The development of language and reading skills in the second and third languages of multilingual children in French Immersion

• Published in: International journal of multilingualism Vol. 9; no. 3; pp. 272 - 293
• Main Authors: Berube, Daniel, Marinova-Todd, Stefka H
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 01.08.2012; Routledge
• Subjects: Academic success; Alphabets; Bilingualism; Canada; Children; Comparative Analysis; Correlation; cross-linguistic influence; Elementary School Students; Foreign Countries; French; French language; Grade 4; Immersion Programs; Language acquisition; Language Classification; language development; Language Proficiency; Language Skills; Language Tests; Language use; Literacy; Measures (Individuals); Monolingualism; Multilingualism; Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; Reading; Reading Comprehension; Reading Skills; Reading Tests; Scores; Second Language Learning; third language acquisition; Transfer of Training; trilingual competence; Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery; Written Language; Canada
• ISSN: 1479-0718; 1747-7530
• DOI: 10.1080/14790718.2011.631708

The relationship between first language (L1) typology, defined as the classification of languages according to their structural characteristics (e.g. phonological systems and writing systems), and the development of second (L2) and third (L3) language skills and literacy proficiency in multilingual children was investigated in this study. The sample included 90 children in Grade 4: tested once at the beginning of Grade 4 (T1) and again at the end of Grade 4 (T2). The children belonged to one of three language groups: English monolinguals, multilinguals who were literate in an alphabetic L1, and multilinguals who were literate in a logographic/syllabary L1. The study examined the extent to which the development of L2 and L3 literacy skills varied primarily as a function of orthographic similarities with the L1. Results revealed that multilingual children who were literate in an alphabetic L1 showed advantages in L2 and L3 reading comprehension. However, there were no differences on tasks that measured word reading and pseudoword reading. A more accurate picture of what facilitates L2 and L3 reading development is enhanced when differences in L2 and L3 proficiency were considered as well.