Flex those Muscles: The Variety of Skills that Developing

Bilingual Children Use When They Read

S. Hlne Deacon1, Lesly Wade-Woolley2, and Kathleen Kelly1
1
Dalhousie University and 2Queens University

1. Introduction
There is an extended history of research into the impacts of bilingualism on
development. It was long assumed that children growing up with two languages
would suffer negative consequences from their affliction. Indeed, this view
was enunciated clearly in Thompsons statement in a child development
textbook in 1952, outlining that there can be no doubt that the bilingual will be
handicapped in his or her language growth (p. 385). At the time, this assertion
was founded solidly on research demonstrating the negative impacts of
bilingualism on performance on a host of tasks assessing cognitive and language
functioning. In what lead to a theoretical revolution, Peal and Lambert
published their landmark study in 1962 demonstrating that bilinguals might, in
fact, have some cognitive advantages. The inclusion of a wide range of controls
in their study made this finding hard to dispute. The empirical weight of this
study, in combination with the theoretical basis provided by Vygotsky (1962)
and Chomsky (1968), turned the tides of opinion. It brought on a new era of
research in which the emphasis turned to the strengths and flexibilities of
bilingual populations.
One of the many areas in which adaptiveness had been demonstrated is in
the use of skills across languages, termed transfer. In the domain of second
language acquisition, transfer is often considered in the context of interlanguage
and contrastive analysis, which does not necessarily involve conscious or
strategic processes. For biliteracy development, however, it is necessary to
consider transfer at two different levels. The first is the typological level, or the
level of the individual orthography, where features of the writing system may
induce transfer. The second is the strategic or conscious level, where reflective
processes are of a nature that can be learned in the first language and applied in
the second (or vice versa). In other words, the premise is that if a child has an
understanding of how a linguistic construction is represented in one language,
they might be able to use this appreciation to work out a similar principle in
another orthography. For example, they might use their ability to manipulate the
sounds in words in one language to decode another. This flexibility might serve
as an advantage to help bilinguals to overcome the potentially challenging task
of becoming literate in two orthographies.

It is useful to turn to the code that children need to break in order to

determine linguistic understandings that are candidates for transfer across
orthographies. In contrast to the fairly transparent orthographies such as Finnish
and Italian, the French and English orthographies are relatively complex
because these languages are encoded on several levels in the orthography:
phonological, morphological and orthographic.
French and English, like most alphabetic orthographies, rely in part on the
sounds in words, or their phonology, to generate spellings. The words cat and
non (no in French) are spelled on the basis of the sounds that make them up.
And yet for a host of other words, this purely phonological level does not
explain the wide range of variability in the ways in which sounds are
represented. It is often assumed that this inconsistency can be conquered only
through the brute force of rote memorisation. However, this unpredictability is
more apparent than real; both English and French rely on additional sources of
regularities than simply phonology.
One of these levels of consistencies lies in the component units of meaning
in language, or morphology. Morphemes are the smallest semantic units out of
which words are constructed and the spellings of words in both French and
English pay allegiance to these constituent elements of meaning. For example,
the spelling of the word magician in each language (magician in English and
magicien in French) is determined by the root magic and the addition of the
appropriate suffix (ian in English and ien in French). This level of regularity can
help to explain some of the spellings that violate strict letter-sound
correspondence rules.
A third source of information comes from orthographic regularities that
guide the legal combinations of letters. In English, for example, words can end,
but not start with consonant doublets (e.g., full, but not fful). In French, words
cannot end with consonant doublets (e.g., pomme, but not pomm for the word
apple in French). Like morphological regularities, these patterns help to explain
why spellings in both English and French do not always accord with phonetic
encodings.
An appreciation of each of these types of regularities might help bilingual
children to learn to read in each of their languages. This might be particularly
likely for children learning to read in English and in French, each of which
encode at these three levels (phonological, morphological and orthographic). To
determine the plausibility of this hypothesis, we can look to the existing
research with monolingual readers on the role that each of these variables plays
in reading outcomes in those populations.
Phonological awareness, or the ability to manipulate the units of sound that
make up words, is a clear determinant of reading outcomes in monolingual
readers. This result has been observed in a wide range of orthographies (see
Adams, 1990; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; Hulme & Snowling, 1994; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Perfetti, 1985; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Chan &
Siegel, 2001; Ho & Bryant, 1997; Zieger & Goswami, 2005). At least in
English, the link between phonological awareness and reading has been shown

