Cited by 50Reading and Literacy DevelopmentMultilingual Education and PolicyLanguage Development and Disorders

Understanding Within‐ and Cross‐Language Relations Among Language, Preliteracy Skills, and Word Reading in Bilingual Learners: Evidence From the Science of Reading

Gottardo, Alexandra, Chen, Xi, Huo, Michelle Ru Yun·2021·Reading Research Quarterly

Abstract

Research has shown that language and literacy skills in a first language (L1) are related to performance in a second language (L2) and that these relations are reciprocal. However, cross‐linguistic skills related to word reading are influenced by numerous factors. These include linguistic factors such as the specific language and literacy skills being examined and the languages being compared. They also include societal/contextual factors, such as the linguistic and educational contexts where learners reside. Specifically, contextual factors include the use of the L1 and L2 in the curriculum (e.g., immersion, dual language, heritage language, available supports), teaching methods, and whether the L1 and L2 are societal languages. Research based on the science of reading for bilinguals has shown that phonological awareness is highly related across languages, whereas other language skills have shown differential levels of relations to reading. Word‐reading skills are also related, but these relations are more complex and are due to linguistic factors such as script and linguistic typology and societal/contextual factors, such as instruction and exposure to each language, which are consistent with various theories. Consideration of a wider range of L1s and L2s and specific contextual/societal factors should be included more systematically. Additionally, learner experiences and specific L1 and L2 variables should be considered in educational decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/rrq.410

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The association between L1 and L2 vocabulary is likely to be shown in the two languages that have a substantial number of cognates.

    “The association between L1 and L2 vocabulary is also likely to be shown in the two languages that have a substantial number of cognates as several studies indicated (Gottardo et al., 2014, 2021).”

    From Do word-level skills show cross-linguistic transfer and predict bilingual reading? (2026) · cites this paper as Gottardo et al., 2021

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 142 · Cited by 50

Authors
Gottardo, A., Chen, X., & Huo, M. R. Y.
Corresponding author
Gottardo, Alexandra
Venue
Reading Research Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-20
Volume
56
Issue
S1
ISSN
  • 0034-0553 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-2722
OpenAlex
W3159718861
Cited by
50
References
142
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
10.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Reading Research Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
bilingualism, word reading, phonological awareness, pre-literacy skills, first language literacy, second language literacy, scripts, linguistic typology, immersion, heritage language, language of instruction, language exposure, science of reading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review