List of figures
Figure 1.1Approach to investigating biscriptuality within the conducted study
6
Figure 2.1The continua of biliterate media (Hornberger, 2003, p. 7)
25
Figure 2.2Author’s elaborated version of the nested relationships concept of Bronfenbrenner, adopted for child’s developing scriptual
skills in the context of migration
38
Figure 2.3Community and family influences on language and literacy (Goldenberg et al.,
2011, p. 12)
39
Figure 2.4Individual and family influences on biscriptuality. Author’s elaborated version of the model proposed by Goldenberg et al. (2011)
49
Figure 2.5The Hayes-Flower Model (Hayes & Flower, 1980 reprinted in Hayes, 2012b, p. 370)
71
Figure 2.6Simple View of Writing Model (Berninger & Amtmann, 2003, p. 350)
73
Figure 2.7Hayes’s 2012 Writing Model (Hayes, 2012b)
74
Figure 2.8Hypothetical processing loads for a knowledge-telling writer (Hayes,
2012b, p. 385)
75
Figure 2.9Architecture of domain-specific functional writing system (Berninger et al.,
2002, p. 41)
76
Figure 2.10Architecture of domain-specific functional writing systems in biscriptual bilinguals. Author’s elaborated version of the model
proposed by Berninger et al. (Berninger et al., 2002, p. 41)
80
Figure 2.11Structure of the recoding model of graphematics (Neef, 2012, p. 219)
82
Figure 3.1LiPS study design including the gathered data of 15-year old students
95
Figure 3.2The exploratory sequential design with mixing occurring at the level of data analyses. Authors’s elaborated version of the
Creswell and Plano Clark’s figure (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 69)
101
Figure 3.3“Fast Catch Boomerang”. An adopted translated version of the category “task accomplishment” (Klinger et al., 2018(forthcoming))
105
Figure 3.4Scores’ components of differentiated syntactical analysis conducted on “Fast Catch Boomerang” and “Boomerang at the
Park”
109
Figure 4.1The order for revealing the results for the role of biscriptuality in students’ writing skills at different dimensions
115
Figure 4.2The Continuum of Biscriptuality
117
Figure 4.3Number of applied non-italic graphemes in texts of the Cyrillic group
118
Figure 4.4The frequency matrix of non-italic variants of Cyrillic graphemes within the Mix group, established by MAXQDA 12, where each
column of the matrix refers to one subject
122
Figure 4.5Interscriptual and intrascriptual mixing depicted for each subject of the Mix group
124
Figure 4.6The proportions of interscriptual and intrascriptual mixing calculated for the whole Mix group
128
Figure 4.7Percentages of visual and phonetic strategies applied for substituting Cyrillic graphemes with Latin graphemes within the Mix
group
130
Figure 4.8Percentages of visual and phonetic strategies applied for substituting Cyrillic graphemes with Cyrillic graphemes within the
Mix group
130
Figure 4.9Number of Latin variants of Cyrillic graphemes within the Latin group
132
Figure 4.10The continua of biscriptuality
139
Figure 4.11Age at arrival in Germany, by script group
143
Figure 4.12Number of students enrolled at different grades in school outside of Germany, by script group
145
Figure 4.13Country of origin of students’ parents, by script group
149
Figure 4.14Individual and family influences on biscriptuality. Authors’ elaborated version of the model suggested in 2.3.4
157
Figure 4.15Mean percentages of incorrectly capitalized nouns in German and Russian
163
Figure 4.16Mean values of number of words produced in both tasks in Russian
170
Figure 4.17Mean values of number of words produced in both tasks in German
170
Figure 4.18Mean values of types of nouns produced in both tasks in Russian
171
Figure 4.19Mean values of types of nouns produced in both tasks in German
172
Figure 4.20Mean values of types of verbs produced in both tasks in Russian
173
Figure 4.21Mean values of types of verbs produced in both tasks in German
174
Figure 4.22Mean values of types of adjectives produced in both tasks in Russian
174
Figure 4.23Mean values of types of adjectives produced in both tasks in German
175
Figure 4.24Percentage of types of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions in Russian (Task 1: Left side bars, Task 2: Right side
bars)
181
Figure 4.25Percentage of types of coordinating and subordinating conjunctions in German (Task 1: Left side bars, Task 2: Right side
bars)
182
Figure 4.26Percentage of types of sentences in Russian (Task 1: Left side bars, Task 2: Right side bars)
184
Figure 4.27Percentage of types of sentences in German (Task 1: Left side bars, Task 2: Right side bars)
184
Figure 4.28The means of scores on task accomplishment in German and Russian
191
Figure 4.29The mean values of scores on the structure of students’ narratives in Russian
192
Figure 4.30The mean values of scores on the structure of students’ narratives in German
193
Figure 4.31The mean values of z-scores for students’ writing skills in German and Russian
204
Figure 4.32The continua of biscriptual writing at three language dimensions: The modeled relation of writing skills in German and Russian
in expository (chart on left) and narrative texts (chart on right). Note: L = Latin, M = Mix, C = Cyrillic. The solid and dotted
lines represent both students’ languages
209
Figure 4.33The modeled relation between continua of biscriptual writing skills in German and Russian at macro level
211