to be causal (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1983). These empirical results strongly
suggest that phonological awareness would be useful to bring to reading across
orthographies.
Orthographic knowledge captures a range of skills regarding how letters are
put together within an orthography. This includes knowledge of the letterpatterns (e.g., ight and consonant doublet rules). Orthographic processing has
been shown to account for unique variance in reading and spelling in
monolinguals once phonological processing skill has been accounted for in the
analysis of variance (e.g., Stanovich, West, & Cunningham, 1991).
Similarly, morphological awareness, or the ability to manipulate the
component units of meaning within words, is an important contributor to
monolingual reading outcomes independently of phonological awareness (e.g.,
Brittain, 1970; Carlisle, 2000; Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Mahony, Singson &
Mann, 2000). For example, Deacon and Kirby showed that performance on a
morphological analogy task in grade 2 determined reading ability in grade 5,
after controlling for verbal and non-verbal ability, phonological awareness and
prior reading ability.
The empirical evidence to date then nominates phonological awareness,
orthographic knowledge and morphological regularities as important skills that
underlie reading success. For children learning to read in both English and
French, orthographies that depend on each of these types of regularity, it might
be useful to have such abilities. In the next section, we consider the evidence
that these variables determine reading outcomes in second-language learners.
We address this question both within bilingual childrens languages, as well as
across languages. The latter is, of course, the transfer question; does an
appreciation of a regularity in one language determine reading outcomes in
another?
There is clear cut evidence from research with that second language
learners phonological awareness is a skill that can be brought across languages.
Studies with a wide range of language combinations have shown that children
learning to read in two languages bring their understanding of the sound
structure of words to reading both within and across languages. For example,
Carlisle, Beeman, Davis, & Spharim (1999) demonstrated that both native and
second language phonological awareness (Spanish and English, respectively)
contribute to reading comprehension in the second language. By far the most
robust finding, which has been replicated in a wide range of language
combinations (Durgunoglu, Nagy & Hancin-Bhatt., 1993; Gottardo, Yan,
Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Muter & Diethelm, 2001), is that phonological
awareness measured in one language is related to word reading in the other
language; the case of children learning both English and French is no exception
(Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Cormier & Kelson, 2000;
Tingley et al., 2004). Indeed, Comeau et al. (1999) used this population to set
the stringent standard for cross-linguistic transfer in which the contribution of a
skill to reading must exist cross-linguistically both from the first to the second
language and from the second to the first. Their findings with French immersion

children met this standard. The ability of young dual language learners to bring
the ability to manipulate the phonemes within words to reading across
languages is impressive.
In contrast to the positive evidence of phonological awareness transferring
to reading across languages, studies of the role of orthographic knowledge in
second-language learners converge on the conclusion that it does not transfer to
reading in a second language. Arab-Moghaddam and Snchal (2001)
investigated young Persian-English bilingual children. They found that,
although orthographic skills predicted reading within each language, it did not
determine reading across languages. Similar results were reported in studies
with a wide range of bilingual groups, including Hebrew-English children (AbuRabia, 1997), Russian-English high school students (Abu-Rabia, 2001), and
Chinese-English children (Gottardo, Yan, Siegel & Wade-Woolley, 2001).
The traditional interpretation of the lack of orthographic transfer is that
children must work out orthographically-based rules individually for each
language that they are learning to decode. However, it is also possible that the
absence of transfer uncovered in previous studies is a result of the combinations
of languages investigated to date. These languages (Hebrew, English, Russian
and Chinese) all come from different orthographic groupings (e.g., English is
alphabetic while Chinese is logographic). It is possible that transfer might occur
in cases in which children are learning languages with the same basis (e.g.,
alphabetic). Further, transfer might be more likely to occur in pairs of languages
for which spellings are determined, at least in part, by orthographic regularities.
French and English, then, offer an ideal candidate set of languages within which
to re-examine the possibility of transfer of orthographic knowledge and,
thereby, the nature of this skill.
Morphological awareness is the third skill that is potentially useful for
second-language readers. In contrast to the widespread evidence of its utility in
monolingual populations, there is little data on its effectiveness in second
language learning. In the first study on this question, Droop & Verhoeven
(1998) showed that the morphological awareness of second language learners of
Dutch was related to their reading. Notably, this relationship was demonstrated
within a single language (Dutch), not across languages. The first hint of crosslinguistic use of this skill comes from a single study of spelling. Bindman
(2004) found that awareness of a single morphological principle in Hebrew was
related to spelling based on that principle in English. This shows that there is a
relatively specific link between morphological awareness and spelling based on
individual morphological principles (e.g., root consistency). Based on published
research to date, we do not know if morphological awareness might transfer
across languages to aid bilingual children in their reading.
The study that we report on here is designed to answer two questions. The
first lies in determining whether there is a cross-linguistic impact of
orthographic knowledge to reading. And the second lies in assessing whether
there is such a cross-linguistic effect for morphological awareness. We address
these questions within a population of children learning to read in French and

