臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究主要在探討中文閱讀能力和英語能力是否會影響國中生和大學生英語的閱讀表現. Clarke (1979)提出threshold level of language proficiency的假設。他認為第二外語學習者在到達threshold level之前,若要有效轉換母語的閱讀策略到第二外語閱讀表現上是有其困難度。再者,Alderson (1984)認為學習者的threshold level會因為不同的文章難度、測驗技巧、或者是學習者不同的社會、文化、教育程度等因為而有所改變。 在台灣比較不同教育程度學習者其threshold level差異的相關研究還十分匱乏,因此在本研究中,選出78位桃園凌雲國中國三學生及65位大葉大學英美語文學系的學生當受試者,並且從研究結果中有三個重要的發現。
第一,研究結果發現,在國中生的英語程度有存在所謂的threshold level;然而在大學生的英語程度中卻沒有發現threshold level的存在。這表示對英語程度低的國中學生來說,英語閱讀表現不好是受到英語程度的影響,並且英語程度好的學生比較會利用中文閱讀策略來輔助他的英語閱讀策略;而大學生的英語能力並沒有出現所謂的threshold level。大學生的英語程度沒有出現threshold level的原因可能是大學生經過兩次的入學測驗(國中基測與大學聯考)並且本研究的受試者來自於同一個學校同一個系所,因此這些大學的英語程度相當,所以比較不容易發現threshold level的存在。但是不論對國中生還是大學生來說,隨著英語程度的增加,中文與英文閱讀能力之間的關聯性也會隨之增加。
第二,利用複線性迴歸分析結果得到:不論對大學生還是國中生來說,英語閱讀能力可以被學習者的英語能力預測。但是中文閱讀能力卻無法預測英語閱讀能力。進一步的分析發現,第二外語學習者其英語能力與英語閱讀能力之間的關聯性大於中文閱讀能力與英語閱讀能力或是中文閱讀能力與英語能力。
最後用敘述統計來分析國中生和大學生其中英文閱讀策略的使用之差別性。研究結果發現國中生傾向使用比較沒有效率的閱讀策略像是查字典、重複閱讀或是逐字逐句的閱讀;而大學生的閱讀策略技巧比較好,也使用比較多的策略像是利用上下文來推測字或句的意思、分析句子或文章的結構、暫時不理會繼續閱讀等技巧。從結果中也可以發現對台灣學生來說,閱讀英文時所使用的策略沒有像閱讀中文文章所使用的策略那麼的有效率。例如:大學生在閱讀英文文章時,會使用與國中生類似的中文或是英文閱讀策略。因此要使學生享受閱讀英文文章與中文文章一樣的閱讀樂趣,除了要提升英語程度之外在者就是要多學習使用閱讀策略。

The purpose of the thesis aims to discuss whether English reading ability will be influenced by English proficiency or Chinese reading ability or not. Threshold level of language proficiency by Clarke (1979) specified that learners found it difficult to transfer their L1 reading strategies to L2 reading when they fail to reach threshold level. Furthermore, Alderson (1984) argued that the threshold level varies with different tasks, testing techniques, social, cultural, educational variables and so on. So far, the study that explored how educational variables relate to the threshold level has not been done yet. Therefore, the researcher attempted to find out the relationship between them. This study tried to make a comparison between two different educational levels, and thus 78 junior high school students and 65 college students were recruited.

The results of this study showed that threshold level of English proficiency existed in junior high school students, but not in college students. This meant that junior high school students' English reading performance was dependent mainly upon their English proficiency, and then upon whether or not they were better at transferring their Chinese reading strategies to English reading. On the other hand, the reason why threshold level did not exist in college students was because their English proficiency was more even compared with junior high school students. For both junior high school and college students, however, as their English proficiency increase, the correlations between their English and Chinese reading abilities increase.

Second, it was found from multiple regression analysis that for both groups only English proficiency could predict English reading ability, while Chinese reading ability could not.
Last, descriptive statistics were used to analyze both groups' differences between their separate English and Chinese reading strategies. The outcome of the analysis showed that junior high school students were apt to use less efficient strategies, such as consulting the dictionary, re-reading the text, and reading word-by-word. On the other hand, the outcome showed that college students tended to use more advanced strategies such as guessing the word or sentence meaning through discourse, or temporarily ignoring words less important for getting the main idea. The results also disclosed a fact that most Taiwan students still could not apply their efficient Chinese reading strategies to their English reading. Quite a few college students were even found using similar inefficient strategies as junior high school students'. Therefore, if Taiwan students intended to get the same pleasure from English reading as from Chinese reading, they had to not only improve their English proficiency but also learn more reading strategies.

