Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 22:1 (2019) ► pp.33–66

Reading comprehension across languages

Seven European orthographies and two international literacy assessments

| University of San Francisco
| University of California, Berkeley
Orthographic depth, the degree of spelling-to-sound consistency in a language, has been hypothesized to affect the ease with which children learn to read words. However, the relationship between orthographic depth and reading comprehension is less well understood. In this study, focusing on countries in which two international assessments (PISA and PIRLS) were given in two or more languages, we examine data from elementary and high-school readers of Finnish, Swedish, Italian, German, Dutch, French and English). Findings suggest that that there may be some trade-offs between shallow and deep orthographies in terms of the specific ways that they map onto the phonological and deep meaning representations required for cognitive processing during an activity such as comprehension. These trade-offs serve to differentially support or inhibit readers depending on where they are situated on the achievement continuum.
Keywords: comprehension, orthographic depth, cross-linguistic, reading competence
Article outline
  • The orthographic depth hypothesis
  • Research on orthographic depth, beginning reading, and skilled reading
  • Word recognition, orthography, and reading comprehension
  • Trade-offs between shallow and deep orthographies in decoding and comprehension
  • The current studies
  • Method
    • Design
    • Sample
    • The data set
      • PIRLS data
      • PISA data
    • Sampling methodologies
      • Inclusion criteria
    • Translation
    • Measures
      • Reading comprehension
      • Basic reading competence
      • Orthographic depth
      • Student background characteristics
    • Statistical techniques
      • Within country analyses
      • Across country analyses
  • Results: Study 1: Grade 4 students in PIRLS
    • Descriptive statistics
    • Testing hypotheses about orthographic depth
      • Orthographic depth mediates literacy performance for underperforming readers
      • Benefits of deep orthographies for competent readers
      • Variance in literacy performance in deep versus shallow orthographies
  • Results: Study 2: 15-year-olds in PISA
    • Descriptive statistics
    • Testing hypotheses about orthographic depth
      • Orthographic depth mediates literacy performance for underperforming readers
      • Benefits of deep orthographies for competent readers
      • Variance in literacy performance in deep versus shallow orthographies
  • Discussion
    • Limitations
    • Summary and conclusions
      • Language differences between below basic readers
      • Language differences between competent readers
      • Language differences in variance in reading comprehension
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 20 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00019.mcc
References (74)
References
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). SES differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 235–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 241, 621–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arya, D., McClung, N. A., Katznelson, N., & Scott, L. (2015). Language ideologies and literacy achievement: Six multilingual countries and two international assessments. International Journal of Multilingualism, 13(1), 40–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners – Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2007). Best practices in teaching comprehension. In L. Gambrell, L. Mandel-Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 220–242). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Onset entropy matters: Letter-to-phoneme mappings in seven languages. Reading and Writing, 181, 211–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadime, I., Rodrigues, B., Santos, S., Viana, F. L., Chaves-Sousa, S., do Céu Cosme, M., & Ribeiro, I. (2017). The role of word recognition, oral reading fluency and listening comprehension in the simple view of reading: a study in an intermediate depth orthography. Reading and Writing, 30(3), 591–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cervetti, G., Hiebert, F., Pearson, P. D., McClung, N. A. (2015). Factors that influence the difficulty of science words. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(2), 153–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Daniels, P. T., & Share, D. L. (2018). Writing system variation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22(1), 101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ercikan, K., and Koh, K. (2005). Examining the construct comparability of the English and French versions of TIMSS, International Journal of Testing, 5 (1), 23–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Pelczar, M., & Shelley, B. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NECS 2011–004). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Florit, E., & Cain, K. (2011). The simple view of reading: Is it valid for different types of alphabetic orthographies?. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 553–576. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frankel, K., Becker, B., Rowe, M., & Pearson, P. D. (2016). From what is reading to what is literacy? Journal of Education 196(3), 7–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frost, R. (2005). Orthographic systems and skilled word recognition processes in reading. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 272–295). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 131, 104–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1293.Google Scholar
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational researcher, 5(10), 3–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6(4), 126–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U., Porpodas, C. D., & Wheelwright, S. (1997). Children’s orthographic representations in English and Greek. Alphabetic Journal of Psychology of Education, 121, 273–292.Google Scholar
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and special education, 7(1), 6–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., & Huang, C. W. (2001). Benefits of opportunity to read and balanced instruction on the NAEP. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 145–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanley, R., Masterson, J., Spencer, L., & Evans, D. (2004). How long do the advantages of learning to read a transparent orthography last? An investigation of the reading skills and reading impairment of Welsh children at 10 years of age. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(8), 1393–1410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and writing, 2(2), 127–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopstock, P., & Pelczar, M. (2011). Technical report and user’s guide for the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA): 2009 data files and database with U.S. specific variables (NCES 2011–025). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Hutzler, F., Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Wimmer, H., & Zorzi, M. (2004). Do current connectionist learning models account for reading development in different languages?. Cognition, 91(3), 273–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joncas, M. (2007). PIRLS 2006 sample design. In M. Martin, I. Mullis, & A. Kennedy (Eds.), PIRLS 2006 technical report (pp. 35–48). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
Joshi, R. M. (2018). Simple view of reading (SVR) in different orthographies: Seeing the forest with the trees. In Reading and Dyslexia (pp. 65–74). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joshi, R. M., Ji, X. R., Breznitz, Z., Amiel, M., & Yulia, A. (2015). Validation of the simple view of reading in Hebrew – A Semitic language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(3), 243–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Landerl, K. (2000). Influences of orthographic consistency and reading instruction on the development of nonword reading skills. Alphabetic Journal of Psychology of Education, 71, 239–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Languages across Europe. (2011). BBC News Online country profile: Belgium. Retrieved from [URL]
