The Transfer of Literacy Skills
Is the transfer of native language (L1) literacy skills to the development of second language (L2) literacy skills always helpful? Logically, it makes sense that possessing literacy skills in an L1 would aid the development of L2 literacy skills, and indeed, there are many studies that support this argument. This paper seeks to review studies regarding the transfer of literacy skills and whether this is transfer is useful to the L2 learner. As the following discussion will show that this transfer of skills is usually beneficial; however, it is not always helpful to the L2 learner, and it is this minority that brings to light a greater discussion of literacy as it is defined by the different cultures of the world.
Sparks et al (2006) studied a group of students’ literacy skills beginning in elementary school through high school. He and his colleagues found that there was a positive correlation between L1 literacy skills and L2 literacy skills. That is, students with high literacy skills in their L1 were significantly more likely to develop high literacy skills in their L2. This shows that the transfer of literacy skills from one language to another can be helpful for students, especially when those literacy skills are strong and have already been established before learning a second language. However, Sparks and his colleagues looked at native English speakers learning one of three foreign languages (German, French and Spanish) all of which use the Roman alphabet. As such, the students were not required to learn a new alphabet or script. This is something of a limitation for the study, as it difficult to say whether the transfer of literacy skills happened because there is a true transfer of literacy skills from an L1 to an L2 or if literacy skills can be transferred when the two languages share a common alphabet and therefore only require learners to assign new phonemic values to letters with which they are already familiar.
Even if we only take this study to mean that there exists a transfer of literacy skills between languages that share a common alphabet or script rather than a broad transfer of literacy skills regardless of language attributes this still proves to be a valid observation for L2 learners and teachers alike. For those teaching in a foreign language context, such as the students from the Sparks et al (2006) study, problems with the development of L2 literacy may be best addressed by working on bolstering the student’s L1 literacy skills. Indeed, it may be that more literacy events regardless of the language (the L1 or L2) a student participates in, the more likely that student will be to increase his or her literacy skills in either language.
Durgunoğlu (2002) was on a similar track, and found that students who lag in or have trouble with the development of L2 literacy may not always have a learning disability; rather, it may simply indicate the the learner does not have a strong set of L1 skills, including literacy skills, from which to transfer to the L2. For teachers with a heterogenous group of L2 readers or writers, this would be important to take into consideration, as a lack of development of literacy should not be automatically be written off as a lack of ability, intelligence or even as an indication of a learning disability. Instead, it would be worthwhile for teachers to investigate such a learner’s knowledge and skill set in his or her native language before reaching a conclusion as to the cause of the student’s difficulty. Durgunoğlu also feels that it is necessary to continually check students’ proficiency in the target language as well as the development of literacy skills (p. 202). This underscores a fundamental philosophy in language teaching not just about knowing one’s students, but also to provide on-going assessment. Durgunoğlu’s (2002) study is especially relevant to students and teachers in a second language environment, where immigrant students may not have had a chance to develop literacy skills in their L1 before beginning instruction in the L2. For teachers, a lack of L1 literacy skills, and therefore difficulty with L2 literacy may require them to teach students literacy skills as opposed to L2 literacy skills.
Shwartz, Leikin, and Share (2005) look at a group of L1 Russian L2 Hebrew children. In some ways, this study controls for the usage of a similar alphabet/script that Sparks et al (2006) did not, as Russian and Hebrew have different alphabets. Their study showed that children who were literate in both the L1 and L2 (as opposed to their bilingual/monoliterate and monolingual peers) had more success with meta-linguistic tasks. While this does not address the transfer of literacy skills, it does present the teacher with a valid reason for testing literacy in both the L2 and L1, as the finding that the presence of literacy skills in both languages aids learners in other language related tasks could assist teachers in profiling their students and pinpointing exactly what type of instruction their students need. It further indicates that teaching literacy in the L1 may also prove to be beneficial for L2 instruction.
However, as Bell (1995) chronicles her journey in becoming literate in Chinese, she indicates that being literate in her L1 (English) was actually more of an obstacle than a help. She points to the differences in culture and how they view literacy as the issue. While this is obviously an auto-biographical study that doesn’t necessarily allow for the ability to generalize the study’s findings, it still brings up a point that needs to be considered in the discussion of literacy transfer. And that is: how does one define literacy? Not surprisingly, each culture has its own definition. For many cultures, the definition is similar enough that the literacy skills a learner possesses in his or her L1 can simply transferred to the target language without changing the learner’s own literacy definition.
But what happens when two cultures have definitions of literacy that are very different? Bell (1995) frequently struggled with the Chinese characters as she attempted to develop literacy skills in the language. She spent her time questioning her instructor about Chinese characters, attempting to break the process down into parts and then analyzing those parts. This approach, while useful and successful in learning how to read and write in English, was contrary to the Chinese way of thinking; that is, English literacy is analytic, whereas Chinese is more holistic (Bell, 1995). Furthermore, when Bell began learning the Chinese characters, she started with the easier to produce ones, regardless of their perceived “usefulness.” This again was contrary to Bell’s way of learning (Bell, 1995).
From this, it becomes apparent that the transfer of literacy skills is only useful when both the native and target language definitions of literacy are similar. There are a few implications for teachers to be pulled from this observation. First, for those who teacher a group of students that are from multiple countries, it would be worthwhile to become educated on the literacy practices and background, as identifying certain commonalities or differences can assist one in pinpointing possible trouble spots as well as show the teacher where an emphasis may not be needed. That is, if certain areas of literacy are similar, such as the writing rhetoric, then less instruction time could be used because the student or students could simply transfer their L1 skills to the L2. Secondly, if such definitions of literacy are vastly different, such as those of English and Chinese, it would behoove teachers to be aware of this, and realize that their students may need more work and instruction time to teach them the skills and strategies necessary to have to develop said literacy skills in the L2. Thirdly, it is worth assessing literacy in the L1 if a student presents difficulties in developing L2 literacy. Even if the definitions of literacy are different across the two cultures and languages, a strong L1 literacy background suggests a basis for academic skill. That is, if a learner present strong L1 literacy skills, it is likely they are accustomed to instruction and possess the ability to learn and acquire the skills necessary for L2 literacy. Finally, it would be worthwhile to continually assess the literacy skills and proficiency of students in their L2. This is important for teachers because it can help them to catch students who may be struggling, and it may also allow them to diagnose, so to speak, the reasons for the struggle.
In sum, the transfer of literacy skills is mainly beneficial to learners who have a native language and target language which define literacy in a similar manner. For those whose native and target language define literacy differently, the transfer of literacy skills can be more harmful than helpful. It is because of this that teachers should make the effort to learn about their students and their students’ literacy backgrounds.
References
Bell, J. S. (1995). The Relationship Between L1 and L2 Literacy: Some Complicating Factors. TESOL Quarterly , 687-704.
Durgunoğlu, A. (2002). Cross-linguistic Transfer in Literacy Development and Implications for Language Learners. Annals of Dyslexia , 189-204.
Shwartz, M., Leikin, M., & Share, D. (2005). Bi-literate bilingualism versus mono-literate bilingualism. Written Language and Literacy , 179-206.
Sparks, R., Patton, J., Ganschow, L., & Humbach, N. (2009). Long-Term Crosslinguistic Transfer of Skills From L1 to L2. Language Learning , 203-243.