English. This language pairing is particularly informative as both languages

have an orthography that represents morphological and orthographic
information, in addition to phonologically based regularities.
2. Participants
We tested a group of seventy-six children enrolled in a French immersion
program in a largely monolingual (Anglophone) region of Canada. These
children had a mean age of 7 years and 10 months. They came from
monolingual homes in which the majority of parents did not speak French. They
had been schooled entirely in French since kindergarten. Other research on this
population suggests that they achieve bilingualism by grade 6 (~12 years of
age). As such, in grade 2, they can be termed developing bilinguals. Although
their current state is not one of bilingualism, they are well on the road to that
destination.
3. Methods and results
In the spring of grade two, we assessed the participants reading ability,
morphological awareness, and orthographic knowledge in English and in
French. For a complete description of the tasks (and results), see Deacon, WadeWoolley, & Kirby (2006a). Reading ability was tested with standardized
measures. The English task was designed for English monolingual children and
the French measure for French Immersion children. The orthographic task
involved the recognition of the correct spelling of words out of a pair of lettersequences (based on Olson, Forsberg, Wise, & Rack, 1994). The morphological
awareness task asked children to perform sentence analogies in which the
critical manipulation was the tense of the verb. Finally, we also included a
measure of phonological awareness (deletion) as a control variable. Given the
widespread evidence of cross-linguistic transfer of phonological awareness
(e.g., Comeau et al., 1999), we tested phonological awareness only in English.
We conducted linear regression analyses (summarised in Table 1) to
determine the independent contributions of orthographic knowledge and
morphological awareness in each language to reading both within and across
languages. This type of analysis is informative as it can isolate the unique
contributions of a variable in accounting for the variance in an outcome measure
such as reading.
The goal of the analyses was to determine if given variables measured in
one language would contribute to reading within that language and in the second
language. To establish the within-language contribution of a variable such as
English orthographic knowledge, other within language variables such as
English morphological awareness and English phonological awareness were
entered first into the regression equation, followed by the variable of interest
(English orthographic knowledge). This ensured that the resulting value would
represent an independent within-language contribution from that variable. The