Table of Contents

Cover page
Signature
Authority………………………………….…………………………………………..iii
Abstract (Chinese).........................................................................................................iv
Abstract (English)…………………………..…………………………………………vi
Acknowledgements………………………….………………………………………viii
Table of Contents……………………………..…………………………………….....ix
List of Tables………………………………….……………………………………...xii
List of Figures…………………………………..……………………………………xiv

Chapter Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Motivation……………………………………….....1
1.2 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………….5
1.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses…………………………………5
1.4 Significance of the Study…………………………………………….6
1.5 Definition of Terms…………………………………………………..7
1.6 Limitations of the Study……………………………………………...8

Chapter Ⅱ. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 What is Reading……………………………………………………...10
2.2 L1 and L2 Reading Theories……………………………………...….11
2.2.1 L1 Reading Theories---Reading Models……………………….11
2.2.1.1 Top-down Models…………………………………...12
2.2.1.2 Bottom-up Models…………………………………..13
2.2.1.3 Interactive Models…………………………………..14
2.2.2 Reading Theories in a Second Language………………………16
2.2.2.1 Bottom-up and Automaticity Theory………………..16
2.2.2.2 Scheme Theory………………………………….…..17
2.2.2.3 Top-down and Psycholinguistic Theory………….....18
2.3 Koda’s Three Dimensions of Distinguish L1 and L2………………...19
2.4 Transfer Research……………………………………………...……..22
2.4.1 The Reading-Universal Hypothesis……………………………22
2.4.1.1 The Interdependence Hypothesis.…………………...23
2.4.1.2 Reading and Threshold Level Hypothesis…….…….24
2.4.2 The Language-Specific Hypothesis………………………...….27
2.5 L1 & L2 Learning Strategies…………………………………………28

Chapter Ⅲ. METHODOOGY

3.1 Participants…………………………………………………..…….....32
3.2 Instruments…………………………………………………..……….32
3.2.1 The English Proficiency Tests………………………..………..33
3.2.2 The English Reading Comprehension Tests…………………...34
3.2.3 The Chinese Reading Comprehension Tests…………………...35
3.2.4 Questionnaires on Strategies in Reading English and Chinese
...……………………………………………………………….35
3.3 Data Collection and Procedure……………………………………….36
3.4 Data Analyses……………………………………………………..….38

Chapter Ⅳ. RESULTS and DISCUSSION

4.1 Results of Research Questions…………………………………….....41
4.1.1 Results of Research Question 1………………………………..41
4.1.2 Results of Research Question 2………………………………..46
4.1.3 Results of Research Question 3………………………….…….52
4.2 Discussion of Hypotheses Derived from Three Research Questions
………………………………………………………………………..57
4.2.1 Discussion of Hypothesis 1………………………………….....57
4.2.2 Discussion of Hypothesis 2………………………………….....62
4.2.3 Discussion of Hypothesis 3………………………………….....62
4.2.4 Discussion of Hypothesis 4………………………………….....64
4.2.5 Discussion of Research Question 3….………………………...65
Chapter Ⅴ. CONCLUSION

5.1 Research Findings……….…………………………………………………69
5.2 Implications for Teaching and Learning…………………………………...72
5.3 Suggestions for Further Research………………………………………….73

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………....75

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A English Proficiency Test for College Students……………………..86
APPENDIX B English Reading Tests for Junior High School Students…………...90
APPENDIX C Chinese Reading Tests for Junior High School Students…………..97
APPENDIX D English Reading Tests for College Students……………………...107
APPENDIX E Chinese Reading Tests for College Students……………………...114
APPENDIX F English Reading Strategies Questionnaire…..……………………122
APPENDIX G Chinese Reading Strategies Questionnaire……………………….124

