurations of the phonological sequence. This mismatch between spatial and temporal sequencing of sounds and symbols leads to challenges in decoding acquisition and adds to word-reading acquisition time (Reference Kandhadai and SproatKandhadhai & Sproat, 2010; Reference Vaid and GuptaVaid & Gupta, 2002; Reference Winskel, Padakannaya, Pandey, Winskel and PadakannayaWinskel, Padakannaya, & Pandey, 2013).

Akshara are also visually complex in unique ways. While most cross-orthography comparative research has focused on sound–symbol mapping correspondence differences (Reference Katz, Frost, Frost and KatzKatz & Frost, 1992; Reference PerfettiPerfetti, 2003; Reference Ziegler and GoswamiZiegler & Goswami, 2005), visual-form differences also have consequences for recognition and learning (Reference Chang, Chen and PerfettiChang, Chen, & Perfetti, 2018; Reference Nag, Snowling, Quinlan and HulmeNag, Snowling et al., 2014). Visual-form differences are most often manifested in terms of the degree of discriminability of graphic symbols (Reference Pelli, Burns, Farell and Moore-PagePelli et al., 2006). Reference Chang, Chen and PerfettiChang et al. (2018) propose a measure of visual complexity, which takes into account perimetric complexity (the ratio of the space taken up by the graph to the background unused space of the graph) and other features that amount to the inventory size that needs to be acquired. In this categorization of the complexity of the world’s writing systems, the akshara writing system tends to rank as more complex than alphabetic writing systems but as less complex than morphosyllabic writing systems. Similarly, Reference Nag, Snowling, Quinlan and HulmeNag, Snowling, et al. (2014) demonstrated that the pixel density of Kannada led to significant differences in early reading acquisition. Reference Share and DanielsShare and Daniels (2016) also point out the differences between the initial and noninitial forms of vowels and consonantal diacritics in the Indic scripts as a potential source of confusion for beginning readers. Together, the visual complexity of the akshara writing system uniquely constrains early reading acquisition.

Taken collectively, there are key differences between akshara literacy acquisition and literacy acquisition in alphabetic, syllabic, morphosyllabic, and even other alphasyllabic orthographies. Each of these differences have critical implications for the precise cognitive and linguistic subskills that are required for acquisition of word-reading skills, and the timing of the acquisition of each of these skills.

8.4 Biliteracy Acquisition in Akshara and Other Languages

Biliteracy acquisition is a qualitatively different process from monolingual literacy acquisition primarily because there is dual language involvement in biliteracy acquisition (Reference Koda, Gass and MackeyKoda, 2013). Early theoretical formulations of this dual language involvement centered on the notion of a “common underlying proficiency” that accounted for the significant correlations between reading ability in one’s first language (L1) and one’s second language (L2) (Reference CumminsCummins, 1979, Reference Cummins and Bialystok1991). More recent models have disentangled various reading subcomponent skills as being more or less susceptible to transfer – depending on their language-neutrality or language-specificity. Critically, metalinguistic skills are generally pinned down as those being shared across language, and decoding skills are those most likely to transfer, while certain orthographic constraints and oral-language skills are the least likely to be related across languages (Reference Geva and SiegelGeva & Siegel, 2000; Reference Koda, Gass and MackeyKoda, 2013). One conceptualization of transfer is synthesized in the compelling Transfer Facilitation Model (Reference KodaKoda, 2005; Reference Koda, Koda and Zehler2008; Reference Koda, Gass and Mackey2013) as follows: previously acquired literacy subskills, primarily decoding skills, transfer and affect the development of L2 reading through shared metalinguistic awareness, primarily metalinguistic skills; however, this transfer facilitation is dependent upon the linguistic and orthographic distance between the two languages, as well as L2 print and oral-language input and experience.

Reference Chung, Chen and GevaChung, Chen, and Geva (2019) provide an interactive framework for cross-linguistic transfer in L2 reading, in which they reiterate that the relationship between L1 and L2 reading skills is influenced by cognitive, linguistic, and metalinguistic factors such as language-specific constructs (orthographic mapping, vocabulary knowledge, and oral-language skills) versus language-neutral constructs (e.g., phonological awareness, morphological awareness, conceptual knowledge, background knowledge), L1–L2 distance, and L1–L2 proficiency and complexity. However, they extend the model to argue that transfer itself is also impacted by sociocultural factors such as age of beginning acquisition of the L2, immigration experience, educational settings, and extent of exposure to the L1 and L2.

