INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduœd from the microfilm master. UMI films the

text directiy from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and

dissertation copies are in t y w t e r face, while others may be from any type of

cornputer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy

submitted. Broken or indistinct pn'nt, colored or poor quality illustrations and

photographs, ptint bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment

can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a camplete manuscript and

there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduœd by sedioning

the original, beginning at the upper lefl-hand corner and continuing from left to

tight in equal sections with srnall overlaps. Each original is also photographed in

one exposure and is induded in reduced fom at the back of the book.

Photographs inciuded in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6' x 9' black and white photographie

prints are availaMe for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for

an additional charge. Contact UMI directiy to order.

Bell 8 Howell Infornation and hamirtg 300 North Zeab Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA

600-521-0600

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS IN CANTONESE ESL STUDENTS

Margaret Yiu-ki Kong Lam

A thesis submitted in confomity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology Ontario 1 nstitute for Studies in Education

University of Toronto

O Copyright by Margaret Yiu-Ki Kong Lam 1998

National Library Bibliothégue nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibiiographic SeMces seMces bibliographiques 395 !Uellingtm Street 395, rue Wellingtm OttawaO~ nlAON4 Onnwa ON K1A ON4 canada canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distri'bute or seil copies of this thesis in miroform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or othenivise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/fih, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS IN CANTONESE ESL STUDENTS

by Margaret Yiu-ki Kong Lam

Master of Arts, 1998 Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology

Ontario lnstitute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

ABSTRACT

According to the Contrastive Analysis, Difierential Markedness and the

Feature Compeütion hypoüieses, specific features disparate between L1 and L2

may engender negative transfer in L2 leamers, often instantiated as emrs in their

perception and produdion. In ESL leamers, L I interference would occur specifically

in acquiring disparate features in L2, or positive transfer would ocarr for equivalent

and similar features. The resulting developrnental process in L2 phonology in ESL

leamers will thus be disparate from that of L I English speakers. Diierent

performances on phonological tasks by L I and L2 children at difierent times in the

prasent study provide support for different developmental patterns of awareness of

English phonology. Evidence of an L I effect was found in the positive transfer on

rhyrne discrimination and negative transfer on phoneme alliteration and blending in

the L2 group. Theoretical implications as well as implications for programming,

teaching and assessrnent for ESL students are diswssed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the followi'ng people to whom I am indeMad in the completion of this

riesis. First of alIl I wish to aiank Dr. Esther Geva, my Thesis Supervisor and

principle researcher of the ESL At-Risk Project Wmout her insight and guidance,

and her unyielding support and patience, mis Thesis can never be cornpleted. I

would also like to thank other members of the research team, in partiarlar, Robindra

Sidhu and Barbara Schuster for their adviœ, encouragement and suppoct; and

Luya SegalSeiden and Allison Ma& for advising me on phonetics and phonology. I

would like also to thank Dr. Dale Willows, member of my Thesis Supewisory

Cornmittee, for her advice on the content and presentstion format on the Thesis.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the principals and staff of al1 the parücipating

schools in York Catholic District School Board for their cooperation and

encouragement throughout the testing sessions, without their support, even at the

most taxing moments, this project could never be successful.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

......................................................................................................... ABSTWCT ii ... ................................................................................ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I I I

.................................................................................... TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

............................................................................................... LIST OF TABLES vi

........................................................................................... LIST OF FIGURES vii

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................... viii

........................................................................................................ Introduction 1

Theoretical Framework ...................................................................................... 2

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis .............................................. 3

The Marked Differential Hypothesis of CAH ..................................... 4

The Feature Cornpetition Model of Segment Transfer ..................... 5

Cross-language Studies of L I -L2 relationship ................................................. 6

Impact of LI on Phonological Awareness of L2 ............................... 6

Cross-language Transfer of Phonologid Awareness ..................... 9

Phonological Propetties of Cantonese ...................................................... 10

Developrnent of Phonological Awareness in Cantonese ............... 11

........................................................................................... The Present Study 13

Research Method ............................................................................................ 17

Procedures ...................................................................................... 48

Measures ......................................................................................... 18

Results and Discussion .......................................,..... 23

General Discussion ...................................................................................... 35

Limitations ....................................................................................................... 43

Relations of Phonological Awareness and Reading and Its implications ...... 44

References ..................... .., .................................................................... 60

Appendix A ................................ .. ................................................................ 63

Appendix B ...................................................................................................... 66

Appendix C ..................................................................................................... 67

Appendix D ................................................................................................. 68

....................................................................................................... Appendix E 69

UST OF TABLES

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 1 O

Table 12

Mean Scores of Phonoiogics! Tasks by Time

and Language Groups ............................................................... 47 Correlations smong Phonological Tasks-Combined

Groups (Time 1) ............................................. ....................... ....... 48 The Effects of Time and Group on Phonological Tasks:

MANOVA Summary Table ............................................................ 49

Mean Percentage Scores of Auditory Analyk Skills (AAS)

Tasks by Sets ...... ......................................................... ......... ....... 50 The Effea of Time and Group on Sets of Auditory Analyüc

Skills Task: MANOVA Summary Table ........ .. ..... ... .. ... . .. ... . ... ..... .. 51 Mean Scores of Rhyme Discrimination by Sets, L i and L2 ........ 52 The Effect of Time and Group on sets of Rhyme

Discrimination: MANOVA Summary Table ....... ...... .... . ..... . ... ..... .. 53 Mean Scores of Word Reading Tasks by Time

and Language Groups ................................................................ 54 Correlation of Reading and Phonological Tasks (lime 3). . . . . . . . . . .55 Partial Correlation of Combined Mean z-scores of

Phonological and WA and WRAT Tasks, LI and L2,

Controlling for Mean MAT Scores ............................................. 56 Correlation of Combined Mean z-scores of Phonological and WA and WRAT Tasks, L I and L2 .. ..... . .. . . .. . . .. 56

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 . Comparison of mean percentage score3 of ........................................................................ phonological tasks 57

Figure 2 . Comparison of Rhyme Discrimination. Auditory Discrimination and Auditory Analytical Skills over time ............... 58

Figure 3 . Comparison of U with L2 Groups on Auditory Analyüc Skills by Sets ................................................................................. 59

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A . Oddity Task Items .......................................................... 65 . Appendk B Rhyme Discrimination Task Items ....................................... 66

Appendk C . Auditory Discrimination Task Items .................................... 67 Appendk 0 . Auditory Analytic Skills Task Items ...................................... 68 Appendix E . Sample of Consent Latter .................................................... 69

viii

INTRODUCTION

"Phonological awareness" refers to the ability to discriminch and

manipulate sounds in words. There is a convergence of evidence from

research on reading that phonological awareness is ordinarily a

prerequisite for reading print (Adams, 1 990; Ehri, 1 995; Goswami &

Bryant, 1990; Stanovich, 1 992; Swirling & Sternberg, 1 994; Wagner,

1986). The developmental trajectory of phonological skills in native

English-speaking children is becoming well establ ished (Adams, 1 990;

Cisero 8 Royer, 1995; Goswami 8 Bryant, 1990). From the data of a

relatively smaller body of research in second language (L2 ) acquisition,

there is support for a similar pattern in L2. Most cross-language studies

have compared two alphabetic languages (e.g., English, French, Czech,

Spanish), whose phonological frameworks are more similar than in the

case of an alphabetic language and a monosyllabic, tonal language, such

as Cantonese. Greater disparity in phonology may result in greater

difficulty for the L2 leamer. Hypotheses such as Contrastive Analysis,

Markedness and the Feature Cornpetition model are intended to explain

the roles specific phonological properties of Li may play in the acquisition

of L2 phonology. Frorn these hypotheses, one cm predict when and how

Cantonese children will experience difficulty in aquiring English

phonology.

This paper is organized as follows: I will first discuss the theoretical

framewrk. Second, the findings from cross-language studies on

phonological awareness are examined to show to what extent they may

support the hypotheses. A wmparison of the phonological aspects of

Cantonese and English will be followed by a discussion of implications of

the empirical data and specific predictions of the difficulties Cantonese

children may experience in acquiring English. In the following section, I

will describe the main study and its results as well as the relevance of the

data to the theoretical framework. Implications for assessrnent and

educational programrning for ESL students will then be outlined.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The hypotheses of Contrastive Anal ysis, Differential Markedness

and the Feature Competition Model of Segment Transfer generally

assume an underlying univenal grammar that applies to al1 ianguages.

The "grammat' refers not only to syntactic grammar but encompasses al1

niles goveming a language. Hence, the terni ugrâmmar' is used here to

refer to phonological niles in a language.

