il

Reading as a Second Language: LL and L2Processes

Goh Hock Seng llcarlirrg as a Sccotttl l.rtrrgtutgc

THEORIES AND APPROACHES IN RBADING MODELS

Ll

Abstract: This article presents a brief look into various L2 reading theories. A better understanding of L2 reading should take into account how L2 reading is different from Ll reading. Besides that, looking at the differences between Ll readers and L2 readers is also necessary as a basis for current and future research.
Keywords: Reading, first language (Ll), second language (L2)

INTRODUCTION
Research pertaining to the reading process for native English speakers is abundant (Hurtado, 1985) and Grabe (1991) has also noted that research on reading in a second language (L2) has grown remarkably. The purpose of this paper, however, is not to describe the reading process in a second language (L2) or to propose a model of the process but to present a brief look into various L2 reading theories and approaches. But discussing reading in a second language will not be complete without a corresponding discussion
on the work done in first language

reading model 'provides an imagined representation of thc reading process that not only provokes new ideas about reading but also provides a paradigm against which aspects of the reading process may be tested' (Barnett, 1989:10 cited in Lally 1998:.267). Models of Ll reading process can generally be placed across a continuum of two opposing approaches in understanding the reading process, namely, bottom-up approaches and top-down approaches. However, as Hudson (1998: 46) rightly noted, 'most current researchers adhere to what has been termed as interactive otop-down', approaches'. These three approaches, the 'bottom-up', and 'interactive', basically reflect the view that the reading activity necessarily involves two elements: the text and the reader. A third element, namely the writer is also important (e.g.Widdowson, 1984) but is often not emphasised in the approaches mentioned. Nevertheless, the major distinction between the approaches is the emphasis given to text-based variables such as vocabulary syntax, and grammatical structure and reader-based variables such as the reader's background knowledge, cognitive development, strategy use, interest, andpurpose (Lally, 1998).

(Ll)

reading. This discussion is

Bottom-Up Approaches
Models based on the bottom-up approach 'basically assume that a reader constructs meaning from letters, words , phrases, clauses and sentences, sequentially processing the text into phonemic units that represent lexical meaning, and then building a meaning in a linear manner' (Hudson, 1998:46). In other words, reading is generally viewed as a decoding process whereby meaning or comprehension is reconstructed from the smallest textual units. In what Hudson

needed because 'most of our current views of second language reading are shaped by research on the first language' (Grabe, l99l: 378). However, it is also noted that application of Ll findings and models to the L2 context should be carried out with caution, taking into consideration factors that distinguish L2 readers from Ll readers. This being the case, the present paper will first look at the various approaches that have been taken in the understanding and theorising about the L1 reading process. This section is followed by a discussion of L2 reading, in light of various applications of Ll reading models to L2 reading. Finally, a look at the differences between the Ll readers andL2 readers is deemed necessary for an
appropriate view on current and future research.

(1998:46) called

'the most prototypic model of

the

uncompromising bottom-up approach' is Gough's (1972) model. Gough's model posits that the reading process is linear, with letters being recognised first by a visual system. These letters are then transferred to a sound or phonemic system for recognition.
l13

lirrglislr l,iurguagc & .krurnirl

il
llcading as er Scconcl l,angulrgc

process.

bottom-up (Rumelhart, I 9g0). In such a view, letter and word recognition holds the key to successful (or unsuccessful) comprehension of a text. Thus, a lot of emphasis is somewhat placed on the reader's ability to .e"ognise words rapidly or on other issues pertaining to the rapid processing of text and word identification (Hudson, l99g). as such, it can be seen that the bottom-up approaches hold essentially ,linguistic, views of comprehension where meaning is conceived to be .in, the text and not in the reader who is seen to play apassive

uitimately texts (purcell-Gates, l9g7). Hence, the text input is transformed from lower-level sensory information into ev", tri'gne.level encoding sequentiaty with the information flow being totalry

words that are recognised are processed in the working memory fbr underlying meaning and finally understood as sentences and

contrast

to the view of

reading that pertains

to

bottom-up

processing of text. However, the relation between the two typcs ol' processing is not one that is mutually exclusive of each othcr but rather one that is complementary. Such a view is espoused in thc

interactive approaches.