cross-language analysis was then conducted, which, following the example

given, entered French orthographic knowledge as the fourth variable in the
regression equation. This permitted the evaluation of cross-language
contributions that were independent of within-language contributions. These
analyses were conducted with the orthographic knowledge and morphological
awareness measures.
We need to acknowledge that the analyses built on the assumption, as
outlined earlier, that phonological awareness would transfer from one language
to the other; in the analyses, we used the English phonological awareness score
in both the English and the French analyses. Given the widespread evidence of
the transfer of phonological awareness within French and English learning
groups (e.g., Comeau et al., 1999; MacCoubrey, Wade-Woolley, Klinger &
Kirby, 2004), this seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Table 1. Independent contributions (r2 change) of final predictor variables
of English phonological awareness, English and French orthographic
knowledge and English and French morphological awareness.
Independent Contribution to Reading in
Final predictors measured in English
English
French
Phonological Awareness
.031*
.083***
Morphological Awareness
.049**
.070**
Orthographic Knowledge
.258***
.087***
Final predictors measured in French
Morphological Awareness
.028*
.071**
Orthographic Knowledge
.069***
.138***
Note. *** indicates p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05
The first set of analyses focussed on English orthographic knowledge and
its role in reading both within and across languages (English and French,
respectively). The results are reported in Table 1. This first analysis determined
that English orthographic knowledge contributed 26% of the variance in English
reading, after controlling for within-language variables of phonological and
morphological awareness. We then entered French orthographic knowledge as
the fourth step in the equation. This assessed its cross-linguistic contribution to
English reading; it accounted for an additional 7% of variance. We then
evaluated the role of French orthographic knowledge in reading in French and in
English. Results indicate that it explained 14% of the variance in French reading
ability. English orthographic knowledge was then entered as the fourth step and
it accounted for 9% of variance in reading cross-linguistically. These analyses
indicate that orthographic knowledge measured in each language contributes
significantly to reading both within and across languages, and this contribution
is independent of morphological and phonological awareness.
The next set of analyses determined the role of English morphological
awareness in first and second language reading (also reported in Table 1).

English morphological awareness determined a unique 5% of variance in

English reading. The addition of French morphological awareness as the fourth
variable accounted for an additional 3% of variance. Similarly, French
morphological awareness made a contribution of 7% to reading within that
language, accounting for English phonological awareness and French
orthographic knowledge. English morphological awareness entered as the fourth
step in the equation accounted for an additional 7% of variance. Thus, like
orthographic knowledge, morphological awareness played a significant role in
reading both within and across languages. Furthermore, it contributed variance
independently of orthographic knowledge and phonological awareness.
Finally, it is noteworthy that phonological awareness made significant
within and across language contribution to reading. English phonological
awareness contributed 3% to reading in English, after English morphological
awareness and orthographic knowledge. Further, it contributed 8% to reading in
French, after controlling for French morphological awareness and orthographic
knowledge. This offers support for the assumption in the data analyses that
phonological awareness is a transferable skill.
4. Discussion.
This study was designed to investigate whether orthographic knowledge
and morphological awareness transfer across languages. Previous evidence for
the first hypothesis has been resoundingly negative. The second question has not
been yet addressed in reading research. We found positive evidence of
typological and strategic transfer of both of these skills within the sample that
we studied here: young English learners of French.
The finding that orthographic knowledge transfers to reading across
languages is surprising given the previous demonstrations of its languagespecific relationship with reading in second-language learning groups. However,
when considered in typological terms, it seems plausible that the discovery of a
connection between orthographic knowledge and reading in this experiment has
a direct link to the types of orthographies studied. English and French share an
alphabetic basis, and many of the graphemes (especially consonants) share
phonemic representations across languages. Children with an appreciation of
orthographic conventions in one of these languages might do well do bring this
knowledge to the reading of the other. And, indeed, there is evidence here that
they do so. This finding advocates for a consideration of the contexts within
which we examine transfer. We need to consider the types of language pairings
under investigation when considering the possibility of whether skills might
transfer across languages. Such an approach will allow us to make more precise
predictions concerning the degree to which we may expect to observe transfer
across the two languages.
These results also force us to consider morphological awareness as an
abstract, strategic ability that can be transferred to reading across languages.
The cross-linguistic effect is a robust one that is independent of both

