Carol A. Chapelle - The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics

Linguistic distance is another factor uniquely associated with second language reading, in general, and word meaning retrieval, in particular (Muljani, Koda, & Moates, 1998; Koda, 2007; Hamada & Koda, 2010). Linguistic distance refers to the degree of structural similarity between two languages. Given the significant role that orthographic knowledge plays in word meaning retrieval, we can predict that the degree of similarity between two writing systems directly affects the ease with which the graphic form of a word is segmented into its phonological and morphological constituents. When the two writing systems are closely related, first language word form analysis skills function in the new language without any modifications. Conversely, when the two systems are typologically diverse, transferred skills must undergo substantial refinement through repeated exposure and experience with the printed form of specific words in the target language. Although all subskills, in principle, are transferrable from one language to another (Koda, 2007), facilitation benefits bought about through first language subskills vary across learner groups with diverse first language backgrounds.

Insufficient linguistic knowledge also generates unique variance in second language reading. Besides its obvious contributions to word meaning retrieval and word meaning integration, linguistic knowledge plays a role in the process of personalizing text meanings for deeper text understanding. Although personalization in itself does not entail linguistic information processing, sufficient linguistic knowledge is necessary for gaining access to nonlanguage‐specific information acquired through real‐life experiences. As Clarke (1980) put it almost four decades ago, “limited control over the language ‘short circuits’ the good reader's system causing him/her to revert to poor reader strategies when confronted with a difficult or confusing task in the second language” (p. 206).

In sum, the involvement of two languages is a fundamental characteristic that separates second language reading from general learning and first language reading. From a crosslinguistic perspective, knowledge of the target language (grammar and vocabulary, in particular) is essential for making links between text information in a second language and the reader's knowledge stored in her first language. The significance of personalization should be understood as the core mechanism through which externally presented information is internalized to become part of the reader's knowledge bases.

Given the centrality of personalization in knowledge expansion through reading, it is important that the notion of broad‐based reading ability be addressed in second language reading instruction and assessment. According to a brief survey of textbooks used in third‐year Chinese courses in US colleges (Koda & Ke, 2018), reading ability is viewed as a facet of language proficiency. Post‐reading exercises in these textbooks primarily focus on the reinforcement of the grammar and vocabulary items introduced in a particular unit. Their survey also revealed that widely used foreign language proficiency guidelines also assign a prominent role to linguistic knowledge in describing reading ability. In the guidelines, reading development is regarded as a gradual increase in the ability to understand written texts that demand progressively more sophisticated knowledge of the language and text types (Council of Europe, 2011; American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, 2012). Apparently, reading pedagogy in language classrooms gives weight to using reading to enhance knowledge of the language, rather than promoting the autonomous use of language through which linguistic knowledge could be augmented and refined during reading.

There are a number of important potential consequences of the treatment of reading as language practice for the end state of second language reading proficiency. First, the language‐focused reading pedagogy generally does not provide the learner authentic purposes of reading, other than answering comprehension questions. Such a practice offers students little incentive to tap into their cognitive and conceptual resources to achieve a deeper text understanding. Knowledge of the language may be sufficient for answering post‐reading questions, but, in itself, does not allow the learner to go beyond text information to generate new insight through reading. Without personalization , moreover, text information remains external to the learner and irrelevant to her internal self. Should this be the case particularly in advanced courses, the language‐focused practice could produce apathy on students to take part in active learning.

The language‐focused view could also lead to an unsubstantiated assumption that augmented linguistic knowledge enables the learner to “read” increasingly more demanding texts in the target language. As mentioned earlier, linguistic knowledge alone is far from sufficient for word meaning integration, let alone personalization. A demanding text is understood only to the extent that the reader knows about its topic. There is much to gain if reading pedagogy explores ways of simultaneously promoting reading ability and linguistic knowledge by exploiting their developmental reciprocity.

In a nutshell, second language reading entails complex crosslinguistic interaction between text information presented in a second language and the reader's cognitive and conceptual resources stored in her first language. What supports this interaction is knowledge of the target language (grammar and vocabulary). Conversely, it is only through the autonomous use of language for meaning making that fosters the expansion and refinement of linguistic knowledge. For reading assessment to yield positive washback effects, it is essential that student‐centered tasks be incorporated to demand the learner to dig into real‐life knowledge to create personalized responses. Scoring student‐centered responses is labor intensive, but the higher investments are likely to generate higher returns.

Reading assessment, within the reading‐as‐language view, focuses on estimating linguistic sophistication, rather than promoting the ability to use language for constructing and generating meanings during reading. Linguistic features, such as syntactic complexity and vocabulary density, are treated as key factors that largely determine comprehension obstacles and are used to manipulate item difficulty to construct tests with the desired level of difficulty. From this perspective, reading assessment relies on two layers of deductions—first, gauging reading ability based on observed behaviors elicited, and then inferring linguistic sophistication from the estimated reading ability. For assessment results to be reasonably accurate as an indicator of linguistic sophistication, manipulated features, such as word frequency and structural complexity, must be unambiguously linked to the item difficulty levels. In practice, however, such calibration cannot be conducted solely on the basis of linguistic manipulations. As described above, a number of other factors affect text comprehension. With little regard for nonlanguage‐specific factors, it would be difficult to promote broad‐based reading ability through assessment.

In language‐focused reading assessment, language selection could also constitute a threat to the validity of the intended inferences. Language selection refers to decisions regarding the use of the student's first language or the target language for non‐passage elements (e.g., test administration, task instructions, and comprehension questions). If, for example, the target language is used for task instructions, there is always a likelihood that some learners pursue the task without understanding what they are expected to do. Although a clear grasp of the task, when presented in the target language, could be taken as a partial indicator of linguistic sophistication, score differences derived from non‐passage elements remain unintended, making their interpretation difficult at best and erroneous at worst. It is problematic to determine whether poor performance is attributable to task misconceptions, underdeveloped linguistic knowledge, or inadequate reading skills. Conflation of this sort, arising from unintended linguistic obstacles, constitutes a unique challenge in second language reading assessment.