Interactive Approaches
The term 'interactive approaches' can refer to two different conceptions (Grabe, l99l). Firstly, it can refer to the interactiorr that occurs between the reader and the text whereby the reader
constructs meaning based partly on the knowledge drawn from the text and partly from the existing background knowledge that thc reader has. Secondly, the term refers to the interactivity occurring simultaneously between the many component skills that results in

role in the

Top-Down Approaches
In contrast to the approach discussed above, theories that reflect top-down approaches generally place their emphasis on the active role of the reader in comprehending a text. Essentially, it
is

assumed that the reader ,approaches a text with conceptualizations above the textual level already in operation and then works down to the text itself' (Hudson, l99g:47).

reading comprehension. Therefore, from an interactive approach, the reading process is seen as involving "both an array of low-level rapid, automatic identification skills and an array of higher-level comprehension / interpretation skills" (Grabe, 1991, p.383). A model that would be a good example of such an approach is the interactive-compensatory model presented by Stanovich (19S0).
model incorporates an assumption that "a deficit in one of the component subskills of reading may cause a compensatory reliance on another skill that is present'. For instance, poor word recognitibn (i.e. lack of ability in a lower level) can be compensated by extra reliance on contextual factors (higher level skills). On the other hand, a lack irr

Hudson, (1998, p.50) explained that Stanovich's

conceptual abilities and past experiential background (carre', 1984; Grabe, l99l; Hudson, 1993). As mentioned eartier, such a view of reading as involving top_down processing is in sharp

, Goodman (1970) is often associated with this approach through his psycholinguistic model of reading in which he rabelled reading as a 'psycholinguistic guessing game' where the reader is not text dependent because of cognitive activities such as predicting and sampling' Specificalry, readers bring in generar knowredge or tn. world and carry out intelligent guesses about what might come next in the text. These guesses are then confirmed or rejected through sampling the text (Barnett, l9g9). Essentially, then, in the top_down approaches reading is seen as an active process on the part of the readers who bring to bear their

background knowledge may be compensated by a reliance ol' bottom-up processing of a word or phrase in order to construct
meaning. approaches in reading theories reflect the view that the reading process is an interactive process betwecrr

In summary interactive

the reader and the text and that it is bi-directional in naturc involving both bottom-up processing and top-down processing. Such a view of the reading process is widely accepted by researchers in that both the bottom-up process and top-down

tt4
lt5

linglish Languagc & Journal process interact (Block, 1992) and that the reader actively interacts with the text using both processes.

F
Figure

Itcading as a Sccond l,anguagc

knowledge interacts with conceptual abilities and process strategics to produce comprehension (Carrell, 1984;' Carrell and Eisterhold, 1987; Grabe,l99l, Lally, 1998).

APPLICATION OF Ll READING MODELS TO L2 RBADING

of the reading process in an L2 context are greatly influenced by the research findings and theoretical models built in understanding reading in the Ll context. In this section we shall look at some sfudies in the L2 context that are built upon findings and theories in the Ll context. Many of the efforts in translating Ll theories into the L2 context have been very influential for L2 reading theory and instruction from the 1970s to
the present.

Coady's (1979) Model of the ESL Reader (cited in Carrell, l9|M:322)

Research and theoretical models

Conceptualabilities

{$
Process strategies

Background knowledge

_1

clarke and Silberstein (1987) attempted to use psycholinguistic research to develop a framework for the teaching of reading to second language (L2) learners. Drawing heavily on the work of Goodman (1970) pertaining to the psycholinguistic model of reading in establishing their theoretical premises, clarke and Silberstein outlined implications for L2 reading instruction. Based on Goodman's summary of the psycholinguistic perspective of reading, they inferred that reading is an active process that involves both comprehending and comprehension that also involves an interaction between thought and language. Finally, they believe that successful reading lessons depend not only cin students, efficient use of strategies and knowledge, but also on the nature of the reading passage. Readers, then, need to develop reading and language skills (e.g. skimming, scanning, guessing from context, making inferences etc.).Teachers, on the other hand, need to provide students with a range of effective approaches to reading texts (e.g. prereading activities to enhance conceptual readiness. Besides that teachers also need to provide students strategies to deal with difficult vocabulary and syntax. In a similar vein, Coady (1979) extended Goodman's model and proposed a model suited for second language learners. In this model, as shown in Figure l, the L2 reader's background