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH)

The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (CAH) wes first developed as a

basis for the preparation of instructiorcal material for teadiing a second

language (Whitman, 1970). CAH states that one's underlying knowledge

of LI grammar affects how an individual leams a second language; the

greater the difference in a specific feature of grammar between two

languages, the more difficult it is for the leamer to acquire it in L2; in the

case of disparate features between languages. L 1 interference wi Il occur.

This version of CAH is sometimes referred to as the 'strong" version

(Eckman, 1977; Oller & Ziahosseiny, 7970). Howver, as some CAH

predictions were not corroborated, a "weak" version of CAH emerged

which attempts to account for rather than specifically predict the areas of

difficulties: Oller and Ziahosseiny (1 970) proposeci a 'moderate" version

of CAH. This is a modifieci CAH that supports the notion of L i

interference with an additional corollary to explain errors derived from

faulty generalization. They suggested that when hm L I -L2 features are

very similar, the leamer wu ld confuse the L2 input because of the

underlying familiarity with L I , resulting in errors of production. They

found support for their hypothesis in that Spanish students made more

spelling mors in English than Korean students because of L I

interference.

The Marked Differential Hypothesis of CAH

Eckman (1 977) proposed another modification to CAH by

introducing the hypothesis of Differential Markedness. Markedness

correlates with 'degree of difficulty" in the grarnmar of a language.

Degree of diffculty refers to the degree of typological difference in

features between hrvo languages. New contrasts beniueen two languages,

for instance, will be of a high degree of difficulty and more difFicult to leam

than features that are similar. Degrees of difiiculty c m also be applied

within a language. For instance, voiced stop-consonants (e-g., IW, Idl

and I g l ) are more dificult than voiceless ones (e.g., /pl, A/ and lkl).

Markedness refers to the more prominent features and thereby provides

further explanation for difficulties or m o n that degree of difficulty alone

cannot explain. Features that are more diffiwlt and more marked will be

more diffiwlt to aquire.

The concept of Markedness benNeen two languages implies that a

certain feature may be more prominent in one language than in another

language. If a feature is more marked in L2 than in il, it \MI1 be more

difficult to acquire. However, if a feature is a more marked in L I than in

L2, it will be conducive for the perception of similar features in L2. This

argument underlies the hypothesis of feature prominence proposed by

Hancin-Bhatt (1 994) in her Feature Competition Model.

The Feature Competition Model of Segment Transfer (FCM)

The hypothesis of Feature Competition of Segment Transfer (FCM)

specifies the condition for interlanguage transfer (Hencin-Bhatt, 1 994).

The degree of difficulty of acquisition when a feature is to be transferted

from L I to L2 depends on the disparity of L2 in relation to LI . Vastly

disparate between-language features will be very diffîw lt to transfer from

one language to another. Identical between-language features will

facilitate positive transfer. Similar features will evoke representations by

mapping on L I grammar, resulting in LI-like sounds in production.

According to Hancin-Bhatt (1994), these errors wu ld occur until the

leamer advances to a new stage in which an appropriate constnict of L2

grammar is built The phenomenon of substitution, in fad, can be

construed according to Hancin-Bhatt, as generalization errors psited by

the moderate version of CAH.

Apart from beheen-language differences, the influence of

"prorninent' features in a language also accounts for perception cif L2

input. Prominence refers to the weight a feature demands in the

individual's perception. While there may be a universal rule of feature

prominence across different languages (e.g., nasality is a more prominent

feature across languages), ( Hancin-B hatt, 1 994) t here are also language-

specific prominent features. For each language, therefore, a hierarchy of

feature prominence can be constnicted for native speakers. More

prominent features in a L1 language system will be more salient in the

leamers' perception, and therefore, conducive to the perception of similar

features in 12. On the other hand, less prominent L I features will escape

the leamer's attention, and therefore, not easily acquired in the L2.

CROSS-LANGUAGE STUDIES OF L I 4 2 RELATIONSHI?

The Impact of L I on Phonological Awareness of L2

Evidence of the influence of L I on performance in phonological

tasks in L2 was found in a number of cross-language studies. Cavavolas

and Bruck (1993) compared CZ8ch and English children and foücd that

Czech cnildren wera better in discriminating consonant clusten in the

onset position than the English speaking children. They argued that

consonant clusters are more prominent in the Czech language. On the

other hand, English children did better in discriminating single onset

consonants, arguably because it is a feature more salient in English. The

samples cited by Watson (1991 ) clearly indicate the effect of L I in young

children's utterance in L2. Cisero and Royer (1 995) found, in their study

of English- and Spanish- speaking diildren, that Spanish children made

more errors on English tasks involving phonemes than English as LI

children. Although the authors concluded that cross-language transfer of

phonological perception is present, the effect of L i on the perception of

L2 phonology was evident.

Huang and Henley (1 995) attributed the difference in performance in

phonemic deletion tasks for Chinese and English children to the different

phonemic structures of the tw languages. Studies of French-speaking

students found that they do better in phonological tasks involving

syllables than their English-speaking munterparts (Bnick & Genesee,

1995; Cutler, Mehler, Norris & Segui, 1992). Bru& and Genesee (1 995)

reported that kindergarten English-French bilingual children excel in

segmentation of syllables as compared to English monolingual children,

and Cutiet et ai. (1992) found similar tendencies in French dominant

adults. The differences in performance in both cases w r e attributed to

the more prominent feature of syllables in the French language. The

language-specific features showed significant effects in the phonological

tasks and thereby provide support to the FCM hypothesis. However, the

difference in performance in Bruck and Genesee's sample disappeared

one year later when the children were exposed to reading instruction in

Grade One. Similarly, Fashola (1 997) found that Spanish speaking

children made more spelling errors in English words than English-

speaking children in Grades Two and Three, indicating that children

employ L I phonological knowledge in the early stages of leaming to read

in L2. She also found that error rates that can be explained by an L I

effect dissipated by Grade Four. Again the evidence clearly supports the

Feature Cornpetition Model as well as the Marked Differential version of

the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis in dernonstrating a negative transfer

of the knowledge of L1 phonology in the acquisition of L2. Further

support to FCM is shown in the amelioration of the L i effect over time.

The phenornenon may testfy to the fact that with instruction, the L2

phonological construct is developed gradually and errors becorne few and

far between.

Cross Language Transfer of Phonological Awareness

A number of cross-language investigations involving L I -L2 have

reported clear evidence of interlanguage transfer in children who are

aquiring a second language (Cisero 8 Royer, 1995; Durgunoglu, Nagy 8

Hancin, 1993; Snow, 1992; Verheoven, 1994). In these studies,

difFerences in performance in phonological tasks have often been found.

In some cases, transfer is evident for some tasks but not others (e.g.,

Verheoven, 1994). ln these cases, the influence of L I grammar cannot

be ruled out. These studies involved English and alphabetical languages

such as Spanish, French, and Turkish; there are few studies (e.g., Huang

& Henley, 1995) involving a non-alphabetic language. We shall assume

similar pattern of transference is tnie between Cantonese (LI) and

English (L2) for purposes of analysis in the present study.

PHONOLOGCAL PROPERTES OF CANTONESE

Since the present investigation deals with Cantonese children's

acquisition of phonological awareness in English, it is necessary, at this

point, to compare briefly the phonological properties of Cantonese and

English. Cantonese is a dialect dominant in over thirty million people in

South China, in the Quangtung Province, and in Hong Kong. Immigrants

from these areas have settled in North America and elsewhere in the

world (So & Dodd, 1995). Cantonese is a monosyllabic, tonal and

morphernic language. Each syllable represents a morpheme which can

be produced in written fom as a character in Chinese. A correspondence

to an English word rnay consist of one, two or several mono-syllabic

characters in Cantonese. The written form of Cantonese employs the

same charaden as Mandarin. For the purpose of this study, I will refer to

Cantonese as the spoken language. Each Cantonese syllable c m be

pronounced in nine tcnes; each tom represents a morpheme. The tones

can be described as rising, lave1 and falling tones of high, middle and low

pitcb (So, 1989; So 8 Dodd, 1995). Morphemes derived from different

tones of the same syllable do not necessary relate to each other in

meaning. Tones in Cantonese are less marked and carry a heavier

functional load than articulation of consonants (So & Dodd, 1995). It

should be noted that stress is a more prominent feature in English as

compared to French or Spanish in which syllable are more prominent

(Bruck & Genesee, 1995; Cutler et al., 1992; Durgunoglu et al., 1991).

In Cantonese, there are seventeen initial consonants and two initial

consonant clusters, whereas in Eng lish there are twenty-three and twenty-

one, respectively. In the final position, Cantonese has eight consonants

Mi le English has twenty-one. Cantonese has eight vowel sounds, but

English has twenty-one. The hm consonant clusters in Cantonese (e.g.,

lkwl and lkhwl) are often spoken in reduced fom by young children,

indicating the comparative markedness of clusters in the language (So 8

Dodd, 1995).