Lervåg, A., & Aukrust, V. G. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge is a critical determinant of the difference in reading comprehension growth between first and second language learners. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(5), 612–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, M., Mullis, I., & Kennedy, A. (Eds.). (2007). PIRLS 2006 technical report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J. R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A., … & Muse, A. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mullis, I., Kennedy, A., Martin, M., & Sainsbury, M. (2006). PIRLS 2006 assessment framework and specifications, 2nd edition. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
Niessen, M., Frith, U., Reitsma, P., & Öhngren, B. (2000). Learning disorders as a barrier to human development 1995–1999. Evaluation report. Technical Committee COST Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Harris, L. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 296–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OECD (2012). PISA 2009 Technical Report, PISA, OECD Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Öney, B., & Goldman, S. (1984). Decoding and comprehension skills in Turkish and English: Effects of the regularity of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 761, 557–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J., & de Jong, P. F. (2004). A Cross-Linguistic Comparison of Children Learning to Read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 785–797. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, P. D., & Cervetti, G. N. (2015). Fifty years of reading comprehension theory and practice. In P. D. Pearson & E. H. Hiebert. Research-based practices for teaching Common Core literacy (pp. 1–39). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1998). Quantitative analyses of orthography to phonology mapping in English and French, Available from: <[URL]>
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific studies of reading, 7(1), 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 445–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Porpodas, C. D. (1999). Patterns of phonological and memory processing in beginning readers and spellers of Greek. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 321, 406–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabe-Hesketh, S. & Skrondal, A. (2005). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata (Third Edition). College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Rau, A. K., Moll, K., Snowling, M. J., & Landerl, K. (2015). Effects of orthographic consistency on eye movement behavior: German and English children and adults process the same words differently. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1301, 92–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rau, A. K., Moll, K., Moeller, K., Huber, S., Snowling, M. J., & Landerl, K. (2016). Same same, but different: Word and sentence reading in German and English. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(3), 203–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (2018). From phonemic spelling to distinctive spelling. Written Language & Literacy, 21(1), 3–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmalz, X., Beyersmann, E., Cavalli, E., & Marinus, E. (2016). Unpredictability and complexity of print-to-speech correspondences increase reliance on lexical processes: More evidence for the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 658–672. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., Coltheart, M., & Castles, A. (2015). Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(6), 1614–1629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmalz, X., Robidoux, S., Castles, A., Coltheart, M., & Marinus, E. (2017). German and English bodies: No evidence for cross-linguistic differences in preferred orthographic grain size. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1).Google Scholar
Seymour, P., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in Alphabetic orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 941, 143–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (2011). Reading in different writing systems: One architecture, multiple solutions. In P. McCardle, B. Miller, J. R. Lee, & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), The extraordinary brain series. Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain–gene–behavior link (pp. 146–168). Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological bulletin, 134(4), 584. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2003). Reading acquisition: Cross linguistic data. In T. Nunes, & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. 43–66). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. (2008). Canadian demographics at a glance (Catalogue No. 91-003-X). Retrieved from [URL]
Taha, H., & Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2017). Morphology and spelling in Arabic: Development and interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(1), 27–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorstad, G. (1991). The effect of orthography and the acquisition of literacy skills. British Journal of Psychology, 821, 527–537. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 161, 122–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
UNESCO. (2006). International Standard Classification of Education, ISCED 1997. Paris: UNESCO Institute of Statistics.Google Scholar
van Daal, V. H., & Wass, M. (2017). First-and second-language learnability explained by orthographic depth and orthographic learning: A “natural” Scandinavian experiment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21(1), 46–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Venezky, R. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of American English orthography. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Venezky, R. L. (2004). In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language & Literacy, 7(2), 139–163.Google Scholar
Wu, M. (2005). The role of plausible values in large-scale surveys. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 311, 114–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological bulletin, 131(1), 3–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Becoming literate in different languages: similar problems, different solutions. Developmental science, 9(5), 429–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

ERGİNER, Ergin & Aysun ERGİNER
2023. Cumhuriyet’in 100. yılında dünya ölçeğinde Türk çocuklarının okuma becerileri: PISA ve üzerinde düşünmemiz gerekenler. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 26:49-1 ► pp. 49 ff. DOI logo
Serrau, Vera, Cecilia Gunnarsson-Largy & Pierre Largy
2023. The impact of the cognitive effects of L1 orthographic depth and morphological complexity on L2 French morphographic processing. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 14:1 ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Georgiou, George K., Dalia Martinez, Ana Paula Alves Vieira, Andrea Antoniuk, Sandra Romero & Kan Guo
2022. A meta-analytic review of comprehension deficits in students with dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia 72:2 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Papadopoulos, Timothy C., Valéria Csépe, Mikko Aro, Marketa Caravolas, Irene-Anna Diakidoy & Thierry Olive
2021. Methodological Issues in Literacy Research Across Languages: Evidence From Alphabetic Orthographies. Reading Research Quarterly 56:S1 DOI logo
Reis, Alexandra, Susana Araújo, Inês Salomé Morais & Luís Faísca
2020. Reading and reading-related skills in adults with dyslexia from different orthographic systems: a review and meta-analysis. Annals of Dyslexia 70:3 ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.