Decoding and word recognition in English as a native and a foreign language in students with and without dyslexia (English vs. Polish students)

We aimed to investigate the relationship between reading difficulties in native language (NL: Polish) and English as a foreign language in dyslexia in English and Polish students, respectively, and to develop a model of relations between NL phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, verbal sh...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Dyslexia (Chichester, England) England), 2020-02, Vol.26 (1), p.18-35
Main Authors: Łockiewicz, Marta, Jaskulska, Martyna, Fawcett, Angela
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Decoding
Dyslexia
English
English (Second Language)
English as a foreign language
English as a second language
Fluency
Foreign languages
Grapheme phoneme correspondence
Graphemes
Language
Lexical access
Naming
Native Language
Pattern recognition
Phonemes
Phonemics
Phonological awareness
Phonology
Polish
Polish language
reading
Reading difficulties
Recognition
Second language reading
Second Languages
Students
Synesthesia
Word recognition
Words (language)
Written Language
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We aimed to investigate the relationship between reading difficulties in native language (NL: Polish) and English as a foreign language in dyslexia in English and Polish students, respectively, and to develop a model of relations between NL phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, verbal short‐term memory, and reading in English. Thirteen English students with dyslexia (ED), 15 without (END) and 16 Polish students with dyslexia (PD) and 16 without (PND) participated. We found that dyslexic deficits and different phoneme‐to‐grapheme correspondence rules between Polish and English interfered with the accuracy and fluency of word and nonword decoding and word recognition. Whereas END scored higher than PD and PND in all reading measures, ED did not, despite a NL advantage. When compared with PND, ED performed equal in nonword decoding, which depends to a higher degree on phoneme‐to‐grapheme conversion rather than lexical access. When compared with PD, ED performed equally in nonword fluency, which is most likely a nonscript‐dependant skill. More variance in reading was explained by NL than FL factors, even if analogical NL/FL skills predicted a given variable. While in ED and END, these relationships agreed with the literature; in PD and PND, NL phonological awareness was not beneficial for English as a foreign language reading.
ISSN:1076-9242
1099-0909
DOI:10.1002/dys.1648