Development of Phonological Awareness in Cantonese

Studies on the developmental trajectory of phonological awareness

in English as L1 reading suggest that children progress from the

awareness of syllables, to awareness of onsets and rimes, and then

individual phonemes in initial, middle and final positions in words ( Cisero

& Royer, 1995; Goswami, 1 990; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Stanovich,

1992; Wagner et. al.; 1993). There is evidence that Cantonese children's

development of phonological skills also follows a similar pattern (So à

Dodd, 1995). By age five, children already have a weiideveloped

phonological system in their native language. When children begin to

leam a second language at this age, they need to develop a new

phonological systern. As is evident from the discussion in previous

sections, both the CAH and FCM hypotheses predict that the

phonological nature of the L I would influence the acquisition of the L2

phonological system. If these hypotheses are valid, then it may be

hypothesized that the more phonologically different hvo languages are,

the more difficult wuld the acquisition of these features in L2 be.

In their study of development of phonological skills of Cantonese

children, So and Dodd (1 995) found the majority of their subjects had

complete mastery of al1 nine tones at age two. Mastery of final

consonants and vowel sounds was also cornmon in most of their sample

by that age. Far more children made phonological erron than tonal

errors, which were close to negligible (.7%). On the consonant sounds,

Cantonese children could master voiceless stops (e.g., /pl, lu), and nasals

( e.g., /mJ, in/) before a glide (e.g., Ili). There are no voiced stopsin

Cantonese. In general, the development of consonant sounds in

Cantonese children was similar to that of their English wunterparts. The

development of awareness of initial consonants in Cantonese chiidren

can be demonstrated in children at ages hm, three ard four among their

participants. At age Mm, a child had a repertoire of ten initial

consonants, whereas the child at age three had fifteen; the one at age

four reached wmplete mastery of al1 consonant sounds (i.e., 17). English

children would nomally attain wmplete rnastery of al1 consonant sounds

by age four and a half.

Given the phonological disparity betvireen Cantonese and English,

the CAH and FCM hypotheses may be applied to predict that specific

errors will occur in the perception and production of English by Cantonese

leamers. These errors would presumably refiect the specific properties in

Cantonese phonological grammar and would occur more frequently in the

early stages of children's leaming to speak and read in that language

(e.g., in Grade One).

THE PRESENT STUDY

The present study is part of a larger project Mich investigates

normal and at-risk oral and literacy development in ESL children. The

present study investigates the developrnent of phonological awareness of

Engiish as L2 in Cantonese immigrant children as they began English as

a second language (ESL) instruction at school. My objectives were

a) to compare the deveiopmental trajectories of English phanological

awareness of Cantonese children with the trajectories of English-

speaking children for common and disparate features; and

b) to investigate the extent to which different trends in development may

be associated with the disparate features in phonology between the

hrvo languages.

The following hypotheses were proposed:

1. Pefitmance of Cantonese children in phonological fasks, like that of

their English-speaking counterpatts, wouM impmve over time. As

show in some studies, an LI effed is more prominent in the early

stages of leaming English (Bnrck & Genesee, 1995, Fashola, 1997),

thus, it was expected that enors made by Cantonese children wuld

decrease with time. If the same phonological tasks are administered

across a span of time, exposure and instruction in English reading will

improve Cantonese children's phonological awareness. Convergent

ta experimental findings, the performance of Cantonese children on al!

Eng lish-related phonological tasks will likewise improve over time.

2. Developmental trajixtofies of Englsh phonobgical awareness of

Cantonese chiJdren will be disparate fmm t h e of their L I pars .

Congruent with the previous hypothesis, Cantonese children will not

only likely start at a lower point in knowledge of the English phonolqy

because of a la& of exposure to the language but also corne with a

knowledge of different phonological concepts in their L I which will

likely affect their perception of the phonological features in the L2

(Geva, 1997). With instruction and increased exposure to the

language, they will make sufficient gains and attain mastery which

may eventually match thet of their L I peers, despite the dissimilarity of

the respective developmental trajectories.

3. Cantonese children wi/l show negative transfer when leaming the

phonologica/î'y more disparate features in L2 . Pursuant to Hypothesis

2, although Cantonese children should make progress over time in

their acquisition of the Engl ish phonolog y, particular features wil l

remain more difficult to master than others: For example, features

such as consonant clusters in English will be more marked to

Cantonese children and will carry less weight in their perception.

According to CAH, L I interference will occur in the acquisition of these

features. Similarly, according to FCM, L I influence will be show in

inaccurate perception and production of consonant clusters.

4. Cantonese children will show positive transfer in leaming

phonologicaIly similar between-language features. For exam p le,

voiceless stops (e.g., /pl, IU and Ad) and nasal consonants (e.g., /ml,

hl and h g / ) are present both in English and in Cantonese. According

to FCM, equivalent features will be easily transferable. Therefore,

Cantonese children will perform as wll as English children because of

positive transfer.

5. Cantonese children will show positive transfer in leaming features in

English that are more prominent in their LI. As noted above, one

striking disparity between Cantonese and English is the prominence of

tones in the former. Tones and syllables are less marked in

Cantonese, as they are mastered at an early age (So, 1989), whereas

syllable is a more marked feature in English than in French or Spanish

(Bnick & Genesee, 1995, Cutler et Al., 1993). Cantonese syllables are

mostly of the C-VC structure (e.g., bah/ meaning "fathet), and the V-

C structure (e.g., lyil, meaning two). According to the hypothesis of

Differenüal Markedness, the rime (e.g., the /ah/ part of the syllable

Ibahl) will be less marked than the onset (e-g., the Ibl- part of the

syllable). As the tom in Cantonese is part and parcei of the syllable,

awareness of tones wili entail better awareness of the syllable for the

Cantonese cklldren.

RESEARCH METHOD

The study involved 34 Cantonese-speaking participants (1 6 boys

and 18 girls), in grade 1 from 4 schools in hm suburban areas of a

metropolitan city in southem Ontario, Canada. There were 36 English L I

children (20 boys and 15 girls) from 4 schools in another suburban area

of the sarne city participating in the same project as the cornparison

group. A survey of al1 the Cantonese participants indicated that al1 except

one attend additional literacy instructions of their native language on

weekends. Written consent from the parents was obtained from al1

parents whose children participated in the study. The mean age of the

Cantonese children at the beginning of the project was 75.2 months, and

the mean age of the cornparison group was 76.7 months.

PROCEDURE

The children were tested in the fall (Time 1 ) and spring (Time 2) of

their grade 1 year and again in the fall (Time 3) of their grade 2 year. All

testing sessions were conducted individually in English within the

children's schools in a quiet room. In the first two sessions, however,

Cantonese translations of instructions w r e provided by a bilingual

researcher to the Cantonese participants when necessary.

MEASURES

Cognitive tasks

The cognitive task chosen for the present study was the Digit Span

subtest of the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition

(WISC-III) and the Matrix Analogy Test (MAT). The rationale for including

a cognitive test is based on evidence gathered ftom previous research

indicating that cognitive abilities of children significantly predids their

ability to perfom phonological tasks (Wagner, Torgesen, Laughon,

Simmons, & Rashotte, 1993).

Language task

The Peaboày Picfure Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), a test of

receptive English vocabulary, was used as a language proficiency

measure. Because of a second-language factor, the PPVT-R is not a

valid masure of verbal ability for the Cantonese participants.

Phonological Tasks

The phonological tasks in this study w r e chosen with a fows on

testing the initial stages in the developmental level of phonological

awareness expected in the early stage of reading, as established by

previous research studies (Cisero & Royer, 1995; Goswami & Bryant,

1990; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). In some tasks, items were adapted to

the disparate phonology between Cantonese and English in order to

compare the two language groups on awareness of specific speech

sounds. Each of these tasks is described below.

Oddity Task

The recognition of onset consonants has been shown to be the first

skill aquired among young children (Bryant & Bradley, 1983; Cisero &

Royer, 1995; Kirtley et al., 1989; Treiman 8 Zukowski, 1996; Wagner et

al., 1993). Two target sounds ( Le., JsW and ItW) w r e chosen among the

many disparate consonant sounds between the hrvo languages. The

phoneme 'lsW was contrasted with '/sr, "W, 'IzP, 'lvP and 'M", and

"IW was wntrasted with "/v/" and '/A''. The children listened to 3-item

sets of auditory stimuli consisting of three pseudowords (e.g., SHAT,

SHAM, SAN). At the same time, they were presented with three wooden

chips representing the three sounds. They were asked to point to the

chip that had a different beginning sound (e.g., SAN). Children were

given practice items to ensure comprehension of the task demands before

test items were administered. The wooden chips were used to avoid an

unnecessary load on memory and to eliminate production related errors.

