көрнекілік

Chapter 2
Comparing L1 and L2 reading
This chapter highlights differences that exist between first-language (L1) and
second-language (L2) reading contexts and readers. In addition, it explores how
those differences might influence classroom instruction. Three major types of
differences form the core of the discussion:
• linguistic and processing differences
• individual and experiential differences
• socio-cultural and institutional differences
One of the more difficult tasks we face as reading teachers is deciding
how to make use of reading research for our own purposes. The research on
reading comprehension in L1 contexts is extensive and complex. Research
studies have looked at children and students ranging from 3-year-olds
to university level. Some studies have explored comprehension by varying
the purposes for reading through a number of different tasks. Others have
emphasised different skills that are usually considered part of reading com-
prehension. For example, some studies focus on reading strategies, others
explore vocabulary development, others examine the role of discourse organ-
isation and text structure, and yet others emphasise word recognition and
reading fluency. Students participating in these studies have come from
a range of social and ethnic backgrounds, with varying motivations and
attitudes toward reading. As one might imagine, this range of emphases
and reader variables makes it hard to generalise from the research literature
to any one specific classroom context.
In L2 contexts, the issues become even more complex. L2 students and
research settings can vary as widely as those described for L1 contexts. In
addition, L2 students have much wider ranges of language proficiencies,
unlike most L1 readers who have considerable tacit grammar knowledge
34
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 34

35COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
by the time they begin to read. Many L2 students have often already had
experiences learning to read in an L1, more or less successfully (though
others may have no L1 literacy experience). Moreover, they come with
linguistic knowledge of their L1, even if most of it is tacit knowledge, and
this knowledge can either support the transfer of reading skills or become
a source of interference. Research efforts in L2 contexts also extend beyond
the array of issues pertinent to L1 studies. For example, they explore
the role of low-level language proficiency on reading, or they explore the
impact of transferat various ability levels, on various processes (e.g. word
recognition, syntactic parsing, strategy use), and with different knowledge
resources (e.g. general background knowledge, specific topical knowledge
and cultural knowledge). Adding more complexity to L2 contexts are
the comparisons between bilingual children and children who learn an
L2 subsequently to their L1.
Aside from the additional complexities for research in L2 contexts, there
are logistical difficulties with carrying out large-scale studies in many L2
settings because many sites for research cannot track L2 students for long
periods of time. Moreover, the follow-up research that commonly occurs
in L1 settings is less frequently done in L2 settings. There are also fewer
L2 reading researchers to carry out such projects. These factors make it
more difficult to assert wide generalisations from research in L2 contexts.
Strong generalisations can only be developed for L2 reading after several
near-replications of a research study across a number of L1 groups, across
L2 proficiency levels and across socio-cultural and institutional learning
contexts.
The differences between L1 and L2 reading contexts, however, go beyond
numbers of studies and limitations of research methodology. L2 reading
must account for issues that are qualitatively different from L1 issues. L2
learners, while learning to read, must broaden their linguistic knowledge
at the same time, deal with transfer effects, and learn to use L2-specific
resources (e.g. translation, glosses, bilingual dictionaries), among many
other factors. If this were not enough, the L2 reader learns to read in the
L2 with a two-language processing system. This is to say, reading in an L2
is supported by a two-language system (L1 and L2 together) rather than
just an L2 system. (The L1 never completely turns off.) All of these factors
suggest that L2 reading can be quite different from L1 reading.
This chapter outlines 14 ways in which L2 reading comprehension
processes and instruction may differ from L1 contexts. We have divided
the 14 differences into three general areas: linguistic and processing
differences, individual and experiential differences, and socio-cultural and
institutional differences. The chapter closes by depicting the L2 reader
as one who engages in multi-language processing whenever he or
she reads.
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 35

36 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
2.1Linguistic and processing differences between
L1 and L2 readers
This section presents six major differences between L1 and L2 readers
involving vocabulary, grammar, discourse, orthography and metalinguistic
and metacognitive issues (see Table 2.1). The linguistic and processing issues
inherent in these differences are actually the most widely studied aspects
of reading development and quite a bit of research can help us understand
these differences and their possible impact on reading comprehension
abilities. These differences highlight issues related to language transfer, an
L2 threshold, differences across various student L1s and the simple fact that
two languages are involved in comprehension processing in L2 settings.
Table 2.1Linguistic and processing differences between L1 and
L2 readers
1. Differing amounts of lexical, grammatical and discourse knowledge at initial
stages of L1 and L2 reading
2. Greater metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness in L2 settings
3. Varying linguistic differences across any two languages
4. Varying L2 proficiencies as a foundation for L2 reading
5. Varying language transfer influences
6. Interacting influence of working with two languages
2.1.1 Differing amounts of lexical, grammatical and discourse
knowledge
As a first difference, most L1 students first learn to read after they have
been learning their L1 orally for 4–5 years. In the US, students typically
begin to read (formally) at the age of 6, in the first grade. By this time,
they have learned most of the basic grammatical structures of their L1 as
tacit knowledge (Finegan, 2008; Tomasello, 2003). Further learning of the
language structures commonly used in written texts continues regularly
through the age of 12, but most of the basic structures are already well
learned. Estimates of the vocabulary knowledge of a 6-year-old vary con-
siderably, but a commonly agreed upon range is 5000 to 7000 words
(Cunningham, 2005). That is, a 6-year-old in the first grade knows about
6000 words when reading instruction begins. These linguistic resources
provide a tremendous boost for young L1 students beginning to learn
to read. It does not take much reflection to recognise how different this
situation is from most L2 contexts (Grabe, 2009).
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 36

37COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
Unlike the L1 student’s initial linguistic resource base, many L2 students
begin to read simple sentences and passages almost at the same time that
they learn the language orally. Other L2 students, primarily in academic
reading courses, are not even expected to increase their oral L2 abilities to
keep up with their reading development. It is true that curricula in certain
L2 contexts (e.g. in elementary-school ESL and bilingual settings in the
US, the UK and Australia) encourage oral use of the L2 before a student
begins to read, but this encouragement is extremely variable and also
controversial as a curricular principle.
In most cases, the vocabulary and grammar knowledge of the beginning
L2 student marks a very different starting point from that of the beginning
L1 reader. One obvious implication of these differences is that having L2
students sound out a word to ‘discover’ its meaning is likely to be less
effective than it is in L1 settings (though not without value in L2 contexts).
Beginning L2 students do not have a mental resource of several thousand
words stored in their heads to be matched with the newly sounded-out
word. Thus, one benefit of developing accurate letter–sound correspon-
dences as a support for reading is lost in most L2 settings; that is, L2
students cannot match a sounded-out word to a word that they know
orally because they do not yet know the word orally.
The lack of tacit L2 grammatical knowledge and discourse know-
ledgealso suggests that L2 students need some foundation of structural
knowledge and text organisation in the L2 for more effective reading
comprehension. How much of a grammar and discourse foundation is
needed is an open question, and one that is likely to vary considerably
depending on the students being taught. Arguments that L2 readers do not
need knowledge of grammar, occasionally voiced in the L2 literature, are
clearly wrong (see Alderson, 2000; Grabe, 2009; Khalifa and Weir, 2009).
Knowledge of discourse organisation may be very important for students
who read L2 texts in more advanced academic settings, and patterns of
discourse organisation may need explicit attention. Sometimes, students
may know most of the vocabulary and understand the main concept(s) of
a text, but they may not follow the specific development of the text, the
new information being presented or the arguments being made. In some
cases, L2 students may not be fully familiar with overall genre expectations
of certain types of texts (e.g. newspaper stories, biographies, abstracts,
reports, memos, editorials). Students recognise that something is not
working the way they expect, but they do not know why.
2.1.2 Greater metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness
in L2 settings
The general need to teach vocabulary, grammar and discourse structure
in L2 settings from the very beginning acts as a support for early reading
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 37

38 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
development and highlights our second L1–L2 difference: L2 readers
often develop a greater awareness of the L2 itself as part of their reading
resources, unlike L1 readers who typically have a more tacit knowledge of
their native language (Koda, 2008). In many L2 contexts (but not all), a good
part of the students’ knowledge of the L2 results from direct instruction
in the classroom, or it comes about indirectly through instructional tasks,
projects and outside reading. In these cases, students develop a greater
metalinguistic awarenessas a resource for reading. With the recent
emphasis on awareness and reflection for language learning in L2 contexts,
more L2 students now discuss, and reflect on, the linguistic resources
(e.g. vocabulary, morphology, grammar and discourse knowledge) that they
use to assist them in comprehension. Unlike the tacit knowledge that is
typical of L1 learners, many older L2 students are thus able to discuss and
reflect on the linguistic resources available to them.
A natural extension of linguistic awareness is a more developed meta-
cognitive awareness of the learning that takes place while reading in
the L2. Many students growing up bilingually or in L2 environments may
approach L2 reading with many of the tacit resources of the L1 student;
yet, a large percentage of L2 students approach L2 reading with quite
different linguistic and learning backgrounds, beginning with minimal
L2 knowledge. In many L2 academic settings and foreign language set-
tings, L2 students only begin to read in their L2 after they have been
learning literacy skills and content knowledge for several years in their
Quote 2.1
Knowledge of structure is clearly important in efficient and strategic process-
ing of text.
Goldman and Rakestraw (2000, p. 323)
Knowledge about text genre is an important factor in reading comprehension.
. . . Readers unaware of [text] structure will likely not have a plan of action for
a particular text and may gain information from that text in a random manner,
whereas those who are aware of the way a text is structured are better able
to organize information as they read.
McCardle, Chhabra and Kapinus (2008, pp. 145–6)
Any sort of systematic attention to clues that reveal how authors attempt
to relate ideas to one another or any sort of systematic attempt to impose
structure upon a text, especially in some sort of visual representation of the
relationships among key ideas, facilitates comprehension as well as both
short term and long term memory of the text.
Pearson and Fielding (1991, p. 832)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 38

39COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
L1s. As a result, they develop a greater awareness of (a) how they have
learned to read because of their instructed L2 learning efforts, (b) what
learning strategies can work for them and (c) how language knowledge
can support literacy development. L2 students can more easily bring their
metalinguistic knowledge(see Concept 2.1) to a conscious level to
provide strategic support or understand comprehension failure (and in the
process, become more strategic readers). For example, while we do not
believe that all L1 reading strategies transfer automatically to L2 reading
contexts, it is still far easier to raise learner awareness of, and practice with,
strategies that have been productive for them in L1 situations than would
be the case with strategies that have never been used before by learners.
Quote 2.2
Recently, much attention has been devoted to a particular kind of meta-
linguistic ability, phonemic awareness (i.e. the ability to reflect on and
manipulate phonemes, the individual units of sound out of which spoken
words are constructed). However, other types of metalinguistic awareness,
such as morphological awareness and syntactic awareness, are also believed
to play an important role in reading.
Nagy and Scott (2000, p. 274)
Quote 2.4
Roeschl-Heils et al.(2003) examined interrelations among metacognition,
motivation, and comprehension among seventh- and eighth-grade students.
...A regression analysis showed that metacognitive knowledgeacounted
for more than 25% of the variance in reading comprehension, with reading
self concept (motivation) adding an additional 5%.
Baker (2008, pp. 37–8)
Quote 2.3
Greater involvement of [metalinguistic analysis and control processes] makes
tasks more difficult, and this difficulty results in behavior appearing to be
increasingly metalinguistic. However, no specific boundary in the development
of either process signals a category shift into metalinguistic performance; it is
a gradual transition into a continuously evolving domain.
Bialystok (2001, p. 177)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 39