'Conceptual abilities' refer to general intellectual capacity while 'processing strategies' refer to the various subcomponents of reading ability which include general language processing skills (e.g grapheme-morphophoneme correspondences, syntactic information, lexical meaning etc). However, as noted by Carrell and Eisterhold (1987), little is said concerning background knowledge except that it is an important variable Nonetheless, the concept of background knowledge has been prominent. In this concept, beginning rgaders are seen to focus on process strategies (e.g. word identification), whereas more advanced readers use more abstract conceptual abilities and also make better use of background knowledge using only as much textual information as needed for confirming and predicting the information in the text (Grabe, l99l). Indeed, L2 reading research (e.g. Bransford, Stein and Shelton, 1984; Steffensen & Joag-Dev, 1984; Roller and Matambo, 1992) has supported the importance of background knowledge in reading comprehension. The role of background knowledge in language comprehension has been formalised as what is widely known as schema theory. Rumelhart (1980: 35) explained that schema theory is 'basically a theory about knowledge' and pertains to 'how knowledge is

ll6

tll

llnglish [,arrgulgc & .lourrul represented and about how that representation facilitates the zrse (italics original) of the knowledge in particular ways,. Anderson and Pearson (1984), in presenting a 'schema-theoretic view of basic

t
reactions

l{cadirrg us a Sccorrtl l,lntrr,rnr1tt'

processing in reading. This emphasis, together with other top-down models of reading in second language contexts, has led to strong

data-driven processing is .evoked by the incoming data; the features of the data enter the system through the best fitting, bottom-level schemata (and) as these bottom-level schemata converge into higher level, more general schemata, these too become activated' (Carrell, 1984:333). Top-down processing which is also called concepfually-driven processing 'occurs as the system makes general predictions based on higher level, general schemata and then searches the input for information to fit into these partially satisfied, higher order schemata, (ibid, 33). Based on the role of schemata in reading comprehension, carreli(19g4) anl canell and Eisterhold (1987) presented suggestions of implications and applications to the ESL reading classroom. These suggestions come under various headings like prereading activities, vocabulary instruction, comprehension instruction, material selection and understanding miscomprehension. on the whole, it can be said that the major pedagogical implication that can be drawn from schema theory is that students (both Ll and, L2) need to have sufficient prior knowledge of a topic in helping them understand what they
read.

processes in reading comprehension,, describe schema as an ' abstract knowledge structure,. Schema theory as applied to reading comprehension, holds that a text does not have any meaning in and of itself. Instead, a text gives direction to readers concerning how they should retrieve and construct meaning from their own previously acquired knowledge. Hence, comprehending a text is an interactive process between the text and the reader, namely his previously acquired knowledge structures (schema). This process of relating incoming information (text) with the existing schema in a reader involves two basic modes of information processing, called bottom-up processing and top-down processing. Bottom-up processing which is also called

by researchers who hold the view that

bottom-up

approaches are equally important. They have called researchers and teachers to reconsider the importance of lower-level processes (e.g.

word and syntactic processing) essential for a bottom-up approach in the ESL reading classroom. ESL readers, particularly thc beginners and the less proficient ones, are often 'sfuck' on words simply because they do not yet know many words and are not efficient in bottom-up processing (Grabe, 1991). This situation suggests a language problem rather than a reading problem. Alderson (1984), in addressing the question of whether L2 reading is a language problem or a reading problem, did a critical review ol' the literature and came to a tentative conclusion that 'it appears to be both a language problem and a reading problem, but with firmer evidence that it is a language problem, for low levels of L2 competence than a reading problem' (24). One of the reactions to this perceived over-emphasis on top-down processing can be seen in Eskey's (1988) work. As in any interactive model, Eskey presents an interaction of bottom-up and top-down processing. Nevertheless, he stresses the need for 'holding in the bottom'. Besides that, Eskey cautions teachers not to 'lose sight of the fact that language is a major problem in second language reading, and that even educated guessing at meaning is no substitute for accurate decoding' (1988: 97 cited in Lally 1998).