REFERENCES
1.Alderson, J.C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J.C. Alderson & A.H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 122-135). New York: Longman.
2.Alderson, J.C. (2000). Assessing reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I.A. G. (19985). Becoming a nation of readers. Champaign-Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading & the National Academy of Education.
4.Barlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.Barnett, M.A. (1989). A psycholinguistic investigation of the top-level organization strategies in first and second language: Five case studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
6.Berman, R. (1986). A crosslinguistic perspective: Morphology and syntax. In P. Fletcher 7 M. Garman (Eds.), Language acquisition: Studies in first language development (2nd ed., pp.429-477). Cambridge University Press.
7.Bernhardt, E.B. (1986). Cognitive process in L2: An examination of reading behaviors. In J.P. Lantolf, & A. Labarca. (Eds.), Research in second language learning: Focus on the classroom (pp35-50). Norwood, NJ:Albex.
8.Bernhardt, E.B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, & classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9.Bernhardt, E. B. & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 16-34.
10.Bernhardt, E. B. & Kamil, M. L. (2001). Reading instruction for English language learner. In M.F. Graves, C. Juel, & B.B. Graves (Eds.), Teaching Reading in the 21st Century. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11.Bossers, B. (1992). Reading in two languages: A study of reading comprehension in Dutch as a second language and in Turkish as a first language. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Drukkerij Van Driel.
12.Brisbois, J. E. (1995). Connections between first- and second- language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27 (4), p 565-584.
13.Brooks, L. W., Simutis, Z.M., & O’Neill, H.F., Jr. (1987). Individual difference in learning strategies research. In R. Dillion (Ed.), Individual differences in Cognition, 1(2). New York: Academic Press.
14.Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White Plains, NY: Longman.
15.Carr, T. H., Brown, T. L., Vavrus, L. G., & Evans, M. A. (1990). Cognitive skill maps and cognitive skill profiles: Componential analysis of individual differences in children's reading efficiency. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.) Reading and its Development: Component Skills Approaches. New York: Academic Press.
16.Carrell, P.L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33,183-207.
17.Carrell, P.L. (1989b). Metacognitive awareness and second language reading. Modern Language Journal, 73, 121-134.
18.Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159-179.
19.Chesterfield, R., & Chesterfield, K. (1985). Nature order of children’ use of second language strategies. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 45-59.
20.Clarke, M.A. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29, 121-150.
21.Clarke, M.A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL Reading or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203-209.
22.Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman & R.P. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
23.Cohen, A. (1984). The use of mentalistic measures in determining LSP reading problems. In A.K. Pugh & J.M. Ulijn (Eds.). Reading for Professional Purposes: studies and practices in native and foreign languages. London
24.Cohen, A. (1986). Mentalistic measures in reading strategy research: Some recent findings. English for Specific Purposes, 5, 131-145.
25.Cohen, R. (1987). Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse. Computational Linguistics, 13, (pp.1-2).
26.Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
27.Cummins, J. (1978a). Bilingualism and the development of metalinguistic awareness. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 9(2), 131-149.
28.Cummins, J. (1978b). Educational implications of mother tongue maintenance in minority language children. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 3(4), 395-416.
29.Cummins, J., (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49 (2), 222-251.
30.Cummins, J. (1979b). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222-251.
31.Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 175-187.
32.Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning in Canada. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.
33.Cummins, J., Swain, M., Nakajima, K., Handscombe, J., Green, D. & Tran. C. (1984). Linguistic interdependence among Japanese and Vietnamese immigrant students. In C. Rivera (Ed.) Communicative competence approaches to language proficiency assessment: Research and application. (pp. 60-81). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
34.Cziko, G.A. (1978). Differences in first and second language reading: The use of syntactic, semantic, and discourse constraints. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 473-489.
35.Cziko, G.A. (1980). Language competence and reading strategies: a comparison of first- and second-language oral reading errors. Language Learning, 30, 101-116.
36.Cziko, G.A. (1980). ESL reader’s internalized models of the reading process. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. Taylor (Eds.). TESOL, 83, 95-108.
37.Devine, J. (1987). General language competence and adult second language reading. In J. Devine, P.L. Carrell, & D.E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading English as a second language (pp. 73-87). Washington, DC: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
38.Devine, J, (1988). A case study of two readers: Models of reading and reading performance. In J. Devine, P.L. Carrell, & D.E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading English as a second language (pp. 127-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39.Ellen, B. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 465-491.