Pseudowords were used instead of real words to avoid a familiarity effect

which might favour L i children. To ensure al1 participants received the

same stimuli, al1 items was tape-recorded. Each target phoneme

appeared six times. The two sets of target sounds were mixed randomly

with a set of six control sounds common !O both languages and appearing

in various positions within each set.

Rhyme Discrimination (RD) Task

There is abundant research support indicating that the awareness of

rhymes is a skill mastered by most beginning readers (Bryant & Bradley,

1983; Cisero 8 Royer, 1 995; Kirtley et al., 1989; Treiman & Zukowski,

1996; Wagner et al., 1993). A rhyme discrimination task was designed for

this study with the same target sounds as in the Oddity task (i-e., IsN and

Ithl). The sounds were also contrasted in the same way as in the

previous task. The children are given a target pseudoword (e.g., TESH),

and then a set of three words (e.g., SESH, MES, NEF). The child is asked

to point to the a number presented on a template to indicate the w r a that

rhymes with the target word. Again, each target phoneme appeared 6

times. The phonemes are mked randornly with a set of six control sounds

that are common to both languages. As is the case with Oddity,

verbalkation is discouraged. The children are given practice items

delivered by a puppet in order to ensure that they understand the task

demands.

Auditory Discrimination (AD) Task

An experimental task similar to the Auditory Discrimination Test

(ADT) (Wepman, 1973) using 34 pairs of pseudowords was used (e.g.,

thop). The task consists of English pseudowrds with phonemes that are

absent from the Cantonese language. Like the ADT, these pseudoword

pairs target phonemes in different positions, including both the onset and

final positions of words. Of the 34 pairs of items, 14 are control pairs

where the answer is "same". On the remaining 20 pairs, the correct

answer is "different". In order to ensure al1 participants heard the same

sounds, the Oddity, RD and AD tasks wwe tapeiecorded in a

professional studio, with a female voice.

Auditory Analytical Skills (AAS) Task

A task adapted from the Test of Auditory Analytical Skills (Rosner,

1975) was developed to test children's ability to manipulate phonemes. In

order to minimize the effect of lexical familiarity which might advantage L i

children, the target wrds, as well as the product of blending after

al1 iteration of syllables or phonemes, w r e al l real high frequency Eng lish

words (e.g., belt, bet). The task consists of six sections of progressive

difficulty, i.e., stripping syllables from words and stripping phonemes in

words. Again the positions of phonemes being deleted were arranged

with progressive difficulty according to established developmental trends,

Le., from the initial to final consonants, from single consonant to

consonant clusters. Children were given practice items before the actual

administration of the test.

Reading Tasks

Three different tasks were included. The first was the Word Attack

(WA) subtest from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Revised

Edition (WRMT-R) (Woodcock, 1972). A second measure for reading

was the Reading subtest of the Wide Range Reading Test, Revised

Edition (WRAT-R). The third reading measure was an experirnental

wrdieading task (DR) which wnsisted of 16 frequently used words at

the grade 1 level (9.g.. dogs, thick). The WA task was selrcted because

it consists of phonetically regular non-words. Since L2 children may have

a lower knowledge of English vocabulary, the use of non-wrds may avoid

the confound of prior knowledge which may affect scores as 11 children

rnight read the visual representation of "sight words* rather than sounding

out letters. The WRAT-R w r d reading was selected because it provides

a standardized measure of the reading ability relevant to the current

levels of reading. The B R supplied another measure of isolated w r d

reading and which included only high frequency wrds.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before proceeding to examine the results on phonological tasks,

mean scores on measures of memory and language were analyzed by

language groups. Analysis of variance on mean scores on the Digit Span

did not reveal a significant difference (F (1,67)= 2.524, p> 0. l), indicating

that the hivo groups did not differ in rote and wrking memory abilities.

However, analysis of variance on the MAT scores demonstrated a

signifiant difference (F(1,67)= 26.13, pe.001). This result suggests that

the L2 children had significantly higher visual-spatial reasoning and non-

verbal problem-solving skills than the L1 participarts. On the other hand,

on the language measure, the PPVT-R, analysis of variance found a

significant difference (F (1, 67) = 21.05, p

percentage correct responses on the four phonological tasks between

groups and times is depicted graphically in Figure 1. Scores on the AD

reached close to or above 80% at Times 2 and 3 in boiJi groups,

indicating that the task was relatively easy for the children. This result

was perhaps due to the fact that although Oddity and RD w r e also

similar tasks, the AD task presented tm aural stimuli for discrimination

whereas the other two tasks had three stimuli presented each time.

Conversely, for the AAS, a task requiring children to distinguish and

manipulate individual sounds and phonemes, scores appear to be

considerably lower than for the auditory discrimination tasks. While it is

possible that in general, phoneme production is more difficult than

auditory discrimination for children, the difference in performance may

also be explained in developmental ternis. Thus, these results provide

some support for the contention that children develop the ability to

segment and manipulate phonernes Mer they begin to read, usually

behrveen grades 1 and 2 (Adam, 1990, Goswami 8 Bryant, 1990).

Correlations at Time 1 among individual phonological tasks for the

hnio language groups combined are relatively moderate (se8 Table 2).

The correlation behNeen Oddity and AAS for the hm groups combined is

the highest at r=.44; (p

that a considerable portion of the phonological tasks for the participating

children as a group are unrelated and probably measure differe~t

abilities. However, a look into the correlations among phonolog ical tasks

within each language groups (see also Table 2) indicates that the tasks

are likely less related to one another for the L2 group ( r= 0.21 to 0.38)

than in the L7 (r= 0.24 to 0.64). It is probably that at least at Time 1, the

L2 children w r e less familiar with the English phonological features in

these tasks than the L I group.

Cornparison of the mean scores on ail the phonological tasks over

time was performed by multiple analysis of variance (see Table 3).

Robust time effects are seen on al1 four tasks, supporting the hypothesis

that the phonological awareness of Cantonese children and their L I peers

as a group irnproved significantly over time. By tirne 3, the L2 children's

performance on most phonological tasks was close, or even exceeded the

level of their L i peers. It is noteworthy that the L2 children appeared to

achieve higher scores across the three times on both Oddity and Rhyme

Discrimination, indicating that there is Iikely a positive transfer in these

phonological features from their L1.

A cornparison of two times (i.e., Times 1 and 2; and Times 2 and 3)

across the four phonological tasks indicates that the time effects w r e

mostly significant between Times 1 and 2, but not between Times 2 and 3,

with Oddity being the only exception (see also, Table 3). This indicates

that as a group, the children in both language groups gained progress

mostly betwen times 1 and 2, i.e., within their grade 1 school year.

Turning to the interaction between time and group on the four tasks

(see also Table 3), more robust support for the hypothesis that the L2

children aquire phonological awareness at a different rate from their L I

peers is evident. Significant interactions between language groups and

time were obtained for Rhyme Discrimination (RD) (F(2, 59)= 3.601, pc

.05), Auditory Discrimination (AD) (F (2, 59)= 12.251, p< .001) and AAS

(F (2, 59) = 6.460, pc .01). On the other hand, the interaction was not

significant for the Oddity task (F (2, 59)= .030, p> 0.9). These data

suggest that the growth in phonological awareness of the Cantonese

children was indeed on a disparate trajectory from the one for native

speakers of English.

Different rates of growth w r e even more apparent in comparing the

time and language group interaction between Times 1 and 2 and between

Times 2 and 3. Hawever, different growth trajectories are seen in

different tasks. On Rhyme Discrimination (RD), a significant interaction

was present between Times 1 and 2 (F (1, 57) = 4.857, pe.05) but not

between Times 2 and 3 (F (1,57)= 2.1 04, p> 0.1 ). On Auditory

Discrimination (AD), a task consisting of word pairs with onsets and final

consonants randomly inter-mixed, there was a significant interaction on

both occasions. However, the interaction between Times 1 and 2 was

more robust (F (1, 59)= 8.62, p< .006) than between Times 2 and 3 (F (1,

59)= 5.72, p< .05). On the other hand, for AAS, a task requiring

manipulation of phonemes, the time and group interaction between times

2 and 3 was robust (F ( i , 57 ) = 19.22, p< .O01 ) whereas there was no

between-groups difference between Times 1 and 2 (F (1,57)= 1.1 3, p>

0.2). These significantly disparate developmental trajectories for RD, AD

and AAS tasks are depicted visually in Figure 2.

Further evidenœ of disparate growth patterns in phonologid

awareness between the L I and L2 groups is shown when different items

in the AAS task are analyzed in groups of increasing diffiwlty. Since the

task required children to strip a phoneme from a given word and blend the

remaining phonemes to make another word, it is a more demanding task.

