Base de datos

Reading is a complex cognitive process involving a number of processes which each require diverse sub-skills for successful execution (Koda & Zehler, 2008:5). If this is true for a reader‘s first language, then it is fair to assume that the complexity of reading increases exponentially when two, or more, languages are involved. Reading is a process that is embedded in both the language system and the writing system and depends on language in a fundamental way – when printed words are encountered, the reader understands their meaning in the context of the language, not as signs that have independent meaning (Koda, 2004:14). Knowledge of a language implies a considerable amount of metalinguistic knowledge (Koda & Zehler, 2008:97): phonological awareness, morphological awareness, syntactic awareness, grapho-phonological awareness and grapho-morphological awareness to name a few. However, the metalinguistic knowledge required in the L1 may differ vastly in the L2.

Second-language reading research seems to place considerable emphasis on a reader‘s L1 framework, and the effect of the reader‘s knowledge of the L1 on learning to read an L2. This is referred to as the linguistic interdependence theory (Chamot & O‘Malley (1996:261) or cross-linguistic transfer (Koda, 2004; Koda & Zehler, 2008) where readers transfer what they know about reading in one language to reading in another language. However, not all researchers agree that the direction of influence always flows from L1 to L2. Lenters (2005:330) emphasises that research does not necessarily imply a critical order in the transfer between L1 and L2 literacy skills. In fact, Clay (1991:2) claims that transfer can occur in both directions, whereas Kesckes (2000) takes a stronger view by claiming that the L2 does influence the L1 (home language).

Cummins (1979:229) developed the ―linguistic threshold hypothesis‖, and although he warns that it should not be considered absolute, his linguistic threshold hypothesis assumes ―that those aspects of bilingualism which might positively influence cognitive growth are unlikely to come into effect until the child has attained a certain minimum or threshold level of competence in a second language‖. In terms of L2 reading this implies that L2 readers must ―first reach a ‗threshold‘ level of general L2 knowledge and skill before they can be expected to make substantial progress as L2 readers‖ (Grabe, 2009:146; Hedgcock & Ferris, 2009:34). Bernhardt (2005), after reviewing a number of threshold studies involving a range of L1 groups, second languages and literacy levels, identifies an unexplained variance in L2 reading. Bernhardt (2005:138) further states that the issue of L2 reading is not about identifying a linguistic threshold, but instead about ―clarifying the relationship of linguistic knowledge to literacy knowledge to individual/idiosyncratic knowledge‖. She continues (2005:138) by stating that ―the question is not if language and literacy skills transfer. The question is how much transfers, under what conditions, and in

which contexts” [author‘s emphasis].

Clarke (1980:206) states while research seems to show there is ―some transfer of [L1] skills‖, it seems that ―limited language proficiency‖ is a factor that exerts ―a powerful effect on the behaviours utilised by the readers‖. Poor language skills may ―short circuit the good reader‘s system‖ (Clarke, 1980:206) causing the reader to revert to poor reader strategies when confronted with a difficult task in the second language - in other words, it may be more correct to speak of ‗good‘ and ‗poor‘ reading behaviours rather than ‗good readers‘ and ‗poor readers‘. If one accepts Clarke‘s focus on ‗reading behaviours‘ vs. ‗readers‘, the importance of reading

strategy instruction is emphasised: reading strategies teach readers specific behaviours while reading, such as predicting, confirming, looking for textual clues. Bernhardt (2005:140), in proposing solutions for addressing the unexplained variance in L2 reading, suggests that, amongst other things, the variance be addressed by comprehension strategies.

Although most L2 reading research seems to share the opinion that limited L2 knowledge can inhibit L2 readers from using acquired L1 skills (Koda, 2004:23), it is important to highlight the following statement by Bernhardt (2005:141), namely that ―there is a notorius monolinguality within L2 research‖. This means that although L2 research abounds, most of it has been conducted in English by researchers who tend to be English L1 speakers. Although L2 research has been conducted on groups from multiple language backgrounds, it seems the variables introduced by these multiple languages have not been adequately acknowledged, and that assessment of L2 subjects tends to be in English, rather than the L2 (mostly due to researchers‘ lack of L2 proficiency).

Irrespective of researchers‘ differences of opinion about the role of L1 oral competence in particular, the presence of the L1 is bound to affect reading in the L2. In South Africa English is most often the language of learning and teaching; however, English bears little if any resemblance to any of the nine official African languages and is often not learners‘ L1 (therefore, no link can be made between their oral profiency and the written word). For example, in isiXhosa ―I am learning‖ is translated with ―Ndiyafunda‖. Not only is the expression represented by one word instead of three in isiXhosa, but ―Ndiyafunda‖ can also mean ―I am reading‖, making it more context dependent than the English phrase. Koda (2004:25) indicates that decoding efficiency is a ―strong indicator of L2 reading performance‖ and that L2 decoding efficiency is at least partially determined by ―L1-L2 orthographic distance‖ - which would mean that the kind of orthographic differences between English and isiXhosa illustrated above will create problems for L2 decoding skills.

More recent research, while not necessarily disagreeing with the fact that L2 readers use L1 linguistic structures when reading in an L2, indicates that L1 and L2 reading differ fundamentally and therefore require separate research paradigms (Koda, 2004:4). Whether L2 reading is seen as a process depedent on L1 proficiency or as a separate research paradigm entirely, one thing is clear: not only is learning to read in a second language a complex task on its own, but using a second language to learn

probably increases the need even further for the conscious and active teaching of reading comprehension.

A further issue that should be pointed out and which is not always forthcoming in existing L2 reading research, is that a distinction should be made between learning to read an L2 and learning to read in an L2 (i.e. acquiring the skill of reading). Most research about L2 reading is based on the assumption that L2 readers have an L1 reading framework to refer to (in other words, they have already acquired the skill to read). In the South African multilingual education situation, however, this is often not the case. Many learners, especially those from low-SES or rural communities who have had limited exposure to literacy events of any kind, are required to acquire the skill of reading for the first time in Grade 1 in a language that is not their L1. The question might well be asked to what extent this impacts reading and comprehension processes and learner performance in general, especially if the L1 is not similar in linguistic or social structure to the language in which the learner is learning to read for the first time.