40.Eskey, D.E. (1988). Holding in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In P.L. Carrell, J. Devine, & Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp.223-238). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.Fareau, M. & Segalowitz, N.S. (1983). Automatic and controlled processes in the first and second language reading of fluent bilinguals. Memory and Cognition, 6, 565-574.
42.Flores, F. (1982). Management and communication in the office of the future, PhD Dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
43.Gaonac’h, D. (1990). Lire dans une langue etrangere: approach cognitive. Revue francaise de pedagogie, 93, 75-100.
44.Gass, S. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: a bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 329-350.
45.Goodman, K.S. (1965). A cognitive study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 42, 639-643.
46.Goodman, K. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guess game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, May, 126-135.
47.Goodman, K.S. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp.259-271). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
48.Goodman, K.S. (1973). Psycholinguistic universals in the reading process. In F. Smith (eds.), Psycholinguistics and reading (pp3 21-27). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
49.Goodman, K.S. (1979). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 259-271). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
50.Goodman, R.E. (1995). Block theory and its application. Geotechnique, 45(3), 383-423.
51.Gough, P.B. (1985). Unity in reading. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd Ed.)(pp.813-840). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
52.Grabe, W. (1988). Reassessing the term 'Interactive’. In Carrell, P.L., Devine, J. and Eskey, DE. (Eds.) (1988) Interactive approaches to second language reading. Cambridge: CUP.
53.Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 375-406.
54.Grabe, W. (1999). Developments in reading research and their implications for computer-adaptive reading assessment. In M. Chalhoub Deville (Ed.), Issues in computer-adaptive testing of reading proficiency (pp.11-47). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
55.Hakuta, K. (1982). Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension and production of simple sentences in Japanese children. Developmental Psychology, 18, 62-76.
56.Hasuike, R., Tzeng, O., & Hung, D. (1986). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 25-38.
57.Haynes, M. (1984). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In J. Handscome, R. Orem, & B. Taylor (Eds.), TESOL, 83: The question of control (pp. 163-177). Washington D.C.: TESOL
58.Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the short-circuit’ in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 1-31.
59.Hosenfeld, C. (1984). Case studies of ninth grade readers. In J.C. Alderson & A.H. Urquhart (Eds.). Reading in a Foreign Language. London: Longman, pp. 231-249.
60.Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and non-successful second language learners. System, 5, 110-123.
61.Hulstijn, J. (1991). How is reading in a second language related to reading in a first language? In. J. Hence & J. Matter (Eds.), AILA Review, 8, 5-14.
62.Kern, R. (1989). Second language reading strategy instruction: Its effects on comprehension and word inference ability. Modern Language Journal, 73, 135-149.
63.Kinisch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.
64.Koda, K. (1989a). The effects of transferred vocabulary knowledge on the development of L2 reading proficiency, Foreign Language Annals, 22 (6), 529-540.
65.Koda, K. (1990a). Factors affecting second language text comprehension. in J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms [39th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference] (pp. 419-427). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
66.Koda, K. (1994). Second language reading research: problems and possibilities. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 1-28.
67.LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
68.LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J., (1985). "Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading." In Singer and Ruddell 1985. Interest level: specialist.
69.Lee, J.L., & Lemonnier Schallert, D. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A text of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-739.
70.Legaretta, D. (1979). The effects of program models on language acquisition by Spanish speaking children. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 521-534.
71.Lii-Shin, Y. E., (1991). Teaching to the test: A case study of Taiwan. Studies in English Literature & Linguistics, 51-63.
72.MacNamara, J. (1970). Comparative studies of reading and problem solving in two languages. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 107-116.
73.McCormick, P.G. (1988). An analysis of ongoing vernacular use. In N. Junin Quechua." Notes on Scripture in Use and Language Programs, 18, 21-26.
74.McDonald, J.L. (1987). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Dutch. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8, 379-415.
75.McLeod, B. & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 109-123.
76.McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113-128.
77.Nassaji, H. (2003). L2 vocabulary learning from context: strategies, knowledge sources, and their relationship with success in L2 lexical inferencing. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 645-670.
78.Navon, D., & Shimron, J. (1984). Reading Hebrew: How necessary is the graphemic representation of vowels? In L. Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, and linguistics (pp. 91-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,