Degree of dificulty on this task is arranged by demanding the alliteration

of phonemes of different combinations placed in difhrent positions in

words. By grouping items according to the degree of diffiailty, children's

performance would indicate the extent of their awareness of the

phonology in the English wrd. Items on the AAS can be categorized into

six sets. Set 1 involves the alliteration of entire syllables, and sets 2 to 6

require the alliteration of individual phonemes and blending the rernainirig

phonemes into words. Sets 2 and 3 involve the alliteration of single

consonants in words; for Set 2, the initial consonants, and Set 3, the final

consonant. Sets 4 to 6 involve the manipulation of consonant blends in

either the onset or the final positions of words. Set 4 requires the

alliteration of the first consonant in an initial blend; Set 5, the first

consonant in a final blend; and Set 6, the second consonant in an initial

blend.

Percentage mean scores by group on the AAS by sets are show in

Table 4. In general, both groups of chiidren did well on set 1, and they

have reached the ceiling of correct responses across three times. For

Sets 2, 3 and 4, however, disparity in performance between groups was

apparent. In these three sets, the L I group performed far better than L2

children at times 1 and 2. At time 3, however, 12 children's performance

appeared to at least catch up to the L i group. Multiple analysis of

variance for al1 six sets over time was perfomed (see Table 5). For sets

2, 3 and 4 significant interactions were obtained between times 2 and 3

but not for tirne 1 and 2. Depicted visually, the mean scores for these

sets demonstrates that the growth over time for the L'l group indicated a

steady growth rate across tirne, while for the L2 group, much of the growth

appeared between Times 2 and 3 (see Figure 3). For set 5, task requiring

the alliteration of the first wnsonant in a final blend, and for set 6 in which

the alliteration of a second wnsonant frorn an initial blend was required,

the L2 children did surptisingly better than the LI group at Times 1 and 2.

It is probable that generally speaking, both of these tasks are difficult for

the English as L I children, and hence, they achieved low scores on both

tasks. On the other hand, scores of the L2 children on Sets 5 and 6 at

Times 1 and 2 were similar to those for set 4, which also involved

consonant blends. It is likely that task demands on sets 5 and 6, though

appeared more difîlwlt for the English as L I children, wre similarly novel

features for the L2 children. It is also possible that the L2 participants in

the present study had higher decoding skills as show in their higher

scores on w r d reading tasks (see Table 8). Congruent with the pattern

of g r o M in set 4, the L2 group showed spurts of growth b€3ONe8fl Times 2

and 3 on both sets 5 and 6. Conversely, growth of the L1 group on these

tasks during the same time period was minimal, suggesting that even in

grade 2, consonant blends presented a challenge to the English as Li

children.

Items on the Rhyme Discrimination task were also ~ a t e g ~ f i ~ e d into

three sets and analyzed. Set 1 consists of cornparison sounds (e.g., lapl)

at the final position, Mile Set 2 targets the Ishl and Set 3, the Ithl

phoneme. Mean scores for the thm8 sets are listed in Table 6. Set 3,

which targets the /th/ phoneme appeared to be difficult for both groups.

No significant gain was apparent for both groups at time 3 for this set of

items. For the other two sets, the performance of the L I and L2 groups

was close although, by Time 3, the L2 group made more gains and

exceeded the L I group. Multiple analysis of variance of time and group

effects on these sets (see Table 7) indicated that both groups made

signifiant gains beONeen Times 1 and 2 on al1 three sets, while the most

apparent gain was show in set 2 which targeted the phoneme /SN. The

only significant interaction betmen group and time was found for Set 2

between Times 2 and 3 (F (1, 57) = 4.08, p< 0.05), indicating a different

growth rate betvveen the Mm language groups in disairninating this

phoneme at the final position.

Mean scores of al1 three word reading tasks by time and groups are

listed in Table 8. As can be seen at Time 1, rnean scores on the WRAT

and EXR tasks differed significantly between the two groups (F (1,59) =

5.46 and 4.41, pc 0.05, respectively) in favour of the Cantonese as LI

children. By Time 3, th8 L2 group had made even more gains on WRAT

word reading task than their L1 counierparts (F (1, 59) = 5.45, pc 0.05).

On the other hand, for the Word Attack (WA) task, there was no

significant difference beîween the two groups at al1 three times.

Correlation of reading tasks with phonological tasks in al1 three testing

sessions for Time 2 for the L I and L2 groups combined as well as for

individual groups are summarized in Table 9. Correlations of the

individual phonological tasks with each reading tasks indicated that they

wre signifimntly correlated with w r d reading tasks for both language

groups. It is also tnie that for both groups, correlations of Word Attack

(WA), a task of reading non-words with al1 four phonological tasks are

similarly as signifiant as those for WRAT and EXR which involved

reading real wrds. While al1 non-words of the WA task were phonetically

regular, some of the real wrds on the other two word reading tasks were

phoneticall y irregular. Arnong the four phonological tasks, the Auditory

Analytic Skills (AAS) task has the highest correlation with al1 three

reading tasks for two groups combined (r=.61 to .66, pe.001) as well as

for the L1 gnxip (r= .61 to 63 , p< 0.001). However, for the L2 group the

correlations b e h e n AAS and WA and WRAT w r e sornewhat higher ( r=

.70 and -71 p

.O01 ) whereas the correlations between reading tasks ana AC were lower

(r=.39 to .44) than for their L I counterparts (r= .53 to .57). It is possible

that a task involving auditory discrimination is not as robust a tesi for the

ability to manipulate phonemes as AAS. At the same time, the AD task

involved vowels that were generally more difficult for the L2 children.

Compared to their Li peers, the ability to manipulate phonemes appears

to be more closely related to basic w r d recognition and decoding skills in

L2 children.

In order to illustrate the variance in reading that can be accounted

for by phonological awareness, partial correlations were perfomed on

cornbined mean z scores on al1 four phonological tasks and two reading

tasks for Times 1, 2 and 3 Mile controlling for the variance due to MAT, a

measure for non-verbal intelligence (see Table 10). Due to a technical

error, scores on the EXR w r e not available for al1 children at Time 3.

The cornbined z-scores were based, therefore, only on the WRAT and

WA tasks. As cm be seen in Table 10, the partial correlation among

phonological and reading tasks are significant throughout Times 1, 2 and

3 for both language groups. These results indicate that phonological

processing skills account for approximately half of the variance ( from

41 % to 67%) in word reading tasks for the participating English as LI

children. On the other hand, phonological awareness accounts for

approximately 30% of the variance (Le., from 26% to 34%) for the L2

group. In congruence vuith results from a number of previous studies on

the relation of phonological awareness and reading (Goswami 8 Bryant,

1990; Wagner et al., 1996), phonological awareness continues to account

for variance of w r d reading over time for the English L I children and

Cantonese children. It is noteworthy that for the L2 group, phonological

awareness accounted for approximately similar portions of variance of

word reading over time. Comparing the partial correlations show in

Table 10 with the correlations among phonological and reading tasks for

which the variance due to MAT was not controlled for (as shown in Table

1 1 ) demonstrate the extent to which variance of word reading measures

that can be attributed to intelligence. There are no significant difference

among the two correlations for the L i group, suggesting that for these

children, MAT scores probably did not affect performance on reading. On

the other hand, for the L2 children, there is close to 10% of the variance

of reading rneasures that can be attributed to intelligence, indicating that,

in the present case, non-verbal reasoning abilities played a considerable

role on the leaming of a second language.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Robust time effect on al1 phonological measures for both language

groups provide significant support for the hypothesis that the L2 children,

like their L I peers, improve in their performance on various aspects of

phonological awareness over time. This finding suggests that al1 chi ldren

benefit from instruction and exposure to English reading material,

irrespective of their native language.

The presence of a second language effect was evident in the

significantly different vocabulary scores for the two language groups

throughout Times 1, 2 and 3, although, the differences between groups

gradually diminished over time. Results from the present study appear to

confimi the presence of an L1 effect. As was hypothesized in the

Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis (Eckrnan, 1977; Whitman, 1 970) and the

Feature Cornpetition Model of Segment Transfer (Hancin-Bhatt, 1994).

the phonological characteristics of the native language play a part in the

leaming of aie L2. Firstly, compared to their LI peers, performance on

phonological tasks suggest that Cantonese children approach

phonological tasks in a somewhat different manner: the specific

intercorrelations of phonological tasks at Time 1 for the Cantonese group

w r e not as high as those for the L I group. At least in the beginning

stages of leaming to read, Cantonese children appeared to treat

individual phonemes such as initial consonant sounds as independent

from other phonernes (e.g., rhymes). As well, unlike their L i peers,

Cantonese children performed equally well on tasks involving consonant

blends, irrespective of their positions in a word. These findings indicate

that the L2 children probably had a different underlying knowîedge of

English phonology from that of the L I group.