orthographic knowledge and phonological awareness. While children are likely

to be learning language-specific information about morphological regularities,
this morphological knowledge can be extended to reading beyond the languagespecific context. To date, this has been an under-investigated area in the domain
of reading and it seems to be a fruitful area to pursue.
Further research needs to explore these effects in different language
pairings to determine the range and strength of the morphological crosslinguistic effect. It is entirely possible that morphological awareness is only
transferred to reading in languages that represent morphology in the
orthography (e.g., in English, but not in Finnish). Further, its role might be
greater in certain scripts, such as Chinese (as suggested by McBride-Chang et
al., 2005). Its role might also change over time. For example, children might
need to build up a requisite amount of vocabulary knowledge and language
proficiency before being able to perform morphological computations on a
language or orthography. If this is the case, then we would not expect
immediate transfer of morphological knowledge. This is a possibility considered
by Deacon, Wade-Woolley, and Kirby (2006b), but it is one that requires a great
deal more investigation, particularly with children and adults in the early stages
of language learning. Such investigations can tell us about the amounts and
types of knowledge that might be necessary for transfer to occur.
Similar questions can also be asked of the transfer of orthographic
knowledge. How much experience with an orthography is required for children
to extract orthographic regularities? Research with monolingual readers
suggests that such knowledge is in place remarkably early (e.g., Cassar &
Treiman, 1997; Pacton, Perruchet, Fayol, & Cleeremans, 2001) and yet we
know little of the second language learning context. We need to find out how
children go about building up separable orthographic knowledge in a manner
that also permits transfer of this knowledge across orthographies when there is
adequate similarity between the representations. Possibly, the amount of
exposure required is related to the degree of typological similarity between
languages; for example, bilinguals may require less exposure to English and
French, which share many grapheme-phoneme correspondences, than they
would to English and Russian, where the most of the common graphemes have
competing phonemic representations. Such questions, of course, require new
empirical investigations.
Finally, we see the intersection of orthographic and morphological
knowledge as an intriguing new avenue for research. Morphological awareness
is an oral language based ability, assessed with tasks that tap the ability to
implicitly or explicitly manipulate morphological units. The majority of
research on morphological awareness and reading has demonstrated the
importance of this relationship (e.g., Deacon & Kirby, 2004), while not tackling
directly the question of how it is that it works. New research investigating
childrens ability to use morphemes in an on-line manner when reading (e.g.,
Carlisle & Stone, 2005) is an excellent first step in this direction. Orthographic
knowledge is also important in this endeavour. Children might need to build up

a minimal amount of orthographic knowledge, particularly about the common

representations of morphemes, before morphological awareness can be used in
reading. This hypothesis requires experimental testing with children with
differing levels of orthographic experience. For example, children who have
achieved some level of reading ability may be able to tune into the fact that the
spellings of morphologically-related words in English, such as heal and health
retain the evidence of their relationship in their written form, despite sounding
quite different. These questions are important in monolingual investigations and
they also have implications for bilingual research.
The ability to read and write in ones first and second languages are
important skills in interacting with ones environment in a fully bilingual
manner. The evidence that we have reported here shows that children are
remarkably flexible in the range of linguistic factors from which they draw to
achieve biliteracy. Morphological awareness and orthographic knowledge have
been shown to be potent variables in determining reading within and across
languages.
Acknowledgements.
This research was supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council to the second author. We thank Damara
Nickerson for her assistance with these data and to Ellen Fergusson for her help
with manuscript preparation.
References.
Adams, Marilyn Jager (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Abu-Rabia, Salim (1997). Verbal and working memory skills of bilingual HebrewEnglish speaking children. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 13, 25-40.
Abu-Rabia, Salim (2001). Testing the interdependence hypothesis among native adult
bilingual Russian-English students. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(4),
437-455.
Arab-Moghaddam, Narges, & Snchal, Monique (2001). Orthographic and
phonological processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals.
International Journal of Behavioural Development, 25(2), 140-147.
Bindman, Miriam (2004). Grammatical awareness across languages and the role of social
context: Evidence from English and Hebrew. In T. Nunes and Peter Bryant (Eds.),
Handbook of Childrens Literacy (pp. 691-709). Great Britain: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Bradley, Lynette, & Bryant, Peter (1983). Categorising sounds and learning to reada
causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-420.
Brittain, M. (1970). Inflectional performance and early reading achievement. Reading
Research Quarterly, 6, 34-48.
Carlisle, Joanne, Beeman, Margaret, Davis, Lyle Hull, & Spharim, G. (1999).
Relationship of metalinguistic capabilities and reading achievement for children
who are becoming bilingual. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 459-478.