79.Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: principles and implications of cognitive psychology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
80.Olson, G., Duffy, S., & Mack, R. (1984). Think-out-loud as a method for studying real-time comprehension process. In D.E. Kieras & M.A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 253-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
81.Orlando, V.P., Caverly, D.C., Swetman, L.A., & Flippo, R.F. (1989). Text demands in college classes. Forum for Reading, 21 (1), 43-48.
82.Pang, E. & Kamil, M. L. (2004). Second language issues in early literacy and instruction in early childhood education. In C. Saracho, & B. Spodek (Eds.). Contemporary perspectives on language policy and literacy instruction in early childhood education (pp.29-56). Greenwich, CT: Information age publishing.
83.Perkins, I.C., Brutten, S.R., & Pohlmann, J.T. (1989). First and second language reading comprehension. RELC Journal. 20 (2), 1-9.
84.Politzer, R. (1983). An exploratory study of self-reported language learning behaviors and their relation to achievement. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 54-68.
85.Prokop, M. (1989). Learning strategies for second language users. Wales, United
Kingdom: The Edwin Mellen Press.
86.Richards, J.C., Platt, J. & Platt, S. (1998). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Hong Kong: Longman.
87.Ridway, T. (1997). Thresholds of the background knowledge effect in foreign language reading. Reading in a foreign language, 11(1), 151-168.
88.Rigg, P. (1977). The miscue-ESL project in H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio, & R. Cryems (Eds.), TESOL, 177: Teaching and Learning in ESL: Trends in Research and Practice. Washington, DC: TESOL.
89.Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34, 450-455.
90.Ruddell, R.B., & Speaker, R.B. (1985). The interactive process: A model. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd Ed.). (pp. 751-793). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
91.Rumelhart, D.E. (1985). Toward an interactive mode of reading. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd Ed.).(pp.722-750). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
92.Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: some comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. Carrell and D.E. Eskey (Eds.). Research in Reading in English as a Second Language, (pp. 105-120).
93.Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model. Applied Linguistics, 12, 47-73.
94.Sasanuma, S. (1984). Can surface dyslexia occur in Japanese? In L. Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsyhology and linguistics (pp. 43-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
95.Skutnabb-Kangass, T., & Toukomaa, P. (1976). Teaching migrant children’s mother tongue and learning the language of the host country in the context of cross-cultural situation of the migrant family. Helsikin: the Finnish National Commission for UNESCO.
96.Segalowitz, N. (1991). Does advanced skill in a second language reduce automaticity in the first language? Language Learning, 41, 59-83.
97.Slobin, D.I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D.I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1157-1249). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
98.Slobin, D.I., & Bever, T.G. (1982). Children’s use of canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistics study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229-265.
99.Smith, F. (1982). Understanding reading. (3rd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
100.Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
101.Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Changing models of reading and reading acquisition. In L. Rieben & C. Perfetti (Eds.). Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 19-31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
102.Taillefer, G. (1996). L2 reading ability: Further insight into the short-circuit hypothesis. Modern Language Journal, 80, 461-477
103.Taillefer, G. & Pugh, T. (1998). Strategies for professional reading in L1 and L2. Journal of Research in Reading, 21 (2), 96-108.
104.Towell, R., & Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
105.Troike, R.C. (1978). Research evidence for the effectiveness of bilingual education. CABE Journal, 3, 13-24.
106.Turvey, M.T., Feldman, L.B., & Lukatela, G. (1984). The Serbo-Croatian orthography constrains of the reader to a phonologically analytic strategy. In L. Henderson (Ed.), Orthographies and reading: Perspectives form cognitive psychology, neuropsyhology, and linguistics (pp. 91-90). Hillsdale, NL: Erlbaum.
107.Ulijin, J.M., & Meyer, F.S. (1998). The professional reader and the text: insight from L2 research. Journals of research in reading, 21(2), 79-95.
108.Vaid, J. (in press). Effect of reading and writing directions on nonlinguistic perception and performance: Hindi and Urdu data. In I. Taylor & D.R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read the world’s scripts. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
109.Vygotsky, L. (1992) Thought and language. Translation by Alex Kozulin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
110.Yang, N. D. (2000). What do prospective teachers think about teaching English to children? In Johanna Katchen, Yiu-nan Leung, Tzyh-lai Huang & Wei-yang Dai (Eds.), Selective papers from the ninth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 556-565). Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
111.Yoshida, M. (1978). The acquisition of English vocabulary by a Japanese speaking child. In E. M. Hatch (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition (pp. 91-100). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
112.Yorio, C.A. (1971). Some sources of reading problems for foreign language learners. Language Learning, 21, 107-115.