Perhaps due to the presence of a disparate knowîedge of the

English phonology at the initial stage, developmental trajectories for the

two language groups are quite distinct as show by the significant

interaction of time and language groups on three tasks, Le., Rhyme

Discrimination, Auditory Discrimination and Auditory Analytic Skills tasks.

As discussed earlier, awareness of onset consonants is a skill acquired at

the early stages of reading (Adams, 1990; Goswami 8 Bryant, 1990); the

task of discrimination of onset phonemes is likely equally easy for both

groups of children. For both language groups, however, significantly

dîfFerent rates of growth wre obsenred between Times 1 and 2 on Rhyme

Discrimination, an apparently easier task, whereas on a more difficult task

such as phoneme alliteration and blending (i.e., Auditory Analytic Skills

task), different rates of growth occurred between Times 2 and 3. On the

other hand, probabiy due to a mixed degree of difficulty of the positions of

the target phonemes on the Auditory Discrimination task, different rates of

growth occurred throughout Times 1, 2 and 3 for various item types. As

wll, although the Cantonese children achieved lower scores on more

demanding phonological tasks such as Auditory Discrimination (AD) and

Auditory Analytic Skills (AAS) tasks at Times 1 and 2, their significant

gains were apparent on al1 phonological measures at Time 3. In other

words, the developmental trajectories of Cantonese children on these

tasks reflected quadratic functions. On the other hand, the L1 group

showed relatively steady lower growth in skills as evidenced in their

developmental trajectories in phonological awareness on these huo tasks.

Even though both groups made significant gains by Time 3, it is worth

noting that by Time 3, the L2 children not only acquired skills to match

their L I pers but also exceeded the Li children on most phonological

measures.

Evidence for the presence of an LI interference effect causing

negative transfer as hypothesized by the CAH (Whitman, 1970) and the

Marked DÎfïerential version of CAH ( Eckrnan, 1977) was apparent on

specific task wmponents involving disparate betwen-language features

such as consonant clusters and specific sounds. For instance, the

performance of the Cantonese as L1 children on the AAS tasu, h;idving

initial consonant clusters, was significantly inferior at times 1 and 2.

Since there are fewer consonant clusters in their L i , they are more

marked for the Cantonese children and therefore acquired more slowly.

At the same tirne, performance of the Cantonese children on the AN items

on the RD task at Time 1 appeared slightly higher than for the LI group,

yet not significantly so. Both language groups obtained generally low

scores on this task, probably due to the difficulty of the specific phonerne

which is nomally not mastered by children at this age. On the other

hand, the performance at Times 1 and 2 of the Cantonese children was

inferior to that of the L I children on a task requiring them to strip a sound

from a consonant cluster and blending the remaining phonemes to make

a wrd (e.g., AAS on sets 2, 3 and 4). In other item sets, however,

differences betwwn English as L I and Cantonese as L1 diildren did not

favour consistently the group that were perfoming in their L i , namely,

English. It appesrs aiat at least in the beginning stages of leaming to

read, the Li phonology plays a part in hindering the acquisition of

unfamiliar phonology in the second language. In this case, initial

consonant clusters are more marked features for Cantonese as L I

children, and they are more difficult to acquire. Hence, in agreement with

the Contrastive Analysis Hypathesis and Marked Differential HypiShesis,

the Cantonese children showd interference from their native language

specifically in their difFïculty in leaming the specific phonemes. These

results replicate the findings of some cross-language studies (e.g., Bruck

& Genesee, 1993; Fashola, 1994) which showd that L l interference

disappeared in the L2 children with instruction and exposure to the L2

over time. By Time 3, one year elapsed and Cantonese children

perfomed at least as well as the L i children on the Auditory Analytic

Ski Ils, Auditory Discrimination and Rhyme Discrimination tasks.

Support for the hypothesis of positive transfer from L I to L2 for

language specific features as proposed by the Marked Differential

Hypothesis of CAH (Eckman, 1977) and Feature Cornpetition and

Segment Transfer (FCM) (Hancin-Bhatt, 1994) was demonstrated on two

phonological masures (Oddity and Rhyme Discrimination). Robust

evidence was found in the significantly better scores of the L2 group

across al1 three urnes, particularly on the latter task. As discussed earlier,

the presence of an L i factor was apparent, which in this case probably

accounts for the better performance by the L2 children. The monosyllabic

and tonal nature of Cantonese probably makes rhymes such as lapl more

prominent and less marked for the Cantonese group. As was proposed in

the hypothesis of Marked Differential of CAH (Eckrnan, 1977) and FCM

(Hancin-Bhatt, 1994), less marked features facilitate positive transfer.

Hence, in this case, the native language possibly leads to a positive

transfer instantiated by the Cantonese children in that they are more

sensitive to the rhyme in single syllable wrds used on this task. What is

interesting ta note is that despite the fact that the lshl phoneme is absent

in their native language, Cantonese diildren perfomed better in

discriminating the rhyme leshl than the L I group at Times 1 and 2 (F (1,

57)= 72.47, pc.001). The discrimination of the /SN phoneme, however,

was not significantly different in either language group on the Oddity task,

which involved the phoneme in the initial position. It is possible that for

both language groups, a phoneme in the final position of a w r d is more

salient and easily distinguishable than the same phoneme in the initial

position (Segal-Seiden, 1997). According to the FCM, a specific feature

higher in the hierachial structure in the phonology is likely to be more

salient than another feature that is in a lower position. A superior

performance of the Cantonese diildren in discriminating a 'strange"

phoneme in the final position provides another piece of evidence for

positive transfer. When the tom and the syllable are more salient

features than a phoneme in the native language, it likely leads to positive

leaming effects by facilitating better discrimination for the rhyme.

Moderate support to Hypothesis 4, that positive transfer would ocair

in similar betwsen-language features as hypothesized by the Marked

Differential Hypothesis of CAH (Eckman, 1977) and FCM (Hancin-Bhatt,

1994) was obtained from the present study. On the other hand, there was

no evidence frorn the present study to suggest a simulation error due to

L I influence on sirnilar between-language features as demonstrated in

the study by Oller and Ziahosseiny (1 970). The L2 children appeared to

do better on tasks involving similar between-language features. For

example, on the first set of items on the Rhyme Discrimination task, which

contained similar betvveen language phonological features (e.g . the rhyrne

lapl), Cantonese children scored significantly higher than the L I group at

Times 1 and 3, as indicated by a significant interaction between time and

language groups. This result suggests that the Cantonese children were

probably more sensitive in diswiminating rhymes that exist in both

languages. Although the Cantonese children appeared superior to their

L I peers on the cornparison items on both Oddity and Rhyme

Discrimination, the overall differences (al l tasks combined) wsre not

statistically significant. In other wrds, the fact that awareness of onset

consonants is one skill acquired early in the process of reading

acquisition (Adams, 1 990, Goswami & Bryant, 1 990, Cha!!, 1 990, Enhri,

1991 ) appears to lie valid for both the Cantonese ESL students as well as

their L I counterparts.

In sum, this study found that both the L i and L2 children made

significant gains in their phonological processing skills over time.

However, compared to their L I counterparts, the developmental

trajectofies in phonological awareness for the L2 group were significantly

disparate. L2 children were infefior to their English as LI counterparts on

phonologically more challenged tasks ai the beginning stages of the

study. However, despite the fact that their knowledge of the L2 rernained

significantly lower, L2 children were capable of attaining growth by Time 3

to perfom at least as wsll as, and at times exceeded those for their

English as L I peers. Results of the present study suggest L i can cause

interference on the acquisition of disparate phonological features in L2,

as instantiated in tasks involving consonant blends. At the same time,

there is also evidence to suggest positive transfer in leaming of

phonologically more salient features in their L i (Le., rhyme), although

positive transfer for similar between-language features wsre not evident.

The present study also confirmed that phonological processing skills

accounted for significant variance for reading measures, even when the

variance for intelligence is controlled for. On the other hand, there is also

evidence that non-verbal intelligence affected the leaming of 12 word

recognition skills.

Limitations

Sample size and duration of the present study may lirnit the

generalizability of its findings. As well, there was no atternpt to explore

the contribution of factors such as the social-econornic status of the

participants, the impact of instructional practices in different classrooms,

the extent of previous exposure to the English language and the

contribution of oral proficiency in English. As a result, effects, if any, from

these individual and environmental factors on the leaming of English as a

second language cannot be ascertained. Due to the large number of

phonalogically disparate between-language features, only a limited

phonemes wre targeted in the phonological tasks in the present study.

A more thorough investigation comparing other behveen-language

features may present a more comprehensive developmental pattern of the

leaming of English as a second language by Cantonese children.

Relations of Phonological Awareness to Reading and Its Imp!ications

Results frcm the present study suggested that phonological features

that are common to tw languages facilitate transfer fraz L I to L2.