40 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
2.1.3 Varying linguistic differences across any two languages
Linguistic differences across any two languages are likely to vary consider-
ably, and these differences may influence L2 reading comprehension variably
when students come from different L1s and are in the same L2 classroom.
For example, students whose L1 is a Romance language (e.g. Spanish,
French, Italian, Portuguese) tend to pay greater attention to the ends of
words because there is much more grammatical information in the suffixes
of their L1s than in English. As another example, words in languages
such as Hebrew and Arabic, which have greater morphological complexity
with embedded grammatical information, are read more slowly than words
in a language such as English (Geva, 2008). Another illustrative example
involves Czech-speaking children who demonstrated greater awareness
of consonant clusters and complex consonants than did English-speaking
children (Caravolas and Bruck, 1993). Another difference, which has been
supported in multiple studies, reveals that readers of Chinese and Japanese
make greater use of visual processing than do readers of English because
of their L1 orthography(Hanley, Tzeng and Huang, 1999; Koda, 2005).
There is also evidence that these differences lead to variation in reading
rates and fluency in word processing, though these specific issues need much
more research before any implications might be suggested for instruction
(Koda, 2005, 2008).
Two further differences across L1s with more general implications
for L2 reading include orthographic differences and the extent of shared
vocabulary or cognates. With regard to orthographic differences across
Concept 2.1Metalinguistic and metacognitive knowledge
Metalinguistic knowledge: Our knowledge of how language works. Meta-
linguistic knowledge includes knowledge of letters and sounds and how they
relate, knowledge of words and word parts, knowledge of sentences and
their parts, and knowledge of texts and genres and how they are organised.
Metacognitive knowledge: Our knowledge of what we know. Simply put,
this knowledge permits us to reflect on our planning, goal setting, process-
ing of tasks, monitoring of progress, recognition of problems and repair of
problems. Metacognitive knowledge represents a basic way to understand
learning strategies and, especially, our explicit and conscious use of reading
strategies.
In both cases, our knowledge includes not only what we know (declarative
knowledge) but also how we use this knowledge (procedural and conditional
knowledge). In both cases, it is not straightforward to assert a separation
between linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge, or between cognitive know-
ledge and metacognitive knowledge (see Quotes 2.3 and 2.4).
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 40

41COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
languages, differing orthographies are more or less transparent with respect
to letter–sound relationships (sometimes referred to as the Orthographic
Depth Hypothesis, see Concept 2.2). That is, depending on the trans-
parency of the orthography, a reader looking at a word will be able to
sound out the word’s (or activate the word’s sounds in working memory)
more or less easily. Some languages are seen as completely transparent
(e.g. Serbo-Croatian, Finnish, Turkish); others are quite transparent (e.g.
Greek, Italian, Spanish), and some a bit less so (e.g. German, Swedish);
some are relatively more opaque (e.g. French, Danish), and some very
opaque for an alphabetic language (e.g. English). Consonantal alphabetic
languages are yet more opaque (e.g. unpointed Hebrew and Arabic), and
some are very opaque (e.g. Japanese and Chinese are not alphabetic scripts)
(Frost, 2005; Perfetti and Dunlap, 2008). The key issues here revolve
around what happens when a reader with a transparent L1 begins to
read in a less transparent L2, or, what happens when a reader with a less
transparent L1 begins to read in a transparent L2. In both cases, if both
languages are fully alphabetic, there should be positive transfer to the
L2 (Geva and Siegel, 2000; Harris and Hatano, 1999a). In effect, as soon
as a reader understands the concept of letter–sound correspondences
in an L1, this ability seems to transfer to reading in another alphabetic
language (Bialystok, 2002).
At present, while recognising the many other factors that influence
reading, the research suggests that readers process words differently in
transparent and opaque orthographies. In general, L2 students tend to
draw on L1 processing skills when they try to read the L2, although the
tendency influences beginning L2 reading more than advanced L2 reading.
Quote 2.5
The heavy processing demands associated with morphemic [complexity] play
a role even in the text-reading speed of highly literate bilingual Hebrew–
English adults. . . . It is not only lack of L2 linguistic proficiency that slows down
text reading for L2 beginners, but also the high morphemic density associated
with inflected languages such as Hebrew.
Geva, Wade-Woolley and Shany (1997, p. 140)
L1 processing experience has a lasting effect on the formation of L2
morphological awareness, thus accounting in part for performance variations
in L2 lexical processing among ESL learners from typologically diverse L1
backgrounds.
Koda (2000, p. 315)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 41

42 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
For example, in beginning L2 adult reading, students must adapt from a
lifetime of efficient word recognition processing in the L1 to accommodate
word recognition processes in the L2. Increasing evidence suggests that
the orthography of a student’s L1 will influence L2 reading development
even among advanced L2 readers (Koda, 2005, 2008). Understanding
more about a student’s L1 literacy skills and orthography may help explain
possible L2 difficulties in word recognition, fluency and reading rate
(Koda, 2008).
The final issue involving differences across L1s, and differences across
any two languages (L1s and L2s), relates to the role of cognates. The
development of L1 reading does not involve the use of cognates as support
for reading comprehension. In L2 contexts, however, cognates may play
a large role in supporting reading comprehension, depending on the
particular L1 and L2. For example, for interesting historical reasons,
French and English share thousands of cognates, and they are particu-
larly useful at more advanced levels of reading. By extension, Spanish,
Portuguese and Italian all share thousands of useful cognates with English.
In cases where a student has a Romance language as an L1, and is learning
Concept 2.2Orthographic Depth Hypothesis
The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (ODH) asserts that a continuum of
orthographic transparency. . . influences the strategies adopted by readers.
The more shallow or transparent the orthography – that is, the more reli-
able the correspondence between graphemes and speech segments – the
more the reader uses a print-to-sound decoding strategy. The deeper or
less transparent the orthography, the more the reader uses a direct look-up
of the word, without grapheme-speech decoding.
Perfetti and Dunlap (2008, p. 18)
Quote 2.6
Italian children. . . learn to read very rapidly, and, only six months after the
start of formal reading instruction, they are highly accurate at reading both
words and non-words.. . . German. . . although less transparent than Italian,
has very consistent grapheme–phoneme correspondences.. . . The demands
placed on working memory in successfully applying grapheme–phoneme
correspondences to reading are much lower for a regular orthography than
an irregular orthography like English.
Harris and Hatano (1999a, pp. 2–3)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 42

43COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
to read in English, cognates represent a significant resource if we help
students to recognise and use them (Nagy, Garcia, Durguno˘glu and Hancin-
Bhatt, 1993). When students come from an L1 such as Chinese, there are
very few cognates to assist them in L2 reading development.
2.1.4 Varying L2 proficiencies as a foundation for L2 reading
L2 proficiency plays a large role as a foundation for L2 reading (often
discussed in the context of the Language Threshold Hypothesis). The Lan-
guage ThresholdHypothesis argues that students must have a sufficient
amount of L2 knowledge (i.e. vocabulary, grammar and discourse) to make
effective use of skills and strategies that are part of their L1 reading com-
prehension abilities (Clarke, 1980). The fundamental issue for L2 reading
centres on the relative importance of L2 knowledge versus L1 reading
abilities. The Language Threshold Hypothesis, as proposed by researchers,
states that language knowledge is more important than L1 reading abili-
ties up to some point at which the learner has enough L2 knowledge to
read reasonably fluently. Although there are a number of qualifications,
this hypothesis has been strongly supported by recent L2 reading research.
A number of studies have demonstrated the greater importance of L2
linguistic knowledge (than L1 reading knowledge) for students in varying
contexts (Pichette, Segalowitz and Connors, 2003; Yamashita, 2002; see
Bernhardt, 2011; Grabe, 2009).
Concept 2.3Language Threshold
Language Threshold: This hypothesis states that L2 readers need to have
enough L2 knowledge (vocabulary and structure) so that L1 reading strate-
gies and skills can be used efficiently to help comprehend the L2 text. If
readers are devoting most of their cognitive resources to figuring out the
language of the L2 text, there are few cognitive resources left over for the
fluent comprehension processes that would normally support the L1 reader.
Readers usually cross the threshold whenever they encounter L2 texts in
which they know almost all of the words and can process the text fluently.
Because L2 readers are all different in their L2 knowledge, topic knowledge
and L2 reading experiences, there is no one level of general language
proficiency that counts as the threshold for all readers or for all texts. The
threshold will vary depending on the reader, the text difficulty, the topic,
and, in some cases, the task.
Critics of this hypothesis have argued that there is no single set of
linguistic knowledge that can be defined as presenting the necessary
foundation (or the threshold). However, this objection does not represent
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 43

44 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
a strong criticism because reading success varies with a number of factors.
A given text may be too difficult to read because of its linguistic demands,
but it also might be too hard to read fluently because of a new topic, poor
organisation or insufficient time to read. The idea behind the linguistic
threshold is not that there is a fixed set of language knowledge that stu-
dents need. Rather, a variable amount of linguistic knowledge, combined
with fluency of processing, is needed to read a specific text, on a specific
topic, for a specific task. Students can be said to pass above the threshold
(perhaps only temporarily for one specific text) when they have enough
linguistic knowledge to read the text without great vocabulary and gram-
matical difficulty. As students are able to read more and more texts fluently,
one can say that they are moving beyond the linguistic threshold, yet any
new and difficult text might throw them back to a level of less fluent and
hence inefficient reading.
One major consequence of passing through the linguistic threshold is
that students free up cognitive resources, which were previously used to
figure out language structures and vocabulary, to read more strategically
and transfer L1 strategic reading practices to the L2 setting. This hypo-
thesis provides a strong argument for giving students a lot of exposure to
reading, focusing both on fluency and on texts that are not too difficult.
Quote 2.7
Despite the common-sense assumptions of the importance of language
knowledge, the belief has existed for some time that if students cannot read
well in their first language, they will be unable to read well in the second/
foreign language. . . .
The clear conclusion of [L1 reading versus L2 language knowledge] studies
is that second-language knowledge is more important than first-language
reading abilities, and that a linguistic threshold exists which must be crossed
before first-language reading ability can transfer to the second-language read-
ing context. However, it is clear that this linguistic threshold is not absolute
but must vary by task: the more demanding the task, the higher the linguistic
threshold.
Alderson (2000, pp. 38–9)
In all studies, L2 variables were found to have a stronger impact, overriding
the variance attributable to L1 experience. Thus, although L2 print information
processing is guided by insights stemming from literacy experiences in the
two languages, L2 print input appears to be the dominant force in shaping
reading subskills in that language.
Koda (2007, p. 29)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 44

45COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
2.1.5 Varying language transfer influences
A natural extension of the Language Threshold Hypothesis is the larger
issue of transfer, a uniquely L2 topic. An initial issue in discussing transfer,
and one that is sometimes downplayed, is that transfer of L1 knowledge
to L2 reading may support comprehension but it may also interfere with
comprehension. A second major issue for transfer involves transfer of basic
reading purposes (see Chapter 1) and (meta)cognitive knowledge, the latter
including strategies, inferences, motivation, attitudes and background
knowledge resources.
Transfer as interference is typically assumed to influence beginning and
intermediate levels of L2 reading. When L2 students are asked to read
material that is difficult for them, they rely on any resources available to
try to make sense of the text (refer to the discussion of the situation model
in Chapter 1). At beginning L2 levels, students’ strongest resources are
their L1 language abilities, their L1 reading abilities and their knowledge
of the world. At times, these resources provide enough support to carry
out certain comprehension tasks; at other times, these same resources mis-
lead students or slow L2 processing routines. In this latter situation, it is
important to recognise that such interference is both natural and strategic
on the part of students (and L1 resources are always active to some extent
for the L2 reader). The instructional goal at lower levels is for students to
develop enough vocabulary, reading practice and processing fluency in the
L2 so that they rely less on L1 resources that might interfere. Of course,
one of the best ways to move beyond heavy L1 interference in L2 reading
is to be sure that students are not always reading texts that are too difficult
for them; students should be given sufficient opportunities to read texts
that are easy to read and enjoyable.
Concept 2.4Transfer in L2 reading
Transferrefers to the idea that L2 readers will use their L1 knowledge
and experiences to help them carry out L2 tasks. In the case of reading,
transfer applies to a variety of language knowledge bases and cognitive
abilities. Transfer can occur, for example, with phonological knowledge, mor-
phological knowledge, topical knowledge, general background knowledge,
problem-solving strategies and inferencing skills. We also tend to transfer
our prior experiences to tasks of various sorts, including academic tasks that
involve reading L2 texts. Sometimes transfer supports reading tasks; but
sometimes it interferes with successful task completion. Transfer is also dis-
cussed more generally, in Educational Psychology, in terms of transfer of
learning. Transfer in this broader context is usually seen as problematic in
that skill learning in one context is difficult to transfer immediately to new
contexts and situations (see Quotes 2.8 and 2.9).
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 45