Carlisle, Joanne (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically

complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12, 169-190.
Carlisle, Joanne F., & Stone, C. Addison (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in
word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428449.
Cassar, Marie & Treiman, Rebecca (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge:
Childrens knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89, 631-644.
Chan, Carol K. K., & Siegel, Linda S. (2001). Phonological processing in reading
Chinese among normally achieving and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 80(1), 23-43.
Chomsky, Noam (1968). Language and mind. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Comeau, Liane, Cormier, Pierre, Grandmaison, Eric, & Lacroix, Diane (1999). A
longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a
second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29-43.
Cormier, Pierre & Kelson, Suzanne (2000). The roles of phonological and syntactic
awareness in the use of plural morphemes among children in French immersion.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 4(4), 267-293.
Deacon, Hlne & Kirby, John (2004). Morphological awareness: Just more
phonological? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading
development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223-238.
Deacon, Hlne, Wade-Woolley, Lesly, & Kirby, John (2006a). Transfer of reading
skills across languages in young second- language learners. Manuscript in
preparation.
Deacon, Hlne, Wade-Woolley, Lesly, & Kirby, John (2006b). Cross-over: The role of
morphological awareness in reading for children in French immersion. Manuscript
in preparation.
Durgunoglu, Aydin Y., Nagy, William E., & Hancin-Bhatt, Barbara J. (1993). Crosslanguage transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology,
85, 453-465.
Droop, Mienke & Verhoeven, Ludo (1998). Reading comprehension problems in second
language learners. In P. Reitsma, & L. Verhoeven. (Eds.), Problems and
Interventions in Literacy Development (pp. 193-208). Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Goswami, Usha, & Bryant, Peter (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gottardo, Alexandra, Yan, Bernice, Siegel, Linda & Wade-Woolley, Lesly (2001).
Factors related to English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first
language: More evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 530-542.
Ho, Connie S. H., & Bryant, Peter (1997). Phonological skills are important in learning
to read Chinese. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 946-951.
Hulme, Charles & Snowling, Margaret (1994). Reading Development and Dyslexia.
London: Whurr Publishers.
MacCoubrey, Sharon, Wade-Woolley, Lesly, Klinger, Don, & Kirby, John (2004). Early
identification of at-risk readers in a second language. Canadian Modern Language
Review, 61, 11-28.
Mahony, Diana, Singson, Maria, & Mann, Virginia (2000). Reading ability and
sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 12, 191-218.

McBride-Chang, Catherine, Cho, Jeung-Ryeul, Liu, Hongyun, Wagner, Richard K., Shu,
Hua, Zhou, Aibao, Cheuk, Cecilia S-M. & Muse, Andrea (2005). Changing models
across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological
structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from
Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 92(2), 140-160.
Muter, Valerie, & Diethelm, Kay (2001). The contribution of phonological skills and
letter knowledge to early reading development in a multilingual
population. Language Learning, 51(2), 187-219.
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading
instruction. Bethesda MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
Olson, Richard, Forsberg, Helen, Wise, Barbara, & Rack, John (1994). Measurement of
word recognition, orthographic and phonological skills. In Lyon, R. Frames of
reference for the assessment of learning disabilities. Baltimore, US: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Co.
Pacton, Sbastien, Perruchet, Pierre, Fayol, Michel, & Cleeremans, Axel (2001). Implicit
learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of
Experimental Psychology General, 130 (3), 401-426.
Peal, Elizabeth & Lambert, Wallace (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence.
Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76 (27), 1-23.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snow, Catherine E., Burns, M. Susan, & Griffin, Peg. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Stanovich, Keith E., West, Richard F., & Cunningham, Anne E. (1991). Beyond
phonological processes: Print exposure and orthographic processing. In Brady,
Susan Amanda; Shankweiler, Donald P. (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy:
A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman.(pp. 219-235). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tingley, Patricia A., Dore, Katherine A., Lopez, Anita, Parsons, Heather, Campbell,
Elizabeth, Kay-Raining Bird, Elizabeth, Cleave, Patricia (2004). A comparison of
phonological awareness skills in early French Immersion and English children.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33 (3), 263-287.
Thomson, George (1952). Child Psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Ziegler, Johannes C., & Goswami, Usha (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental
dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory.
Psychological Bulletin, 131 (1), 3-29.