Common between-language phonemes such as /ml and lbl; and rhymes

such as lapl, /hg/ cm therefore be utilized for assessrnent of

phonological awareness for children in both L I and L2 language groups.

Furthemore, it was clear that given sufficient reading instruction and

exposure, an inferior knowledge of L2 vocabulary did not significantly

irnpede the capacity for growth in awareness of L2 phonology in L2

children. Performance on phonological awareness tasks of L2 children at

Grade 1 significantly predicted reading abilities at Grade 2, in almost

similar magnitude to that of the L I group. Henœ, it would be valid to

conclude that for L2, as wll as for L I children, difficulties in manipulating

phonological features in the language as early at Grade 1 can be used as

an index of at-risk status for having reading difficulties.

The importance of phonological awareness for w r d reading was

confined in the present study. At least at the initial stages of leaming to

read, phonological awareness accounted for up to 67% of the variance on

measures of w r d reading in the L I group, and up to 34% for the L2

group, even when the variance due to non-verbal intelligence was

controllad for. As was postulated by researchen in the field, in the

beginning stages of leaming to read, being aware of phonemes in mrds

is one of the skills facilitating word reading (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1983,

1996; Ehri, 1995; Gsowami & Bryant, 1990; Huang & Hinley, 1994;

Stanovich, 1 992; Swirling & Sternberg, 1 994; Wagner, et. al, 1 993). In

the beginning stage of the present study, Cantonese children appeared

not to have fully developed knowledge of English phonology and, in fact,

they were inferior to their L I peers in the knowledge of English

vocabulary throughout Times 1, 2 and 3. Limited proficiency in English

probably contributed to deficient knowledge of its phonology, and

wnsequently, phonological awareness did not account for as much

variance of reading in the L2 group as it did for native English-speakers.

An implication of this finding is that both exposure and instruction are of

equal importance. The present study suggests that in leaming English as

a second language, increased exposure to the language as well as to

tasks facilitating phonolog ical processing skills are both important for

Cantonese ESL students. Phonological awreness is essential for

leaming to read in a second language as much as it is for the LI .

Furthemore, second language leamers need additional exposure to the

language to facilitate their awareness of the phonology. The present

study suggests that teaching strategies and programming for ESL

students should include both cornponents to ensure their success in

reading and writing.

Table 1. Mean Scores of Phonological Tasks by Time and Language

Range Time 1 Tirne 2 Time 3

Oddity L1

L2

RD LI

L2

AAS LI

L2

AD LI

L2

Notes: RD, Rhyrne Discrimination Task; AD, Auditory Discrimination Task; AAS: Auditory Anaiytic Skills Task. LI, Native Englishspeaking children; L2 Cantonese-speaking ES1 children Standard Deviation in brackets. Range is measured as the mean magnitude between minimum and maximum scores.

Table 2. Correlations among Phonological Tasks-Combined and Individual Groups, (Tirne 1 )

N= 33 (Li ); 33 (L2) Oddity RD AD) AAS

Odd ity L I +L2 1 .O0 11 1 .O0 L2 1 .O0

AAS

Note: 1. RD, Rhyme Discrimination Task, AD, Auditory Discrimination Task,

AAS, Auditory Analytic Skills Task- 2. *p< -05, '* pg.01

Table 3. Tne Effects of Time and Group on Phonological TasKs: MANOVA Summary Table

VVithin Within B e Tirne* Tirne* Subjed Subjed tween Group Group Multi- Uni- Subj. Multi- Uni- variant variant F variant variant F value F value value F value F value

Oddity Time 101.12* T l 7 2 147.99- 0.46

RD

AD

AAS

T2T3 43.01-

Time 20.12"" T l T 2 40.98- 2.27

T2T3 0.92

Time 10.57"" T l 7 2 21 .SOM 2.77

T2T3 2.12

Time 18.78- T l T 2 38.13"" O. 50

T2T3 3.23

Note: 1. RD, Rhyme Discrimination Task; AD, Auditory Discrimination Task,

A M , Auditory Analytic Skills Task. 2. *pc0.05, * p

50 Table 4. Mean Percentage Scores of Auditory Analytic Skills Task by

Se:$

Time 1 Tirne 2 Time 3

Set 1 LI 96.21(9.1) 98.50(6.1) 100 (0) (Syllables) L2 96.3(11.4) 100 (O) 99.1(4.8)

Set 2 LI 6 .91 (44.6) 71.72(33.5) 74.74(37.3) ( Initial L2 34.34(38.6) 48.15(44.7) 70.37(40.7) Consonants)

Set 3 L I 46.46 (42.4) 64.65 (36.3) 60.60 (38.6) (Final L2 53.09 (42.6) 40.74 (37.4) 65.43 (37.5) Consonants)

Set 4 LI 27.27(29.2) 38.38(33.5) 34.34(34.9) (F irst 12 23.45 (30.4) 25.93 (33.8) 46.91 (39.5) Consonant,- initial blend)

Set 5 L I 7.07 (33.4) 14.14 (30.1) 16.16 (32.4) (First L2 22.22(29.2) 24.69(34.1) 41.98(41.9) Consonant, Final Blend)

Set 6 LI 9.09 (25.4) 28.28 (47.2) 19.70 (31.1) (Second L2 22.22(39.2) 22.22(41.3) 42.59(46.9) Consonant- Initial Blend) Note: Standard Deviation in brackets.

Table 5. The Effect of Time and Group on Sets of Auditory Analytical Skills Task: MANOVA ~ummay Table

Within Within Between

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 4

Set 5

Set 6

Time

TimeTSL

Time

TirneaESL

Time

TirneeESL

Tirne

Tirne*ESL

Tirne

TirneTSL

Time

Tirne*ESL

Su bject Subject Su bject Multi- Univariant Multi- Variant F Value Variant F Value F Value

Time 112 8.6" Time 33 Time 1 13 Time 2/3

Time 112 Time U3 Time 1 12 Time 213

Time 1 12 Time 213 Time 1 12 Time Z3

Time 1 /2 Time 2/3 Time 1 12 Time 2/3

Time 1 12 Time U3 Time 1 12 Tme 213

Time 11 2 Time 2/3 Time 1 12 Time 213

-- -

Note: pc .05, "p< .O1, "pc .O01

Table 6. Mean scores of Rhyme Discrimination Task by Sets, L I and L2 -- - -

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Setl(lap/) LI 3.16 (1.5) 3.64(1.4) 3.69 (1.4)

L2 3.48 (1.6) 3.33 (1.4) 4.26 (1.2)

Set 2 (Ishl) LI 3.09 (1.4) 4.13 (1.6) 4.47 (1.6)

L2 3.15(1.8) 4.58(1.4) 5.38 (1.2)

set 3 (/th/) 2.28 (1.1 ) 2.47 (1.4) 2.69 (1.4)

L2 2.1 1 (1.4) 2.74 (1.5) 2.93 (1.4)

Note : 1. Set 1, lapl, control items; Set 2, Ishl, target items with phoneme Ishl;

Set 3, /th/, target items with phoneme /W. 2. Standard Deviation in brackets.

Table 7. The Effect of Time and Group on sets of Rhyme Discrimination: MANOVA Summary Table

Within Within Between Su bject Subject Subject multi- uni-variant multi- variant F Value variant F Value F Value

Set1 (lapl) Time 5.52- Time 1 /2 8.1" 0.64 Time 213 0.96

Time*ESL 2.94 Time 1 12 0.29 Time W3 4.70*

Set2 (/sh/) Time 37.47- Tirne112 72.47"" 2.36 Tirne U3 3.30

TirneaESL 2.00 Time 1 /2 4.08" Time 3 3 0.01

Set3 (/th/) Time 3.00 Timell2 5.99" 0.30 Time U3 0.22

TimeeESL 0.45 Time 1 12 0.67 Time U3 0.29

Note: 1. Set 1, lapl, control items; Set 2. Ishî, target items with phoneme khi;

Set 3, Ahl, target items with phoneme /th/. 2. *p< .05, * p< -01, - p~ .O01

Table 8. Mean Scores of Word Reading Tasks by Time and Language Groups.