DIFFERENCES BETWEEI\ L1 AI{D L2 READERS

As can be seen in the preceding section, Ll reading models havc formed the theoretical basis for L2 models and research. It can be said that much of L2 research in the reading process has been extensions of Ll research and that L2 theoretical models are 'greatly informed by our understanding of the basic cognitive and linguistic processes involved in first language (L1) reading (WadeWoolley, 1999:448). This extension to L2 reading is partly due to

Although in schema theory the interactive nature of the reading process is considered, the emphasis in the theory is on the top-down

ll8

il9

Ilnglish Languagc & Joumal

il

Ilcading us a Sccorrd l,arrguag,e research questions which can only be answered through rescarch L2 readers and comparative studies on Ll and L2 readers.
orr

the fact that, for various reasons, Ll reading research has made much progress in learning about the reading process. On this point Grabe (1991) commented that:
made good sense, then, for second language researchers and teachers to consider what first language research has to say about the nature of the fluent reading process and development of reading abilities. A primary goal for ESL reading theory and instruction is to understand what fluent Ll readers do, then decide how best to move ESL students in that developmental direction (p. 378). However, it has also been seen in the earlier discussions (e.g. on Eskey's model) that particular factors not normally considered in Ll research need to be considered pertaining to L2 readers and that these factors distinguish L2 readers from Ll readers and vice versa. Let us consider some of these distinguishing factors. Firstly, Ll readers have already learned about 5000 to 7000 words and have also a good intuitive sense of the grammar of the language before they begin reading instruction in schools (Singer, 1981, cited in Grabe, 1991) while the same cannot be said of L2 learners. On the other hand, L2 learners, who are generally older than Ll learners, and so will have more factual knowledge of the world and thus able to make logical inferences from the text (Grabe l99l). Secondly, L2 readers would already have acquired their Ll to a certain degree before they begin reading in the L2 and researchers (e.g Lee & Schallert, 1997)have begun to explore the relationship and effects of Ll literacy andL2 proficiency to L2 literacy. Thirdly, differences in Ll orthographies will have consequences on L2 reading abilities and also strategies used. Chikamatsu (1996) studied the effect of Ll orthography on L2 word recognition. The findings of the study demonstrate that native speakers of English and Chinese use different word recognition strategies due to Ll orthographic characteristics, and that such Ll word recognition strategies are, for instance, transferred intoL2 Japanese kana word recognition. With such differences between Ll and L2 readers, findings in the Ll context cannot always be applied directly to theL2 context. In addition, many of the differences themselves pose pertinent
120

It

CONCLUSION
We have seen how theoretical perspectives of reading in a seconcl

language are shaped and informed by the development ol' theoretical models posited for Ll reading. Three approaches to Ll models of reading processes have been identified, namely thc bottom-up approach, the top-down approach and the interactivc approach. These three approaches are also the basis for L2 research because L2 researchers and teachers have built on what Ll reading research has to say about the reading process and the relatcd pedagogical implications. Although L2 theory and research have benefited much frorn L I theory and research, it has been pointed out that L2 reading research needs to take into consideration the many differences between Ll and L2 readers and hence between Ll reading andL2 reading. These differences between the Li and L2 readers raise questions that may best be answered through research on L2 readers such as 'DoL2 readers process Ll reading texts differently from the way they process L2 rcading texts?', 'How is the Ll used in comprehending L2 reading texts?', 'Does the use of the Ll help or impede L2 readers in their comprehension?'. Finally, it is hoped that the sharing and mutual transfer ol' knowledge from both research on reading in Ll and reading in L2 will occur and bring about much understanding of the reading process in general. Insights fiom both these areas will definitely guide pedagogical practices in the L2 (and L1) classrooms and thus lead to improved Ll and L2 reading comprehension among
students

ofall

ages.