Several studies provide empirical support for the tenets of these theoretical frameworks of transfer. Studies across an array of typologically diverse language pairs have shown significant correlations between phonological awareness skills in both languages (Reference Abu-Rabia and SiegelAbu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002 in Arabic–English; Reference Bialystok, McBride-Chang and LukBialystok, McBride-Chang, & Luk, 2005; Reference Gottardo, Yan, Siegel and Wade-WoolleyGottardo et al., 2001; Reference Wang, Perfetti and LiuWang, Perfetti, & Liu, 2005, in Chinese–English; Reference Schaefer and KotzéSchaefer & Kotzé, 2019 in isiZulu and Siswati and English; Reference Nakamura, Koda and JoshiNakamura, Koda, & Joshi, 2014; Reference Reddy and KodaReddy & Koda, 2013 in Kannada–English; Reference Wawire and KimWawire & Kim, 2018 in Kiswahili–English; Reference Da Fontoura and Siegelda Fontoura & Siegel, 1995 in Portuguese–English; Reference KimKim, 2009 in Korean–English; Reference Durgunoğlu, Nagy and Hancin-BhattDurgunoğlu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Reference Goodrich, Lonigan and FarverGoodrich, Lonigan, & Farver, 2017 in Spanish–English). Some of these studies and others have also demonstrated that through the cross-linguistic sharing of phonological skills, there is not only an association with improved L2 reading (Reference Kuo, Uchikoshi, Kim and YangKuo et al., 2016; Reference Melby‐Lervåg and LervågMelby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011; Reference Reddy and KodaReddy & Koda, 2013; Reference Schaefer and KotzéSchaefer & Kotzé, 2019); but also a causal impact on L2 early reading subskills (Reference Goodrich, Lonigan and FarverGoodrich et al., 2017; Reference Wawire and KimWawire & Kim, 2018). Morphological awareness has also been identified as a prime candidate for cross-linguistic resource sharing in both morphosyllabic–alphabetic biliteracy pairs such as Mandarin/Cantonese and English (Reference Lam, Chen, Geva, Luo and LiLam et al., 2012; Reference Wang, Cheng and ChenWang, Cheng, & Chen, 2006; Reference ZhangZhang, 2013) and in alphabetic–alphabetic biliteracy acquisition, such as Spanish and English (Reference Ramírez, Chen and PasquarellaRamírez, Chen, & Pasquarella, 2013).

While metalinguistic awareness and decoding skills are often correlated between L1and L2, the relationship between orthographic skills tend to be less significantly related in languages that are typologically more distant (Reference Abu-RabiaAbu-Rabia, 1997; Reference Geva and SiegelGeva & Siegel, 2000; Reference Geva, Wade-Woolley and ShanyGeva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1997; Reference Wade-Woolley and GevaWade-Woolley & Geva, 2000 for Hebrew–English bilinguals; and Reference Wang, Park and LeeWang, Park, & Lee, 2006 for Korean–English bilinguals). In addition, L2 linguistic and orthographic input is also critical for L2 word reading (Reference Wang and KodaWang & Koda, 2007).

In multilingual contexts wherein more than two languages are being acquired, it has also been demonstrated that biliteracy skills themselves significantly predict L3 reading ability (Reference Schwartz, Geva, Share and LeikinSchwartz et al., 2007). The directionality of transfer is also questioned in contexts where children have limited input to print in their L1, and studies show that in these cases L2 print input not only supports L2 reading but also reverse transfers to support L1 reading (Reference Asfaha, Kurvers and KroonAsfaha et al., 2009; Reference Pretorius and MampuruPretorius & Mampuru, 2007). Finally, cross-linguistic transfer effects reduce, and within-language effects increase, across grades (Reference Nakamoto, Lindsey and ManisNakamoto, Lindsey, & Manis, 2008; Reference Nakamura, Koda and JoshiNakamura et al., 2014). Taken together, as evidenced by the meta-analysis by Reference Melby‐Lervåg and LervågMelby-Lervåg and Lervåg (2011), there are stronger cross-linguistic relations between L1 and L2 phonological awareness and decoding skills than between L1 and L2 oral-language skills. Crucially, both medium of instruction and writing-system distance also moderate the cross-linguistic effects. Both these moderators play an important role in teaching and learning reading on the Indian subcontinent.