Range Tirne 1 Time 2 Time 3

Word LI 35 5.76(7.27) 11.64(9.22) 14.85(9.92) Attack

L2 38 7.43 (9.27) 12.29 (1 0.23) 19.1 4 (1 3.1)

WRAT- LI 19 4.39(3.94) 7.79(4.61) 9.76(5.36)

L2 18 7.04 (4.88) 9.89 (5.26) 13.30 (5.51)

EXR LI 16 4.55 (4.47) 10.45 (4.98) 1 1.58 (4.52)

L2 16 7.25(6.86) 10.19(5.32) 12.44(4.15)

-

Notes: W h Word Attack, Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Revised; WRAT, Wide Range Achievement Test, Revised, Word Reading subtest; EXR, Experimental Word Reading Task LI, English as First Language , L2 , Cantonese group. Range is measured as the mean magnitude between maximum and minimum scores. Standard Deviation in brackets

Table 9. Conelation among Phonological and Reading Tasks (Time 2)

WA WRAT EXR ODD RD AD AAS

WRAT Ll+K LI L2

EXR Ll+U LI L2

Note: 1. * p

56

Table 10. Partial Correlation of Combined Mean z-scores of Phonological and WA and WRAT Tasks, Contro!!ing for Mean MAT Scores

r R square r R square

Time 2

O. 72- O.. 52 O. .52+* 0.26

Note: * p< -05, " p< .01, " p< ,001

Table 11. Correlations of Combined z-scores of Phonological and WA and WRAT Tasks.

Time 1

Time 2

r R square r R square

0.72- 0.52 0.66- 0.43

Time 3 0.84- O, 70 0.65- 0.43

Note: - p4.001, p

Figure 1. Mean scores of phonological tasks Note: OD, Oddity , - 1, -2, -3, Times 1, 2, 3; RH, Rhyme Discrimination , AA, Auditory Analytic Skills, AD, Auditory Discrimination

Figure 2. Cornparison of three phonological tasks, Rhyme Discrimination, Auditory Discrimination and Auditory Analytic Skills.

Note: RD, Rhyme Discrimination, AD, Auditory Discrimination, AAS, Auditory Analytic Skills.

60 REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. , (1 990). Beginning to Read: Thinking and Leaming about

p M . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

Bnick, M., & Genesee, F., (1995). Phonological awareness in young

second language leamers. Journal of Child Language, 22, 307-324.

Caravolas, M. & Bnick, M., (1 993). The effect of oral and witten

language input on children's phonological awareness: A cross-

language study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 1 - 30.

Chall, J. S., (1983, 1996). Stages ofmding development, Pp. 1-109.

New York: McGraw-Hill..

Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M., (1 995). The development and cross-

language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 20,275-303.

Cummins, J., (1 991 ). Interdependence of first- and second-language

proficiency in bilingual children. In E. Bialystok, (Ed-), Language

Prucessing in BiIingual ChiIdren, P p. 70-89. Cam bridge, U. K :

Cambridge University Press

Cutler, A, Mehler, J e t Noms, D., 8 Seigui, J., (1 992). The monolingual

6 1 nature of speech segmentation by bilinguals. Cognitive Psychology,

24, 31 8-41 O.

Durgunoglu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin, B. J., (1991). Cross-language

transfer of phonemic awareness. Journal of EducahOnal

Psychology, 85,453465.

Eckman, F. R., (1 977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis

hypotheses. Language Leaming, 27, (2), 31 5-330.

Eckrnan, F. R., & Iverson, G. K, (1 993). Sonority and markedness among

onset clusters in the interlanguage of ESL leamers. Second

Language Research, 9, (3), 234-252.

Ehri, L. C., (1991). Rewnceptualizing the development of sight word

reading and its relationship to rewding, Pp. 107-1 41.. In A Fowier,

(Ed.), Development of Speech P m s s & A wareness. Depreau,

Genany: Mahler.

Fashola, O. S., (1 997). An explanation of the difference betwen native

English speakers and native Spanish speakers' spelling emrs.

62 Paper presented at AERA Conferenœ, 1997.

Geva, E., (1997). Issues in the development of second language reading:

Implications for instruction and assessment. Paper presented at the

international Workshop on lntegrating Literacy, Research and

Pradice, March 1 3-1 4, London, England.

Goswami, W., & Bryant, P., (1 990). Phonological Skilis and Learning to

Read. East Sussex, U. K.: Erlbaurn.

Hancin-Bhatt, B., (1 994). Segment transfer: A consequeme of a dynamic

system. Second Language Research, 10, (3)) 241 -269.

Hu, C. F. & Catts, H. W., (1993). Phonological rewding as a universal

process? Reading and WMng: An lnterdisciplinary Journal, 5, 325-

337.

Huang, H. S., & Hanley, J. R, (1994). Phonological awareness and visual

skills in leaming to read Chinese and English. Cognition, 54, 73-98.

Perfetti, C. A., (1 992). The representation problem in reading acquisition.

In P. B. Gaugh, L. C., Ehri, & R Trieman (Eds.), Reading

Acquisiaon. New Jersey: Hillsdale. Pp. 1 45-1 73.

Oller, J. W., 8 Ziahosseiny, S. M., (1 990). The contrastive analysis

hypothesis and spell ing errors. Language Leaming, 20, (2), 1 83-

Segal-Seiden, L., (1997). Perception and spelling of strange speech

sounds by Polish-Canadian L2 speakers of English. Unpublished

M. A. thesis, Ontario lnstitute of Studies of Education, University of

Toronto,

Snow. C. E., (1 992). Language proficiency: Towards a definition. In G.

Appel & H. W., Dechert (Eds. ). A Case Tor PsychololinguisbC Cases.

Amsterdam, Holland: John Benjamin.

So., Dl (1 989). Learning to read Chinese: Semantic, syntactic, and

phonological processing skills in nomally achieving and reading

disabled Chinese children. Unpublished M. A Thesis, Ontario

institute of Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

So, L. K., 8 Dodd, B. J., (1 995). The acquisition of phonology by

Cantonese-speaking children. Journal of Child Language, 22, 473-

495.

Stanovich, K E., (1 992). Speculations on the causes and consequences

of individual differences in early reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough,

L. C., Ehri, Y. R Trieman, (Eds.), Reading acquisition, New Jersey:

M. Hillsdale.

94 Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K, Laughon, P., Simmons, K, 8 Rashotte, C.

A., (1 993). Developrnent of young readers' phonological pmcessing

abilities. Journal of Educational Psycholagy, 85, (1), 83-1 03.

Wagner, R. K, (1 986). Phonological processing abilities and reading:

Implications for disabled readen. Journal of Learning Disebilites,

19, (IO), 623630.

Verhoeven, L. T., (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The

linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language

Learning, 44, (3), 381 -41 5.

Watson, l., (1991). Phonological processing in two languages. In E.

Bial ysto k ( Ed. ), Language Pmcessing in Bilingual Chitdmn.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Whitman, R. L., (1 970). Contrastive analysis: Problems and procedures.

Language Learning, 20, (2). 1 9 1 -1 97.

PON

NES

SHAT

SEN

TAS

THOFE

Z OlJ

COS

SHEM

MAK

THOJE

SHUK

VOLE

SHON

KE7

FIN

THOME

Oddity Task Items

BOK

NEN

SHAM

SHEP

FAD

ZOKE

THOJE

HON

SEP

MAT

THOWG

FUP

THONE

SHONG

FEP

SHlNG

VOAZE

POM

MENG

SAN

SHENG

TAT

VOZ E

THONE

HOD

SHED

NAD

ZOVE

SHUNG

TWOTE

FON

FED

SHlM

THOVE

Rhyme Discrimination Task Items

Stimulus Item Target Test

Items

YAM TAN DAT KAM

LIN FI M MIN NIG

POK YOK MOT NOP

NEP KET MEK YEP

VAT NAD TAT UAK

FAP HAP KANG YAN

TESH TES PEF YESH

NEF FESH KES

SESH MES NEF

WEF NES MESH

HES PESH YEF

NESH KES HEF

SOTHE GOVE BOZE POTHE

HOVE THOTHE COZE

POAVE FOVE COTHE

NOVE DOTHE YOZE

NOTHE POVE LOAZ

Auditory Discrimination Task Items

thone-von

shen-sen

sen-fen

tow-togg tep-tet

nush-nush

keat he-keev

tekk-tskk

noff-noss

poth-poth

konn-komm

meathe--meez

monn-monn

OZ-402

j ~ o f ~ o o f

bish-biss

lenn--lenn

tom-tonn

t hg-tig

thop-zop

rnak-mag

jekk-jbekk

noz-nov

noove-noove

nesh-neff

zeem-zeem

l up lu t

theak-theak

tas-tas

foom-shoom

ta-tass

zam--vam

theak-theak

nim-nin

Auditory Analytic Skills Task Items

Correct Item Question Response

1. Say sunshine Now say it again but, don't say Sun shine. -

2. Say baseball Now Say it again but, don't Say Bal1 base.

3. Say seesaw Now say it again but, don't Say see. Saw 4. Say picnic Now say it again but, don't say nic. Pic

5. Say leg Now Say it again but, don't say IL/. Egg 6. Say meat Now say it again but, don't Say /MI. Eat 7. Say hand Now say it again but, don't say /Hl. And

8. Say pain Now Say it again but, don't say MI. Pay 9. Say keep Now say it again but, don't sa