46 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
A different aspect of interference is likely to persist for much longer
periods and may require consistent and direct teacher intervention, even
at advanced reading levels. Students may not be aware of the varying
purposes for reading called upon in L2 settings, particularly in academic
settings. They may still be making assumptions about the uses of reading
that are appropriate to their L1 experiences but not as appropriate for
some L2 reading purposes. These assumptions may also be influenced by
different motivations for reading and different attitudes toward reading.
To minimise these types of interference, it is important to explore goals
for L2 reading, appropriate strategies for completing L2 reading tasks and
inferences that connect background knowledge to text information.
Positive transfer effects, on the other hand, represent valuable resources
for L2 reading development. In the right circumstances, many aspects of
Quote 2.9
One way of defining transfer is automatic activation of well-established L1
competencies. . . triggered by L2 input. Thus, transfer transpires regardless of
learners’ intent. . . and its occurrence cannot be easily controlled. . . Several
assumptions underlie this view of transfer. First, for transfer to occur, the com-
petencies in question must be well rehearsed – to the point of automaticity
– in a L1. Second, transfer is not likely to cease at any given point in time
during L2 development. Third, the transferred competencies will continue to
mature through experience with L2 print input. . . .
L2 reading subskills emerge through crosslinguistic interactions between
transferred L1 competencies and L2 print input; the emerging subskills are
gradually adjusted to the salient properties of the L2 input.
Koda (2007, pp. 17–18)
Quote 2.8
The literature on transfer tends to be pessimistic. [L.] Mikulecky (1990) claims
that a major misconception in literacy studies is that ‘mastering literacy in one
context substantially transfers to other contexts’, and adds ‘Transfer of literacy
abilities is severely limited by differences in format, social support networks,
and required background information as one moves from context to context’
(p. 25).
Urquhart and Weir (1998, p. 3)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 46

47COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
L1 reading abilities support L2 comprehension, though this transfer typic-
ally assumes well-developed literacy abilities in the student’s L1. Examples
of positive transfer effects include the following: effective strategies for
reading academic texts, appropriate purposes for reading, experiences with
successful task completion, flexibility in monitoring comprehension and
skills for analysing and learning new words. Positive transfer effects pro-
vide a means for accelerated development of L2 reading abilities when
they are assisted by instruction and teacher guidance.
A very popular notion in language teaching is that skills transfer is
uniformly good and an easily accessible resource for L2 students. Very
little evidence actually exists for these views, and there is now much evi-
dence that such perspectives are simplistic and, at times, counterproductive
(Baddeley, Eysenck and Anderson, 2009; Schunk, 2000). Aside from
numerous studies documenting interference from L1 resources, there
is growing evidence – from Language Threshold research and strategy
research – that skills transfer is not uniformly automatic. One important
consequence is the need to explore which L1 skills and strategies might be
more, or less, automatically transferred, which might be positive supports
for L2 reading development and how positive skills and strategies might
be reinforced through direct instruction in, for example, word recogni-
tion skills, vocabulary-learning strategies, cognate use and comprehension
strategies.
2.1.6 Interacting influence of working with two languages
Closely related to transfer discussions is the very fact that two languages
are involved in L2 comprehension processes. The inevitable interplay
between two languages in L2 reading influences word recognition, read-
ing rate, the organisation of the lexicon, the speed of syntactic processing,
strategies for comprehension, experiences in task performance, expectations
of success and failure, motivations for reading and a number of other
possible points of interaction (Cook and Bassetti, 2005; Koda, 2007, 2008;
Scott and de la Fuente, 2008). This interplay is seldom discussed, perhaps
because there is relatively little research that focuses specifically on this
point. However, this issue may become more important as more research is
reported on cognitive processing in bilingual individuals and as research in
discourse comprehension increases in the field of psychology. Instructional
implications drawn from this perspective suggest greater use of the L1 in
L2 classrooms, particularly when students work together on more complex
comprehension tasks. The issue of two languages working at the same time
also reveals a range of non-linguistic factors that distinguish L1 and L2
reading comprehension. These factors are discussed in the next section of
the chapter.
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 47

48 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
2.2Individual and experiential differences
between L1 and L2 readers
In addition to the six linguistic and processing differences noted above,
further distinctions exist between L1 and L2 reading. A number of these
differences centre around other resources and experiences that influence
L2 reading comprehension, including students’ proficiency levels in L1
literacy skills, their prior L2 reading experiences, their differing personal
experiences with and motivations for L1 and L2 reading, their attitudes
toward authentic texts and their training in the use of various supporting
resources (see Table 2.2). Each of these differences will be discussed, in
turn, in the following sections.
2.2.1 Differing levels of L1 reading abilities
An important L1–L2 difference is that L2 readers are influenced by their
levels of L1 reading abilities. In one respect, this point could have been
Quote 2.10
Crosslinguistic interaction has attracted little attention among L2 reading
researchers. Apparently, the lack of crosslinguistic focus is attributable, in
part, to L2 researchers’ heavy reliance on L1 theories without due regard for
a significant difference: L2 processing, unlike L1 reading, involves more than
one language. . . . There has been little systematic exploration of the ways
in which the interchange among linguistic systems affects L2 processing
performance.
Muljani, Koda and Moates (1998, p. 100)
Table 2.2Individual and experiential differences between L1 and
L2 readers
1. Differing levels of L1 reading abilities
2. Differing motivations for reading in the L2
3. Differing amounts of exposure to L2 reading
4. Differing kinds of texts in L2 contexts
5. Differing language resources for L2 readers
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 48

49COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
made in earlier discussions of transfer; students who have limited L1
literacyabilities cannot be expected to transfer many supporting resources
to their developing L2 reading. The types of abilities that students use
in their L1 reading represent the upper limit of what can be expected
for linguistic transfer, strategic practices, problem-solving abilities, task-
completion skills and metacognitive awareness of reading processes; these
are all skills and resources that can influence L2 reading, but only if they
are already developed as L1 reading abilities. All too often, teachers and
researchers do not examine the L1 reading skills of their students. Without
such knowledge, we are more limited in deciding what skills and strategies
to focus on and promote for transfer.
2.2.2 Differing motivations for reading in the L2
When comparing L1 and L2 reading contexts, it is likely that we will find
different individual motivations for reading, as well as differing senses of
self-esteem, interest, involvement with reading and emotional responses
to reading. As students progress through different levels of education, and
as academic-task demands increase, L2 students tend to have differing (and
perhaps more conflicting) combinations of motivations for reading L2 texts.
Some of these differences in motivation are based on varying academic
goals, socialisation practices from home and community, prior educational
instruction or broad cultural frameworks for literacy uses. These possible
differences should be explored in classroom settings (e.g. through discus-
sions, student-interest surveys, simple surveys of parents and community
members, parent–teacher conferences and family literacy projects). This
information may help us understand student strengths and weaknesses
beyond any language assessment measure and may lead to more effective
instruction (see Dörnyei and Ushida, 2010; Rueda, Velasco and Lim, 2008).
Aside from specific motivations for reading and task performance, stu-
dents bring with them varying underlying attitudes toward L2 reading,
which are often linked to perspectives on past educational experiences in
both L1 and L2 contexts and to socio-political differences between L1 and
L2 societies. These experiences shape perceptions of how well L2 readers
can perform tasks, and lead to student self-perceptions of how successful
they are as students (and readers). These perceptions, in turn, influence
students’ self-esteem, emotional responses to reading, interest in reading
and willingness to persist. No one disputes the fact that students’ self-
perceptions, emotional attitudes toward reading, interest in specific topics,
and willingness to read texts and learn from them are important issues for
the classroom learning environment. Unfortunately, these issues are often
ignored in discussions of reading comprehension instruction, but in L1
reading research they are now seen as important predictors of academic
success (Guthrie, 2008; Guthrie, Wigfield and Perencevich, 2004; Schunk
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 49

50 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
and Zimmerman, 2006). L2 teachers are not likely to be given much guid-
ance on these issues (cf. Grabe, 2009), so reading motivation and its
various manifestations represent an important topic for teacher research
and classroom exploration (see model action research projects 7.3.1, 7.3.2,
7.3.3 in Chapter 7).
2.2.3 Differing amounts of exposure to L2 reading
A major difference for L2 reading, and one that strongly influences the
linguistic knowledge differences mentioned in 2.1, is the total amount of
exposure to L2 reading and to L2 print that a student experiences. In many
cases, the extent of reading practice in the L2 will mark the typical L2
reader as different from the L1 reader. As we emphasised in Chapter 1, the
development of fluency and automaticity in word and syntactic processing
is an essential foundation for reading. Most L2 readers are simply not
exposed to enough L2 print (through reading) to build fluent L2 process-
ing (Koda, 2005; Lundberg, 1999). Nor do they have enough exposure
to build a large recognition vocabulary. These differences between L1
and L2 reading situations are significant because L1 readers spend years
building up the amount of exposure to print needed to develop fluency
and automaticity. The extent of students’ exposure to L2 print is an issue
that we can (and should) explore with our students to understand better
just how much L2 reading practice students have had, and what types of
reading practice and L2 texts they have been exposed to.
2.2.4 Differing kinds of texts in L2 contexts
The experiences that individual students have with differing kinds of texts
in L1 and L2 contexts are additional potential sources of reading compre-
hension differences. Because L1 and L2 readers are likely to have different
experiences with various text genres, they develop diverse approaches to
the range of texts that they encounter. In many L2 contexts, students
read quite simple texts, yet in other L2 contexts, students read texts
far more difficult than they should be encountering. In the cases of the
simpler texts (as in certain L2 reading textbooks and graded readers),
these reading experiences may not match the reading experiences of L1
readers at comparable cognitive-ability levels. In settings where L2 stu-
dents are asked to read difficult, often authentic, texts, reading experiences
at first glance appear to be similar to L1 students, but closer examination
reveals that the texts are often much shorter in length, a recognition on
the part of materials developers of the difficulties students are likely to
have with authentic texts. L2 students, over a period of time, are also
less likely to be exposed to the full range of text genres that are commonly
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 50

51COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
read by L1 students, partly because a number of these genres are read
outside of class or even outside of educational task requirements. It is
not obvious what impact these differences have on L2 students, except
that the range of texts that they could be reading is generally restricted
(and new vocabulary exposure may be more limited as a result; cf. Gardner,
2004).
2.2.5 Differing language resources for L2 readers
Important L1–L2 differences centre on the use of bilingual dictionaries,
glosses, translation and cultural background resources in L2 contexts, but
not in L1 contexts. Bilingual dictionaries are, by definition, unique to L2
reading. L2 students often use learner dictionaries that carefully attend
to the ways in which words are defined. Neither of these resources is
typical of L1 literacy learning. L2 students often read materials with
glosses for more difficult terms. It is true that glosses are also found in L1
textbooks (e.g. in science-learning textbooks that often require extensive
technical vocabulary development), but they most often assist readers
with unusual vocabulary, technical terms or archaic words. In L2 contexts,
glosses commonly provide synonyms for vocabulary that is above learners’
levels but well within the range of vocabulary knowledge expected of L1
readers. In addition, L2 students commonly write out translations of texts
and do their own mental translations as ways to assist comprehension
(Kern, 1994). Such translation resources are unique to L2 settings. Finally,
L2 students can reference their own specific L1 cultural knowledge and
text resources for L2 reading tasks (e.g. proverbs, special and sacred texts,
and cultural narratives). How these resources influence L2 reading com-
prehension for different groups of readers is not well known, but they
indicate a clear difference between L1 and L2 readers, and they should be
investigated in the classroom for insights that a teacher might gain (see
Hartmann, 2001; Scott and de la Fuente, 2008).
Pointing out unique and distinct resources for L2 students is only part
of the issue. We need to evaluate the effectiveness of these resources, and
students need to be taught to use these resources efficiently. For example,
effective teachers do not take an absolute stand on bilingual dictionary
use because students are likely to use bilingual dictionaries no matter
what is said. Rather, the issue becomes which bilingual dictionaries to use,
when to use them and how to use them effectively. If we ‘ban’ bilingual
dictionaries, we only guarantee that students will not receive the guidance
needed to use them efficiently – because we can be sure that students
will use them on their own. (See model action research projects 7.1.1,
on the use of dictionaries, and 7.1.2, on the effectiveness of glosses, in
Chapter 7.)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 51

