Orthographic Processing

This study examined the similarities and differences in the functioning of component processes underlying first language (L1) and second language (L2) word reading in Chinese. Fourth-grade Chinese children in Singapore were divided into L1 and L2 reader groups based on whether they used Mandarin or English as their home language. Both groups were administered a battery of tasks that assessed their orthographic processing skill (OP), phonological awareness (PA), morphological awareness (MA), oral vocabulary knowledge, as well as the ability to decode characters and multi-character compound words. Separate Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses showed that in the L1 group, over and above all other variables, both OP and MA, as opposed to PA, were significant predictors of word reading, whereas in the L2 group, OP and PA, as opposed to MA, predicted word reading. Multiple-group SEM analysis further revealed that the effects of OP and MA were significantly larger in the L1 than in the L2 group, whereas a converse pattern was found for PA. These findings are discussed in light of the linguistic and language-to-print mapping properties of Chinese as well as the influence of L1 and L2 learners' differential experience on how they learn to read in Chinese.

Phonological skills are foundational of reading acquisition and impaired phonological processing is widely assumed to characterize dyslexic individuals. However, reading by phonological decoding also requires rapid selection of sublexical orthographic units through serial attentional orienting, and recent studies have shown that visual spatial attention is impaired in dyslexic children. Our study investigated these different neurocognitive dysfunctions, before reading acquisition, in a sample of preschoolers including children with (N5 20) and without (N5 67) familial risk for developmental dyslexia. Children were tested on phonological skills, rapid automatized naming, and visual spatial attention. At-risk children presented deficits in both visual spatial attention and syllabic segmentation at the group level. Moreover, the combination of visual spatial attention and syllabic segmentation scores was more reliable than either single measure for the identification of at-risk childre...