RBFERENCES
Alderson, .C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In C. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in aforeign language (pp. l-2a). New York: Longman.

t2t

q
l,)ltgl ish I-iurgu:rgc ct.

.lotrrral Lee, J.

Itcarlirrg as u Sr:corttl l,rrrrgu:rgrr

Anderson, R"C.,

York: l.ongman. Barnett, M. (1989). More than meets the eyes. NJ. prentice Hall Block, E. I-. (1992). See how they read: comprehension monitoring

(19g4). A schema-theoretic view oi, basic processes in reading comprehension. In p.D. pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), The handbook af reading research (pp. 255_292). New

&

pearson, p.D.

& Schallert, D.L. (1997). The relative contribution ol'L2 larrgu;rg,t: proficiency and Ll Reading ability to L2 reading performance: A tcst ol'tlrc threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 3 I , 713-739 Purcell-Gates, V. (1997). There's reading...and then there's reading: Process models and instruction. Focus on Basics, Retrieved June 6, 2000 http://
gseweb. harvard.edu/-nesal [/fob/
1

readers. TESOL euarterly, 26, 3lg_343. Bransford, J., stein, B., & Sherton, T. (r9g4). Learning frorn the perspective

of L1 and L2

997lvpg.htm l.
backgrourrd

Roller, C.M.

&

A.R. Matambo (1992) Bilingual readers' use of

comprehender. In C. Atderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Readin[ in a /breign language (pp.23-44). New york: Longman.

ofthe

Canell, P. L.,

&.

L. (1984). Schema theory and ESL reading: classroom imprications and applications. Modern Language Journal, 6g, 332-343. chikamatsu, N. (1996) The effects of Lr orthography o'L2 word recognition: A study of American and chinese learners oi Jupu""... studies ln second language acquis ition, I B. 403 -433
P.

ca'ell,

pedagogy. In I\{. Long & J. C. Richards (Eds.) Methodolog,t in TESOL: A book of readings (pp.2l8-213). Boston. Heinle & t{einle publishers.

Eisterhold, J. C. (19g7). Schema theory and ESL reading

knowledge in learning from text. TESOL Quarterly, 26, l-13 Rumelhart D.E. (1980). Schemata: the building blocks of cognition. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce, & W.E. Brewer (Eds.). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 32-38). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individuai

differences
Steffersen, M.,

in the development of

reading fluency. Reading Reseorch

Quarterly, 16,32-71.

clarke, M.A.

Ueinte A Heinle Publishers. Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R.R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 5'_12). Rowley, Ma: Newbury House. Eskey, D. (1988). Hording in the bottom: An interactive approach to the language problems of second language readers. In p. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. Eskey (Eds,), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 93_100). New York: Cambridge University press. Goodman, K. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In Gunderson,

& Silberstein, s. (r9g7). Toward a realization of psycholinguistic principles in the ESL reading crassroorn. In M. Long & J.c. Richaros jror.; Methodologt in TESOL: A book of readings (pp.2lS_213). Boston.

& Joag-Dev, C. (1984). Cultural knowledge and reading. ln C. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. a8-6 l). New York: Longman. Wade-Woolley, L. (1999) First language influences on second language word reading: All roads lead to Rome. Language Learning, 49"447-471 Widdowson, H.G. (1984) Reading and communication. In C. Alderson & A. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 213-227). New York:
Longman.

D. Language and reading (pp.l07_122). Washington: Center for Applied Linguistic.

Gough, P.B. (1972). One second of reading. In J.F. Kavenaugh & I.G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Grabe' w. (1991). cu*ent Developrnents in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 2 5. 37 5-397 Hudson, T. (1998) Theoretica! perspectives on reading. Annuar Revian ofAppried Linguistics, 18, Foundations ofseconcl language teaching ipp +:_SO;. New York: Cambridge University Fress.

Hurtado, R. (1985) The Biringuat Reading process of Adurt spanish speakers Reading English As A second Language. unpubrished doctoral dissertation. University of San Francisco. University Microfilrns Intemational. Lally' c.G. (1998). The apprication of first ranguage reading models to second
language study: a recent historical perspective. Riading

Horizow, 3g.267-277

t22

123