52 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
2.3Socio-cultural and institutional differences
influencing L1 and L2 reading development
Aside from specific individual differences, linguistic and otherwise, a
number of larger cultural and social issues operate outside of the specific
classroom context (see Table 2.3). Reading development and reading
instruction are strongly influenced by parental and community attitudes
toward reading and uses of literacy. This is true for both L1 and L2 con-
texts, but, as will become apparent in the sections that follow, these factors
do not always operate in the same way, either between L1 and L2 contexts,
or across various L2 contexts.
2.3.1 Differing socio-cultural backgrounds of L2 readers
A key difference between L1 and L2 reading settings, but one often over-
looked, relates to the L1 socialisation to literacy practices that L2 students
bring from their L1 cultural backgrounds. In some cultures, literacy is
relatively uncommon, and written communication often involves scribes
and letter writers. Other cultures use literacy extensively, but emphasise
certain uses over others, often placing greater value on sacred texts or other
highly valued traditional texts. Yet other societies use literacy extensively,
despite the fact that individual limitations in literacy skills are common
and socially accepted. Finally, societies like the US, the UK and Australia
socialise citizens to believe that everyone should be literate. In such set-
tings, the literacy environment is intense and pervasive (i.e. signage, labels
and texts of all types are found everywhere).
In each cultural context, assumptions about how to use text resources,
including technology resources, also tend to differ (Garton and Pratt,
2009; Wagner, 2009). Some social groups see texts as unchanging; others
consider texts as serving utilitarian purposes but not to be highly valued;
others view texts as sources of truth to be studied; yet others value texts
as alternative interpretations of realities and facts that can be disputed.
Table 2.3Socio-cultural and institutional differences influencing
L1 and L2 reading development
1. Differing socio-cultural backgrounds of L2 readers
2. Differing ways of organising discourse and texts
3. Differing expectations of L2 educational institutions
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 52

53COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
In each setting, individuals are socialised in their L1 education to engage
with texts in specified ways (Haeri, 2009; Lundberg, 1999). L2 readers
moving from one orientation to another are likely to encounter some
difficulties in reading texts for purposes that do not complement cultural
assumptions; these students may need teacher assistance in making these
shifts. In almost all cases, L2 students will have some difficulties fram-
ing assumptions presented in L2 texts when these texts make use of
cultural assumptions that the L2 students do not share. These mismatches
in assumptions may cause serious problems especially when L2 students
read literary and contemporary-culture texts.
2.3.2 Differing ways of organising discourse and texts
Another major distinction between L1 and L2 reading contexts is the
differing cultural and social preferences given to particular ways of organ-
ising discourse and texts. In literate societies around the world, people
develop preferred ways of organising information in written texts (and
also in oral texts for that matter). For example, people make arguments in
writing by presenting observational and numerical evidence, by emphas-
ising a culturally accepted logic, by pointing to a persuasive example or
by referring to traditional wisdom or religious doctrines. Certain socio-
cultural preferences for making an argument or taking a position then tend
to become conventionalised in writing so that the structures and organ-
isational plans for writing tend to reflect an expected way to write an
argument. Thus, purposes for writing, beliefs about the preferred way to
make an argument and the ways in which information is used in writing
all influence how texts may be organised and how linguistic resources
are employed. The study of this phenomenon is sometimes referred to
as contrastive rhetoric or intercultural rhetoric (Connor, Nagelhout and
Rozycki, 2008; Hudson, 2007; Kaplan, 2005). The essential point for the
purposes of reading is that L2 text resources may not always be organised
in ways that match students’ L1 reading experiences.
Quote 2.11
What it means to be literate, how this literacy is valued, used and displayed,
will vary from culture to culture. Some cultures have enormous respect for the
printed word, such that it is implicitly accepted as authority, and cannot be
questioned. Others fear the implications of putting any opinions in print, since
the greater permanence accorded to opinions thereby makes the owner of
the opinion more ‘accountable’.
Alderson (2000, p. 25)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 53

54 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
Additional factors related to text organisation that may influence L2
reading comprehension include differences in (a) the ways in which texts
express interpersonal relations with the reader (e.g. the use of ‘I’ and ‘you’
as pronouns), (b) expectations about the amount of new information
that is embedded in a text (e.g. the use of many nominalisations), and
(c) assumptions about how explicitly reader interpretation should be
guided (e.g. with supporting details, descriptions and explanations). These
issues suggest the benefits of exploring the discourse organisation of texts
as part of instruction and raising student awareness of the ways in which
information is presented (or not presented), all the while being cautious
with certain over-generalised claims about discourse differences across
languages. (See model action research projects 8.2.1, focusing on the use
of graphic organisers, and 8.2.3, focusing on the identification of signal
words indicating sequence and contrast, in Chapter 8.)
2.3.3 Differing expectations of L2 educational institutions
Our last distinction between L1 and L2 reading is shaped by the different
attitudes, resources and expectations of L1 and L2 educational structures.
L2 students are shaped in their assumptions and their performances by
their previous L1 institutional experiences (with, for example, national
exams,national curricula, teacher behaviour, classroom management,
teacher inspectors and district and regional mandates), which could be
in sharp contrast with the L2 institutional settings in which they find
themselves (Hanley, Tzeng and Huang, 1999; Leki, 1992; Lundberg, 1999).
Additional differences include amounts of funding for teacher training,
levels of teacher experience, allocations of money to educational resources,
level of support for educational infrastructure, teacher–student relation-
ships and class sizes. Of course, these differences can be found within
L1 contexts, with ethnic minority groups often experiencing lower levels
of institutional support. However, these differences may be magnified
considerably with L2 students from many different socio-cultural and lan-
guage backgrounds, and these differences can lead to reading difficulties
that might otherwise be unexpected (Fairbanks, Cooper, Masterson and
Webb, 2009; Rueda, Velasco and Lim, 2008).
In line with this issue are the differences that stem from group social-
isation to the usefulness (or non-usefulness) of institutional structures
generally and, on many occasions, the potential oppressiveness of these
institutional structures more specifically. In L1 contexts, ethnic minorities
often see school institutions as representing interests at odds with their
own, and they tend to develop resistant attitudes toward educational
efforts (Ogbu and Simmons, 1998). In L2 contexts, students may bring
strong attitudes from the L1 to the L2, with little room to accept the L2
as a relatively utilitarian tool for further learning. At the same time, many
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 54

55COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
L2 students do adopt a strongly utilitarian attitude toward the L2, an
attitude that may be quite different from their attitudes toward their L1s.
A utilitarian attitude may, in turn, limit students’ willingness to engage in
a long-term consistent effort to learn to read fluently.
2.4Conclusion
The many differences that exist between L1 and L2 reading contexts point
out the complexities of L2 reading comprehension (see Table 2.4 for a
summary of differences). Not only are L2 students and student groups as
diverse as L1 student groups, but they are involved in learning goals that
are even more complicated than those in most L1 literacy environments.
Many of the assumptions associated with L1 reading instruction should be
rethought and modified in light of these differences. On the basis of this
chapter, it should also be apparent that there is no straightforward blueprint
for how a teacher should adapt instruction for all L2 contexts. It is also
clear that no one-size-fits-all approach or set of procedures can be offered.
Table 2.4Differences between L1 and L2 reading
Linguistic and processing differences
1. Differing amounts of lexical, grammatical and discourse knowledge at initial
stages of L1 and L2 reading
2. Greater metalinguistic and metacognitive awareness in L2 settings
3. Varying linguistic differences across any two languages
4. Varying L2 proficiencies as a foundation for L2 reading
5. Varying language transfer influences
6. Interacting influence of working with two languages
Individual and experiential differences
7. Differing levels of L1 reading abilities
8. Differing motivations for reading in the L2
9. Differing amounts of exposure to L2 reading
10. Differing kinds of texts in L2 contexts
11. Differing language resources for L2 readers
Socio-cultural and institutional differences
12. Differing socio-cultural backgrounds of L2 readers
13. Differing ways of organising discourse and texts
14. Differing expectations of L2 educational institutions
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 55

56 TEACHING AND RESEARCHING READING
If there is one lesson that has emerged strongly in the past decade of
research on L2 reading, it is that the L2 reader is not simply a reader in
contrast with the L1 reader. Instead, current L2 research suggests that the
L2 reader is one who incorporates both L1 and L2 language and literacy
knowledge. Such a perspective opens up more careful explorations of L2
reading processes, the role of L1 transfer, the development and use of the
bilingual lexicon, and the strengthening impact of L2 input knowledge
as the L2 reader develops. This view is captured well in Quote 2.12 by
Keiko Koda.
Quote 2.12
Dual-language involvement is the foremost attribute highlighting the unique
characteristic of second-language reading. A clearer understanding of how
literacy experiences in two languages interact and coalesce in the formation
of second-language reading skills should take primacy in second language
reading research.
Koda (2008, p. 90)
Becoming informed about the many possible differences between L1 and
L2 students can assist all of us in (a) interpreting reading research and the
many assertions made about effective reading instruction, (b) recognising
the particular demands of L2 reading and (c) investigating pertinent
concerns in our own classrooms. At the same time, we cannot wait for
sweeping assertions from research, nor should we be swayed by claims of
‘perfect’ classroom solutions. Rather we should use our own classrooms,
and our own students, as a forum for meaningful classroom-based research.
Real classroom environments often provide the best context for exploring
L2 learning issues important for effective learning. The differences show-
cased in this chapter represent useful starting points for meaningful and
purposeful teacher-initiated enquiry, as shall be illustrated in Section IV
of this volume.
But before considering how teachers can engage in their own action
research, we would first like to provide an introduction to current research
on reading in both L1 and L2 contexts. We begin by viewing research
studies as types of stories. Just like every well-formed story, each study has
a setting, a set of episodes, a culminating event, and a moral for the reader.
We then tell ten good stories about L1 reading research (in Chapter 3)
and ten good stories about L2 reading research (in Chapter 4). These next
two chapters also allow us to introduce readers to very interesting research
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 56

57COMPARING L1 AND L2 READING
efforts by some leading researchers, highlight key component features of
reading comprehension, and illustrate a range of ways that good reading
research is being carried out in both L1 and L2 contexts.
Further reading
Citations that appear frequently in the chapter represent key references for further details. Some additional resources, beyond those referred to in the chapter, are noted in Chapter 10 (mainly 10.1 and 10.2) and here:
• On language threshold, see Alderson (2000), Bernhardt (2011), Hudson
(2007), Koda (2005)
• On transfer, see Koda and Zehler (2008), Koda and Reddy (2008)
• On the interplay between two (or more) languages in reading, see Cook and
Bassetti (2005), Koda (2007)
• On motivation as a predicator of academic success, see Guthrie, Wigfield and
Perencevich (2004), Pressley (2006)
• On the use of different L2-specific resources to facilitate reading, see Hudson
(2007), Nation (2001), Prichard (2008)
• On cultural and social issues related to reading, see Goldenberg, Rueda and
August (2006), Rueda, Velasco and Lim (2008)
M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 57

M02_GRADE5037_02_SE_C02.qxd 1/18/11 14:09 Page 58