There are few studies that focus specifically on biliteracy acquisition in an Indic akshara language and English. In one example, Reference Reddy and KodaReddy and Koda (2013) examined whether and how the dual syllable and phoneme encoding of phonology in the Kannada orthography might transfer and facilitate reading acquisition in L2 (or more precisely, later-acquired Lx) English. Their results, reflective of other biliteracy studies with typologically differing languages, showed that only the phonemic aspect of phonological awareness from Kannada supported cross-linguistic facilitative effects, suggesting significant orthographic constraints to the biliteracy acquisition process in this case. Also consistent with previous studies, Reference Nakamura, Koda and JoshiNakamura, Koda, and Joshi (2014) revealed that in the case of Kannada–English biliteracy acquisition in Grade 3–8 students, the cross-linguistic relationships that were evident in decoding scores in the earlier grades faded as literacy development progressed, highlighting the increasing role of L2 oral-language skills in the later grades.

In an attempt to apply this cross-linguistic transfer research to the practice and policy question in India of when to introduce a child to literacy instruction in English, Reference Nakamura, de Hoop and HollaNakamura, de Hoop, and Holla (2019) tested whether there was a structural break in the relationship – or a point of “sufficient” mastery – between L1 akshara (Kannada or Telugu) decoding scores and L2 English decoding scores in students in Grades 1–5. Building on the akshara–English biliteracy studies that showed that the independent, significant predictors of reading development in L2 English in India were L1 decoding skills and L2 oral-language skills (Nakamura et al., 2013; Reference Reddy and KodaReddy & Koda, 2013) and that phonemic awareness in Kannada specifically accounted for variance in English decoding, it was hypothesized that after the mastery of the phonemic components within the akshara (a constrained skill, as opposed to oral vocabulary language, which can be considered an unconstrained skill; Reference Snow and MatthewsSnow & Matthews, 2016), L1 decoding ability is at a threshold level of mastery and transfer occurs. This transfer, in turn, leads to exponential improvements in English after the threshold has been achieved. In other words, it was predicted that there would be an L1 decoding transfer “tipping” point after which English decoding acquisition was significantly easier for the child. The results clearly demonstrated that in fact there was such a structural break in the correlation between Kannada or Telugu (depending on the region of study), and English decoding skills, suggesting that an empirical basis for transfer “readiness” can be identified. Furthermore, this study also theoretically contributed to our understanding of biliteracy transfer as a likely nonlinear process.

In sum, it is evident that there are cross-linguistic relations between L1 and L2 reading subskills, primarily through the sharing of metalinguistic skills and transfer of early word-reading skills. This is apparent in akshara–English biliteracy acquisition as well. Furthermore, there is emerging evidence for the possible nonlinearity of the transfer relationship in akshara and English biliteracy, wherein, based on the orthographic properties of the L1, there is a point at which a child has sufficient decoding ability to be considerably better prepared for literacy acquisition in English.

8.5 Conclusions and Discussion

With hundreds of languages, dozens of scripts, multiple writing systems, literacy acquisition in three languages formally required in all schools, and wide variances in socioeconomic groups and access to quality educational programs, India has one of the most diverse, complex, multilingual educational contexts in the world. Although private schools and certain sectors of society excel globally in terms of educational quality and outcomes, those less privileged in urban and rural poor communities continue to struggle to reach even minimal levels of literacy achievement (ASER Centre, 2018).

Multilingualism and multiscriptal learning in India are fraught with challenges as well as issues that make that country’s education system unamenable to the straightforward application of monolingual or even bilingual education research from Western nations and contexts of only alphabetic language learning. Literacy and biliteracy acquisition research from India and South and Southeast Asia, though nascent, are revealing that there are identifiable and teachable cognitive resources and opportunities in multilingual learning that need to be taken into consideration for more effective literacy education. One of the strongest candidates for this is the cross-linguistic transfer of resources from a known or familiar language. For the most part, there are normal distributions in oral-language skills and metalinguistic skills in a native or familiar language – and in contexts of not much else, these resources form a foundation for L1 or mother-tongue literacy acquisition, which in turn can transfer and act as one of the strongest predictors of success of literacy acquisition in a new or later-acquired language. Thus, if drawn upon efficiently, cross-linguistic resource sharing may provide an important opportunity for overcoming some of the challenges and limited resources of multilingual education in low-income communities in India.

In order to begin addressing the Indian literacy crisis and making a dent in global “learning poverty” (World Bank, 2019), it is critical to not only look at macro and systemic education issues but also recognize the importance of the cognitive foundations of learning in diverse multilingual and multiscriptal societies. Programmatic and policy theories of change that are founded in these realities (multiple and varying scripts, bi- and multilingualism, and multiple language involvement in learning to read) are critical to efforts to move the needle on the learning crisis (see also Nag, Chapter 15 and Asfaha & Nag, Chapter 16 in this volume). The research insights from the literacy diversity and multilingualism in India could potentially support this endeavor.