Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T16:59:40.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predictors and consequences of individual differences in cross-linguistic interactions: A model of second language reading skill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2020

Brianna L. Yamasaki  and
Chantel S. Prat
Brianna L. Yamasaki*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Washington Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, University of Washington Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University
Chantel S. Prat
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Washington Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, University of Washington
*
Address for correspondence: Brianna L. Yamasaki, E-mail: brianna.l.yamasaki@vanderbilt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that individual differences in conflict management predict second-language (L2) reading skill. The current experiment tested the hypothesis that this relation reflects the need to manage conflict from cross-linguistic interactions (CLI). A novel model specifying the relation between L2 reading skill, CLI, and the predictors of such interactions was tested in 253 L2 English speaking adults, using structural equation modeling. In support of the hypothesis, the findings revealed that stronger CLI was related to poorer L2 reading skill. In addition, variability in non-linguistic conflict management, as measured by executive attention tasks, and relative language dominance reliably predicted CLI. Specifically, better conflict management and lower L1 dominance corresponded to fewer interactions. These results fill a crucial gap by demonstrating for the first time that the ability to manage CLI is critical to L2 reading, and that both cognitive skills and language experience contribute to variability in these interactions.

Keywords

bilingual readingsecond-language readingcross-linguistic interactionsexecutive attentionindividual differences
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 154 - 166
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Babayiğit, S (2015) The relations between word reading, oral language, and reading comprehension in children who speak English as a first (L1) and second language (L2): A multigroup structural analysis. Reading and Writing, 28, 527–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauvillain, C and Grainger, J (1987) Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, LC and Perfetti, CA (1994) Reading skill: Some adult comparisons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijeljac-Babic, R, Biardeau, A and Grainger, J (1997) Masked orthographic priming in bilingual word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, JI (1960) The Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Chen, HC and Ho, C (1986) Development of Stroop interference in Chinese–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M and Carpenter, PA (1980) Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, A (2013) Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dijkstra, T and van Heuven, WJB (1998) The BIA model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J and Jacobs, A (eds), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 189–225Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T and van Heuven, WJ (2002) The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T, Wahl, A, Buytenhuijs, F, van Halem, N, Al-Jibouri, Z, de Korte, M and Rekké, S (2018) Multilink: A computational model for bilingual word recognition and word translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22, 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, FN (1971) Color-naming interference in monolinguals and bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 10, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksen, BA and Eriksen, CW (1974) Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, SP, Tzeng, OJ and Alva, L (1981) Intralanguage vs. interlanguage Stroop effects in two types of writing systems. Memory & Cognition, 9, 609–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festman, J (2012) Language control abilities of late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 580–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festman, J and Münte, TF (2012) Cognitive control in Russian–German bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festman, J, Rodriguez-Fornells, A and Münte, TF (2010) Individual differences in control of language interference in late bilinguals are mainly related to general executive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gernsbacher, MA, Varner, KR and Faust, ME (1990) Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottardo, A and Mueller, J (2009) Are first-and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 330–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grainger, J and Dijkstra, T (1992) On the representation and use of language information in bilinguals. In Harris, RJ (ed), Advances in psychology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland, pp. 207–220.Google Scholar
Green, DW (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hentschel, U (1973) Two new interference tests compared to the Stroop Color-Word test. Psychological Research Bulletin, 13, 1–24.Google Scholar
Hdstijn J, H and Bossers, B (1992) Individual differences in L2 proficiency as a function of L1 proficiency. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 341–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, LT and Bentler, PM (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
Just, MA and Carpenter, PA (1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lesaux, NK, Crosson, AC, Kieffer, MJ and Pierce, M (2010) Uneven profiles: Language minority learners' word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 475–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, DL, Prat, C, Johns, C, Morris, P and Jonathan, E (2008) The importance of knowledge in vivid text memory: An individual-differences investigation of recollection and familiarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 604–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mägiste, E (1984) Stroop tasks and dichotic translation: The development of interference patterns in bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V, Blumenfeld, HK and Kaushanskaya, M (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, J, Pivneva, I and Titone, D (2014) Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 89–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuter, RF and Allport, A (1999) Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, DL, McEvoy, CL and Schreiber, TA (1998) The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Retrieved from http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.Google Scholar
Peeters, D, Runnqvist, E, Bertrand, D and Grainger, J (2014) Asymmetrical switch costs in bilingual language production induced by reading words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C (2007) Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, CA and Hart, L (2002) The lexical quality hypothesis. In Verhoeven, L, Elbro, C and Reitsma, P (eds), Precursors of functional literacy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
Pivneva, I, Mercier, J and Titone, D (2014) Executive control modulates cross-language lexical activation during L2 reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 787–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, MS and Lambert, WE. (1969) Interlingual interference in a bilingual version of the Stroop color-word task. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, CP, Carlo, M, August, D and Snow, C (2005) Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 246–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rosinski, RR, Golinkoff, RM and Kukish, KS. (1975) Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development, 46, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosseel, Y (2012) Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, RE (1970) The processing of conceptual information on spatial directions from pictorial and linguistic symbols. Acta Psychologica, 32, 346–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, JR and Rudell, AP (1967) Auditory SR compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, L (2014) One world, two languages: Cross-language semantic priming in bilingual toddlers. Child Development, 85, 755–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tzelgov, J, Henik, A and Leiser, D (1990) Controlling Stroop interference: Evidence from a bilingual task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 760–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uchikoshi, Y (2013) Predictors of English reading comprehension: Cantonese-speaking English language learners in the US. Reading and Writing, 26, 913–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Heuven, WJ, Conklin, K, Coderre, EL, Guo, T and Dijkstra, T (2011) The influence of cross-language similarity on within-and between-language Stroop effects in trilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Heuven, WJ, Dijkstra, T and Grainger, J (1998) Orthographic neighborhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Holzen, K and Mani, N (2012) Language nonselective lexical access in bilingual toddlers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 569–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamasaki, BL and Prat, CS (2014) The importance of managing interference for second language reading ability: An individual differences investigation. Discourse Processes, 51, 445–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar