View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Rapid Naming in Relation to Reading and Writing in Korean (Hangul), Chinese (Hanja) and English among Korean Children: A 1-Year Longitudinal Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Rapid Naming in Relation to Reading and Writing in Korean (Hangul), Chinese (Hanja) and English among Korean Children: A 1-Year Longitudinal Study
Language: English
Authors: Cho, Jeung-Ryeul, Chiu, Ming Ming
Source: Journal of Research in Reading. Nov 2015 38(4):387-404.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2015
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Grade 5
Intermediate Grades
Middle Schools
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Korean, Elementary School Students, Grade 5, Naming, Word Recognition, Phonological Awareness, Orthographic Symbols, Alphabets, Chinese, English (Second Language), Morphology (Languages), Vocabulary, Predictor Variables, Writing Skills, Reading Skills, Language Proficiency, Longitudinal Studies
Geographic Terms: South Korea
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9817.12020
ISSN: 0141-0423
Abstract: The relation of rapid automatised naming (RAN) to word recognition may depend on the phonological regularity of the orthography. This study examined differential contributions of RAN to reading and writing in Korean alphabetic Hangul, logographic Hanja (Chinese) and English as a second language among 73 fifth graders in Korea across 1?year. RAN was differentially associated between reading and writing in Hangul and English. After statistically controlling for age, gender, morphological awareness, vocabulary and phonological awareness, RAN was uniquely predictive of Hangul word writing but not Hangul word recognition, and it uniquely accounted for English word recognition but not English word writing. Meanwhile, RAN explained both reading and writing in Hanja. Findings were discussed in terms of their orthography characteristics and different levels of proficiency.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2015
Accession Number: EJ1078331
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHS8xdkAakt3Akr1KtbWQ9XAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJtGSa1GKk3zhp-YrAIBEICBm5RtPKyaxjOvHsuqA6Ds3UbPZD7K1kvTRITC6i19XKDGpKrpBKOpkE2-1KHZa8ec-e2RcPy4H_EOIR9iPfH8FQdj60jQcFkP9UK4GX_k6zr46UoMRN9pfWKl5E3fP-cVBOEAcXvJ4eUUvFkyyKa7awIyL76r3gAVpwSCMFk1cSLc3G28Y4E_lTX1bovt37oypLi4koX1Qx3Vo0zG
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0110340234;d8c01nov.15;2018Jul06.11:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0110340234-1">Rapid naming in relation to reading and writing in Korean (Hangul), Chinese (Hanja) and English among Korean children: a 1-year longitudinal study. </title> <p>The relation of rapid automatised naming (RAN) to word recognition may depend on the phonological regularity of the orthography. This study examined differential contributions of RAN to reading and writing in Korean alphabetic Hangul, logographic Hanja (Chinese) and English as a second language among 73 fifth graders in Korea across 1 year. RAN was differentially associated between reading and writing in Hangul and English. After statistically controlling for age, gender, morphological awareness, vocabulary and phonological awareness, RAN was uniquely predictive of Hangul word writing but not Hangul word recognition, and it uniquely accounted for English word recognition but not English word writing. Meanwhile, RAN explained both reading and writing in Hanja. Findings were discussed in terms of their orthography characteristics and different levels of proficiency.</p> <p>Rapid automatised naming (RAN) can distinguish good readers from poor readers in clinical settings (Denckla & Rudel, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref1">22</reflink>] ), and RAN research has contributed to reading development (Manis, Seidenberg & Doi, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref2">40</reflink>] ) for over three decades. However, its conceptual and empirical importance for reading and writing are still debated.</p> <p>The link between RAN and word reading may depend on the phonological regularity of the orthography and a person's literacy proficiency (Moll & Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref3">45</reflink>] ; Savage, Pillay & Melidona, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref4">52</reflink>] ). In transparent orthographies such as German and Dutch, RAN skills were linked to skilled reading (De Jong & van der Leij, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref5">21</reflink>] ; Moll & Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>] ). In the case of English, an opaque orthography with inconsistent grapheme‐to‐phoneme correspondences, RAN is linked to reading in early and poor readers but not skilled readers, after controlling for phonological awareness (Georgiou, Parrila & Liao, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref7">27</reflink>] ; Torgesen, Wagner & Rashotte, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref8">60</reflink>] ; Wagner & Torgesen, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref9">62</reflink>] ). In a cross‐language study with transparent and less transparent orthographies (Finnish, Hungarian, Dutch and French), second graders' reading accuracy was linked to phonological awareness but not RAN (Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref10">66</reflink>] ); so, the authors argued that insufficiently sensitive phonological awareness tasks can allow the phonological component of RAN to contribute to reading accuracy (e.g. Patel, Snowling & de Jong, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref11">47</reflink>] ). This study further tests this suggestion with a shallow orthography, Korean Hangul.</p> <p>Meanwhile, studies of RAN's relation with writing are rare. RAN is linked to writing in below‐average English spellers in some studies (Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref13">52</reflink>] ) but not in others that control for phonological awareness (e.g. Pennington, Cardoso‐Martins, Green & Lefly, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref14">48</reflink>] ). Likewise, RAN is linked to Chinese writing in some studies (Chan, Ho, Tsang, Lee & Chung, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>] ; Ding, Richman, Yang & Guo, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref16">23</reflink>] ) but not others (Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref17">46</reflink>] ; Tong, McBride‐Chang, Shu & Wong, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref18">59</reflink>] ).</p> <p>To address these conflicting results, this study examined RAN's relations with both reading and writing in alphabetic Korean Hangul, logographic Chinese Hanja and English as an L2 among Korean fifth graders across 1 year. Few, if any, studies have examined these issues in three different orthographies within a group of participants to control for individual differences. Furthermore, this study examines RAN's links to reading and writing across 1 year longitudinally and controls for phonological awareness. Korean children learn to read and write three different orthographies: alphabetic Hangul, logographic Hanja () and English. Hangul is alphabetic like English; in both, graphemes represent phonemes (Taylor & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref19">58</reflink>] ), but Hangul is transparent, whereas English is opaque. In contrast, Hanja consists of logographic Chinese characters adopted for the Korean language. L1 Korean children are proficient in Hangul but less skilled in Hanja and L2 English.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-2">Korean orthography: Hangul and Hanja</hd> <p>Written Korean uses two scripts, Hangul and Hanja. Hangul is an alphabet with 14 basic consonants and 10 basic vowels. Each Hangul letter represents a sound, and grapheme–phoneme connections are generally consistent. Compared with Korean, English is a deep orthography with inconsistent correspondences between graphemes and phonemes. Although Korean is an alphabet, the alphabet is written as a syllabary in which two or more letters are clustered into a uniform square syllable block (e.g. /kaŋ/ means river; /koŋ/ means ball). Within a syllable block, letters are arranged from top to bottom and from left to right. Thus, the syllable reflects both the entire syllabic structure and its constituent phonemes. Relatively simple compared with English, the syllable structure of Korean is mostly CV or CVC, with no initial consonant clusters.</p> <p>In contrast, Hanja characters directly encode and represent morphemes, basic units of meaning. Before the Hangul alphabet was invented in the 15th century, Koreans used logographic Hanja, a subset of Chinese characters as their writing system (Taylor & Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref20">58</reflink>] ). Phonologically, Hanja characters approximate the sounds of corresponding Chinese characters but without tones. During the last several decades, Hanja use has plummeted. Today, most newspapers and textbooks are written primarily in Hangul, with occasional Hanja written in parentheses to clarify the meaning of the passage. Many primary school children learn Hanja at home and in school as an elective subject, and secondary school children typically learn about 1,800 Hanja characters.</p> <p>Modern Korean vocabulary consists of native Korean (~40%) and Sino‐Korean (~60%) words (Lim, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>] ). In Sino‐Korean words, syllables simultaneously represent both a phonological unit and a morpheme. Sino‐Korean words can be written in both Hanja (e.g. or school) and Hangul (e.g. ); both have the same pronunciation/hag.kjo/. In contrast, Korean native words can only be written in Hangul.</p> <p>Around age 4 years, Korean children begin learning to read Hangul in kindergarten or at home. When they enter primary school at age 6 years, most children have mastered the letter–sound correspondences of the Korean alphabet (e.g. Cho, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>] ). Typically, children learn some phonological changes of the Korean language such as re‐syllabification, assimilation and palatalisation that are caused by morphophonetic principles and assimilation phenomena. They often learn Sino‐Korean words when they study diverse school subjects in the upper elementary school years. In many primary schools, reading and writing of Hanja is an elective subject. Each Hanja character (e.g. ) is taught with a meaning (e.g. human) and a sound (e.g. /in/) that is written in Hangul (e.g. ) with rote memory instruction. Korean children also learn English as a second language starting in third grade, focusing on oral communication skills (greetings, phrases, short sentences). The English alphabet and written English are introduced in the fourth grade.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-3">Relations of rapid automatised naming to reading and writing</hd> <p>Past studies have examined speeded serial naming of familiar materials such as numbers, letters or pictures. When performing RAN tasks, children name different stimuli (numbers or pictures) presented randomly in different orders across columns as fast as possible.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-4">Rapid automatised naming and reading</hd> <p>Researchers have argued that many different subskills underlie RAN tasks, such as phonological processing (e.g. phonological recoding of visual stimuli in lexical memory; Wagner & Torgesen, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref23">62</reflink>] ) and nonphonological factors (e.g. visual sequencing, arbitrary symbol processing, use of word‐specific orthographic information; Manis et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref24">40</reflink>] ). Although studies consistently show that RAN and phonological awareness both share phonological processing (Swanson, Trainin, Necoechea & Hammill, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref25">57</reflink>] ; Vukovic & Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref26">61</reflink>] ), results conflict over whether RAN is linked to reading after controlling for phonological awareness (Logan, Schatschneider & Wagner, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>] ; Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref28">66</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Orthographic depth may explain these different results. RAN is correlated more strongly than phonological awareness to reading fluency of shallow orthographies (Wimmer & Mayringer, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref29">63</reflink>] ). In German and Dutch, phonological transparency and phonics teaching allow rapid and accurate phonological decoding; as a result, young readers rarely show reading errors, and naming speed of RAN tasks predicts reading fluency. Ziegler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref30">66</reflink>] ) showed that RAN had nonsignificant and weak relations to reading accuracy and fluency, respectively, in transparent orthographies after controlling for phonological awareness; so, they argued that previous studies that did not adequately control for phonological awareness allowed RAN's phonological component to contribute to word reading. Supporting this claim, Poulsen, Juud and Elbro ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref31">50</reflink>] ) showed that phonological processing mediated the link between RAN and reading in Danish, another shallow orthography.</p> <p>In the opaque orthography of English however, young children's RAN was still linked to their word reading after controlling for phonological awareness and isolated naming speed, suggesting that RAN has nonphonological processing related to reading (Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>] ). RAN is also linked to English reading in children with developmental dyslexia but only weakly linked for skilled readers after accounting for phonological awareness (e.g. Georgiou et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>] ; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref34">60</reflink>] ; Wagner & Torgesen, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref35">62</reflink>] ), suggesting that this link differs across reading proficiency. As young readers lack decoding skills, they often use basic sight vocabulary to read English (Frith, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref36">26</reflink>] ). After they develop decoding skills, the influence of RAN on reading English fades, but phonological awareness remains strongly linked to reading English. Hence, RAN and phonological awareness might be two basic constructs that influence reading accuracy and fluency, as suggested by the double‐deficit hypothesis (Wolf & Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref37">64</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Rapid automatised naming is consistently linked to early Chinese reading across studies (Chow, McBride‐Chang & Burgess, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>] ; McBride‐Chang & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>] ; Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>] ). Because logographic Chinese has inconsistent correspondences between orthography and phonology, RAN likely contributes to Chinese reading through another component, namely its arbitrary mapping skill between symbol and sound (e.g. Liao, Georgiou & Parrila, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref41">37</reflink>] ; Manis et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Although Hangul generally has consistent grapheme‐to‐phoneme correspondences (Kim‐Renaud, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref43">34</reflink>] ), RAN is linked to Korean reading in some studies but not others. RAN was linked to Hangul word reading among kindergarteners in one study (Cho, McBride‐Chang & Park, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>] ), among sixth graders in another study (Cho & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref45">11</reflink>] ), but not among kindergarteners and second graders in a third study (Cho & McBride‐Chang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>] ). As Ziegler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref47">66</reflink>] ) argued, phonological variance might not be adequately controlled in these earlier studies, so both English and Korean phonological awareness tasks will be added in the current study to help address this issue.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-5">Rapid automatised naming and writing</hd> <p>Although reading and writing rely on many similar processes, spelling rules are more profuse and complex than reading rules in most orthographies, including German and English (Fitzgerald & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>] ; Wimmer & Mayringer, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref49">63</reflink>] ). Thus, writing requires phonological awareness to form and access multiple associations between the sounds and letters of words (Landerl & Wimmer, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref50">36</reflink>] ; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref51">49</reflink>] ). Furthermore, accurate spelling requires access to a specified orthographic representation, and skilled writing requires automation of word‐specific knowledge that RAN provides in a way that is not required in reading (e.g. Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The importance of RAN in English spelling is not straightforward. Results may depend on proficiency of spelling skill. For example, apart from phonological awareness, alphanumeric RAN was a strong predictor of spelling in English among middle and upper elementary school students with poor spelling skills after controlling for age, reasoning ability and spelling nonsense words (Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref53">52</reflink>] ). However, among young children such as Grade 1 or young dyslexic children, RAN was not linked to spelling, after controlling for phonological awareness and age (Caravolas, Hulme & Snowling, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>] ; Chiappe, Glaeser & Ferko, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref55">8</reflink>] ; Pennington et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref56">48</reflink>] ). Skilled spelling (especially for exception words) requires complex and specific orthographic representation (Caravolas et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref57">6</reflink>] ; Kessler & Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref58">32</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref59">52</reflink>] ). As RAN involves retrieving verbal representations from orthographic patterns in the mental lexicon, it may provide a unique index of orthographic specificity in writing (Manis et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Like other orthographies, writing is more difficult than word recognition in Hangul. For example, the Korean letter makes the sound /t/ in the coda position, but the /t/ sound in a coda is orthographically represented by six different letters (e.g. , , , , , ). Thus, Hangul spelling would require accessing multiple associations between sounds and letters (e.g. Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>] ). Furthermore, skilled Hangul spelling requires specific orthographic knowledge as suggested by L1 English studies (e.g. Kessler & Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref62">32</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref63">52</reflink>] ). Thus, Hangul skilled writing may be related to both phonological awareness and RAN in this study.</p> <p>Few studies have examined literacy development in Hanja among Korean children. Children in this study were at earlier stages of Chinese reading and writing since they learned Hanja in an elective class in fifth and sixth grades. Because of high arbitrariness in sound–print associations in reading in logographic Chinese, RAN is strongly associated with early Chinese character recognition (Chow et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref64">15</reflink>] ; McBride‐Chang & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref65">42</reflink>] ) and writing (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref66">7</reflink>] ; Ding et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref67">23</reflink>] ) among Chinese children (although Pan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref68">46</reflink>] ) is a notable exception).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-6">Rapid automatised naming and L2 English</hd> <p>Like phonological awareness, RAN in L1 can contribute to L2 reading. Past studies showed that L1 phonological awareness skills contributed to phonological awareness and literacy skills in children's L2 (Chiappe et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref69">8</reflink>] ; Cisero & Royer, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref70">17</reflink>] ; Cossu, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>] ). Likewise, alphanumeric RAN in L1 Chinese predicted L2 English word reading after controlling for phonological awareness (Chung & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref72">16</reflink>] ; Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref73">46</reflink>] ). Some common mechanisms such as arbitrary symbol–sound mapping are involved in both L1 Chinese alphanumeric RAN and early reading of L2 English (Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref74">46</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Along similar lines, in L1 English studies, RAN was important in beginning reading in English and in developmental dyslexia after accounting for phonological awareness (e.g. Georgiou et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>] ; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref76">60</reflink>] ; Wagner & Torgesen, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref77">62</reflink>] ). Significant link of RAN with early L1 English reading may be related to the fact that young children likely read words by basic sight vocabulary rather than via decoding (Share, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref78">53</reflink>] ). Thus, we expect significant contribution of RAN to word reading in L2 English in the current study as expected by L1 and L2 English studies (e.g. Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref79">46</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref80">52</reflink>] ).</p> <p>However, RAN may not contribute to L2 English writing for Korean children. Korean children's early spelling in English may be at the logographic or alphabetic stages (e.g. Frith, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref81">26</reflink>] ) and likely far below conventional spelling; spelling at this level may not require access to specific orthographic representation that RAN provides. Thus, RAN might be more closely associated with reading rather than with spelling in L2 English in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-7">Purpose of this study</hd> <p>This study investigated whether RAN was linked to reading and writing skills in alphabetic Hangul, logographic Hanja and L2 English among Korean fifth graders across 1 year. The participants of this study were skilled readers and spellers of Hangul words but less skilled in the reading and writing of L2 English words and Chinese characters. This robust methodology controls for individual differences and can inform our understanding of reading and spelling in English, Chinese and Korean. Korean and English phonological awareness is included to control for phonological processing skills on sound structures of L1 Korean and L2 English. Including morphological awareness in Korean and vocabulary in Korean and in English helps control for semantic knowledge at the morpheme and word levels in L1 Korean and at the word level of L2 English (e.g. Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref82">65</reflink>] ).</p> <p>We tested three research questions. First, how does the role of RAN differ in skilled reading and writing in Korean Hangul? For upper elementary school children, we expect RAN to have a weak link to Hangul reading after controlling for phonological awareness (e.g. Cho, Chiu & McBride‐Chang, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref83">13</reflink>] ). As skilled spelling requires strong phonological awareness (e.g. Landerl & Wimmer, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref84">36</reflink>] ) and orthographic knowledge (that RAN may capture, e.g. Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref85">52</reflink>] ; Snowling, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref86">55</reflink>] ), both are likely linked to Hangul writing.</p> <p>Second, how is RAN related to less skilled reading and writing in Chinese Hanja? As logographic Hanja has relatively high arbitrary associations between print and sound (e.g. McBride‐Chang, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref87">41</reflink>] , for a review) and Korean children generally learn Chinese characters with rote memorisation instruction, we expect RAN to be linked to Hanja reading and writing at an earlier stage (e.g. Chung & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref88">16</reflink>] ; Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref89">46</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Third, how do the roles of RAN differ between less skilled reading and writing in L2 English? We hypothesise that RAN contributes to reading rather than writing during early L2 English learning (e.g. Frith, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref90">26</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref91">52</reflink>] ). As early learners likely read English words by basic sight vocabulary rather than via decoding (e.g. Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref92">46</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref93">52</reflink>] ), RAN is likely linked to L2 English reading, controlling for phonological awareness. As Korean children's early spelling in English is likely at the logographic or alphabetic stages (e.g. Frith, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref94">26</reflink>] ) and likely far below conventional spelling, spelling at this level may not require access to specific orthographic representation that RAN provides. Thus, RAN is not likely linked to L2 English spelling.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-8">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0110340234-9">Participants</hd> <p>Seventy‐three fifth graders (35 girls and 38 boys) from a public primary school in Changwon, Korea, were tested in June–July of 2006 and June–July of 2007. All students were native Korean speakers, and their mean age was 10.96 years at the first test.</p> <p>The students learned English as a required subject in the fifth and sixth grades, for 80 and 160 minutes per week, respectively. In contrast, they learned Hanja as an elective class in the fifth and sixth grades for 40 minutes per week. Starting from third grade, English education in Korean elementary school focused on oral speaking and listening (mostly short phrases and sentences). The English alphabet was introduced in fourth grade, and fifth and sixth graders learned to read basic words and simple sentences. Reading skills in English and Hanja vary considerably among Korean children because many of them learn English and Hanja at home or at private institutions.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-10">Procedure</hd> <p>Across 1 year, children were given the following tasks of Korean and English vocabulary, Korean and English phonological awareness, Korean morphological awareness, Korean RAN task and reading and writing of Hangul words, Hanja characters and English words. Students participated in two testing sessions of individual and group testing, each lasting approximately 1.5 hours and 40 minutes, respectively. Unless otherwise specified, each test was given during both test sessions, had no time limit and was scored by awarding one point for each correct item. All word or character lists were graded, ordering their words from easy to difficult. Testing of reading, phonological awareness, RAN and vocabulary were administered in individual sessions, whereas writing and morphological tasks were administered in group sessions. Trained graduates and undergraduates majoring in psychology conducted individual and group testing of children in a quiet room at school. The tests were as follows.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-11">Hangul word reading</hd> <p>Children were asked to read 50 words of two and three syllables, which required phonological changes (such as re‐syllabification, consonantal assimilation and palatalisation). If a child failed five consecutive items, this test ended. The items' internal consistency reliabilities were 0.93 in Grade 5 and 0.90 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-12">Hangul word writing</hd> <p>Children were asked to write 30 orally presented multi‐syllable words. The items' internal consistency reliabilities were 0.83 in Grade 5 and 0.85 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-13">Hanja character reading</hd> <p>Children were asked to read 40 Hanja characters selected from Hanja textbooks used in Korean primary schools. If a child failed five consecutive items, this test ended. The items' internal consistency reliabilities were 0.92 in Grade 5 and 0.94 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-14">Hanja character writing</hd> <p>Children were asked to write orally presented Hanja characters (each with a meaning), 40 during the first test session and 20 during the second one. Of the 20 items in the latter session, 15 were from the first session and 5 were higher difficulty items for older children. The items' internal consistency reliabilities were 0.87 in Grade 5 and 0.86 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-15">English word reading</hd> <p>Children were asked to read 40 English words, selected from English textbooks used in Korean primary schools. If a child failed five consecutive items, this test ended. The items' internal consistency reliabilities were 0.98 in Grade 5 and 0.97 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-16">English word writing</hd> <p>Children were asked to write 30 orally presented English words. The items' internal consistency reliabilities were 0.95 in Grade 5 and 0.97 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-17">Korean phonological awareness</hd> <p>This task consists of syllable, onset and coda deletion. The syllable deletion task had eight 3‐syllable and eight 4‐syllable nonwords in both sessions. In the second session, seven of the items were different and more difficult to assess older children. All three‐syllable items required deleting the middle syllable from the items (e.g. saying gae wu rak [] without wu [] yields gae rak []).</p> <p>The onset and coda deletion tasks consisted of 20 one‐syllable nonwords with a CVC construction. Of these, 10 required deletion of the onset of the syllable (e.g. saying tum [] without the initial sound yields um []), and 10 required deletion of the syllable's coda (e.g. deleting the final sound from chol [], yielding cho []). Internal consistency reliabilities for the combined tasks were 0.89 in Grade 5 and 0.81 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-18">English phonological awareness</hd> <p>This task consisted of syllable deletion and onset, coda and middle phoneme deletion. English syllable deletion entails removing the middle syllable from 15 three‐syllable items (words or short phrases; e.g. saying the phrase one teapot without saying tea [one pot]). Coda deletion requires removing the final consonant from 15 English words (e.g. grape without the final sound [grey]). Onset deletion entails removing the first consonant from 15 words (e.g. cat without the first sound [at]). Middle phoneme deletion requires removing consonants from consonant clusters within words (e.g. saying stay without the /t/ sound [say]). Internal consistency reliabilities for the combined phonological awareness tasks were 0.91 in Grade 5 and 0.86 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-19">Korean number rapid automatised naming</hd> <p>This number naming task has the same five digits arranged in different orders across five rows, and children were asked to name all items as quickly as possible. We recorded the mean speed.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-20">Korean morphological awareness</hd> <p>Children were orally presented with 30 two‐syllable Korean words (e.g. /kun.bam/ meaning roast chestnut), in which each syllable was a morpheme, and the meaning of a target morpheme ([e.g. /bam/ meaning chestnut] was identified as ‘eating chestnut’). Then, they were then asked to produce and write two multi‐syllable words in Hangul, one with the target morpheme and one with its homophone. One word (e.g. /bam.na.mu/ meaning chestnut tree) should include the target morpheme (e.g. /bam/ meaning chestnut) with the same meaning, but the other word (e.g. /bam.nat/ meaning night and day) should contain a morpheme ( /bam/ meaning night) with the same syllable but a different meaning. Both morphemes have the same sound and writing in Hangul. Internal consistency reliabilities were 0.87 in Grade 5 and 0.85 in Grade 6. This task (Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>] ) was developed following Shu, McBride‐Chang, Wu and Liu ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref96">54</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-21">Korean vocabulary</hd> <p>To control for basic verbal ability, the 25‐item vocabulary subtest of the Korean Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Kwak, Park & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref97">35</reflink>] ) was administered in Korean. Children were asked to orally explain items (objects or concepts). Each answer was scored from 0 to 2 on a standardised marking scheme. If a child scored a 0 on four consecutive items, this test ended. Internal consistency reliabilities of this subtest were 0.85 in Grade 5 and 0.77 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-22">English vocabulary</hd> <p>To measure receptive vocabulary knowledge, children were presented the first 52 vocabulary items of increasing difficulty from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test‐Third Edition (PPVT‐III; Dunn & Dunn, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref98">24</reflink>] ). Each item consists of four black and white illustrations, arranged on a picture plate. Each child was asked to select the picture that best represented the meaning of a stimulus word presented orally by the experimenter. Internal consistency reliabilities were 0.76 in Grade 5 and.75 in Grade 6.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-23">Analysis</hd> <p>This analysis has two major parts: test score construction and analysis of student test scores. When tests are given to students across a year, their competence likely differs substantially; so, using identical questions on a long test to cover both basic and advance competencies is inefficient, increases student fatigue, increases test‐learning effects and, hence, reduces test validity for these students (Baker & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref99">1</reflink>] ). To address these issues, students can complete shorter subtests with overlapping test questions (anchor items; Baker & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>] ). To use these subtests properly, we must calibrate student responses to subtest questions on a single scale, adjusting for the difficulty and discrimination of each test (simple counts of correct student responses on a test ignore the differences in difficulty among test items and in the quality of each test item to distinguish between students with more vs less competence). Using factor analysis and item response (IR) modelling addresses all of these issues (Baker & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>] ; Joreskog & Sorbom, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref102">30</reflink>] ).</p> <p>To analyse the student test scores, we use an advanced type of regression: multi‐level, cross‐classification. Ordinary least squares regressions on nested, time‐series data with multiple outcomes result in biased estimates of standard errors; hence, we use a multivariate, multi‐level, cross‐classification analysis to address this issue (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref103">29</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-24">Underlying competencies of each test</hd> <p>We identified whether the questions on a test reflected one or more underlying competences through tetrachoric and polychoric correlation‐based factor analyses (Joreskog & Sorbom, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>] ). If the questions on a test showed multiple factors indicating multiple underlying competences, the test was divided into separately scored subtests for each competence.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-25">Test characteristics</hd> <p>We modelled each test question's characteristics (difficulty, discrimination) and estimated student competences on different versions of a test (different subtests) with common anchor test items by using IR models (Baker & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref105">1</reflink>] ). As students' skill levels improved, later versions of a test had different questions, but all subtests shared some anchor questions that allowed calibration of all versions through IR modelling. Some questions were more difficult than others; so, the IR model captures the difficulty of each test item. Hence, we modelled these characteristics with IR test models (Baker & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>] ) and identified the best‐fitting model with Bayesian expected a posteriori estimation and log‐likelihood difference χ<sups>2</sups> tests (Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref107">31</reflink>] ; Mislevy & Bock, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref108">44</reflink>] ), which is more precise than classical statistics methods (Baker & Kim, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref109">1</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-26">Explanatory model</hd> <p>After computing each student's competence on each test, we estimated their relationships with sequential sets in multivariate, multi‐level, cross‐classifications (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Testyit=βy00+eyit+fy0t</p> <p>For the vector of outcome variables Test<subs>yi(t)</subs>, each test outcome variable y (Hangul reading, Hangul writing, Hanja reading, Hanja writing, English reading, English writing) by student i at time t has a grand mean intercept β<subs>y00</subs>, whose unexplained student and time components within the model (residuals) are e<subs>yi(t)</subs> and f<subs>y0t</subs>. Next, we entered the control variables gender and age. Each set of predictors was tested for significance with a nested hypothesis test (χ<sups>2</sups> log‐likelihood; Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref111">31</reflink>] ). Then, we entered the explanatory variables of interest: Korean vocabulary, Korean phonological awareness, English phonological awareness, number RAN, Korean morphological awareness and English vocabulary (Explanatory).</p> <p>Testyit=βy00+eyit+fy0t+βy10Girlyi0+βy2tAgeyit+βyixExplanatoryyit</p> <p>An alpha level of 0.05 was used. Testing many hypotheses increases the likelihood that at least one of them incorrectly rejects a null hypothesis (a false positive). To address this issue, we used the two‐stage linear step‐up procedure, which outperformed 13 other methods in computer simulations (Benjamini, Krieger & Yekutieli, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-27">Results</hd> <hd id="AN0110340234-28">Test and summary statistics</hd> <p>The factor analyses showed single dominant factors and suggested a single underlying competence for each of the six outcome variables (Hangul reading, Hangul writing, Hanja reading and Hanja writing, English reading, English writing) and five explanatory variables (Korean vocabulary, Korean phonological awareness, English phonological awareness, Korean morphological awareness and English vocabulary). Because of space restrictions, please contact the authors for details.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-29">Explanatory model</hd> <hd id="AN0110340234-30">Hangul reading</hd> <p>Students' gender, age, Korean morphological awareness and English phonological awareness were linked to Hangul reading scores. However, number RAN was not significant. Girls outscored boys in Hangul reading by 12% (Table [NaN] , Hangul reading; 12% = 0.34×34%; from β×34%; 1 SD ~34%). Older students outscored younger students by 14% per year of age difference (14% = 0.26/0.61×34%; from β/SDx×34%). Meanwhile, students whose Korean morphological awareness exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 3% higher Hangul reading scores (3% = 0.29×10%). Furthermore, students whose English phonological awareness exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% higher Hangul reading scores (2% = 0.24×10%). Together, these explanatory variables accounted for about 27% of the Hangul reading score variance.</p> <p>Standardised regression coefficients (with standard errors) of multivariate, multi‐level, cross‐classification model results simultaneously predicting Korean reading, Korean writing, Chinese reading, Chinese writing, English reading and English writing.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Predictor</th><th align="center">Korean (Hangul)</th><th align="center">Chinese (Hanja)</th><th align="center">English</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Reading</th><th align="center">Writing</th><th align="center">Reading</th><th align="center">Writing</th><th align="center">Reading</th><th align="center">Writing</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Girl</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">0.38</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.13)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.10)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.20)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.20)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.17)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.18)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Korean vocabulary</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Korean morphological awareness</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.09)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.07)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.05)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.02)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">English vocabulary</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.46</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.05)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.05)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Korean phonological awareness</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">0.22</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">English phonological awareness</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.28</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.08)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Number naming</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">(0.07)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.07)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.07)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Variance explained</td><td align="char" char=".">0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">0.32</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Notes: Each regression included a constant term.</p> <ulist> <item>2 * p < .05.</item> <item>3 p < .01.</item> <item>4 p < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0110340234-31">Hangul writing</hd> <p>Students' gender, age, Korean phonological awareness, Korean morphological awareness, number RAN and English phonological awareness were significantly related to Hangul writing scores (Table [NaN] , Hangul writing). Girls outscored boys in Hangul writing by 13%. Older students outscored younger students by 13% per year. Meanwhile, students whose Korean phonological awareness, Korean morphological awareness or Korean number RAN exceeded their means by 10% averaged 2% higher Hangul writing scores. Students whose English phonological awareness exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 3% higher Hangul writing scores. Together, these variables accounted for about 55% of the Hangul writing score variance.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-32">Hanja reading</hd> <p>Students' age, Korean morphological awareness, number RAN and English phonological awareness were linked to Hanja reading scores. Older students outscored younger students by 14% per year of age difference. Meanwhile, students whose Korean morphological awareness or number RAN exceeded their means by 10% averaged 3% or 2% higher Hanja reading scores. Students whose English phonological awareness exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% higher Hanja reading scores. These variables accounted for about 33% of the Hanja reading score variance.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-33">Hanja writing</hd> <p>Students' age, Korean morphological awareness, number RAN and English phonological awareness were linked to Hanja writing scores. Older students outscored younger students by 13% per year of age difference. Meanwhile, students whose morphological awareness or Korean number RAN exceeded their means by 10% averaged 2% or 3% higher Hanja writing scores. Students whose English phonological awareness exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% higher Hanja writing scores. These variables accounted for about 32% of the Hanja writing score variance.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-34">English reading</hd> <p>Students' age, Korean number RAN, English phonological awareness and English vocabulary were linked to English reading scores (Table [NaN] , English reading). Older students outscored younger students by 11% per year. Also, students whose Korean number RAN exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 2% higher English reading scores. Students whose English phonological awareness or vocabulary exceeded their respective means by 10% averaged 2% or 5% higher English reading scores. These variables accounted for about 63% of the English reading score variance.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-35">English writing</hd> <p>Students' age, Korean morphological awareness, English phonological awareness and English vocabulary were linked to English writing scores. However, number RAN was not significant. Older students outscored younger students by 13% per year of age difference (Table [NaN] , English writing). Also, students whose Korean morphological awareness exceeded the mean by 10% averaged 1% higher English writing scores. Students whose English phonological awareness or vocabulary exceeded their respective means by 10% averaged 2% or 5% higher English writing scores. These variables accounted for about 66% of the English writing score variance. Other variables and interactions were not significant.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-36">Discussion</hd> <p>Our results showed differential contributions of RAN on fifth graders' reading and writing in orthographies of different depths across 1 year. Korean Hangul is a shallow alphabet, English is an opaque alphabet and Hanja is a logography. Differential associations were specific to reading proficiency of a language. First, RAN predicted unique variance in skilled Hangul word writing but not Hangul word recognition. Second, RAN was uniquely associated with early L2 English word recognition but not English word writing. Third, RAN accounted for both early reading and writing in Hanja.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-37">Rapid automatised naming and Hangul</hd> <p>The argument of phonological task sensitivity of Ziegler et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref113">66</reflink>] ) can explain why number RAN was linked to Hangul word recognition in an earlier study (Cho & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref114">11</reflink>] ) but not in this study. As the Korean phonological awareness task in Cho and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref115">11</reflink>] ) showed a ceiling effect, it was not sensitive enough to test older children and RAN's phonological component could account for its link to Hangul reading (e.g., Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref116">66</reflink>] ). In contrast, this study controlled for both Korean and English phonological awareness, and RAN did not contribute to Hangul reading. Thus, the difference in phonological awareness task sensitivity likely resolves these apparently conflicting findings on the relation of RAN with skilled Hangul reading, and our results support the notion that RAN's relation to skilled word recognition in shallow orthographies is mostly based on its phonological component (Patel et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref117">47</reflink>] ; Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref118">66</reflink>] ).</p> <p>In contrast, RAN was significantly linked to Hangul writing, supporting Savage and colleagues' (Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref119">51</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref120">52</reflink>] ) claim that RAN and skilled spelling share a component of orthographic processing. Unlike reading, accurate spelling requires access to a specified orthographic representation, and skilled writing requires RAN's automation of word‐specific knowledge built into the process of retrieving verbal representations from orthographic patterns in the mental lexicon (e.g. Manis et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref121">40</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref122">52</reflink>] ). In addition, number RAN requires speeded automatic processing of abstract stimuli that are frequently accessed verbally. Also, among upper elementary school students, automaticity might show more variability in relation to writing skills than to word recognition, which may also account for RAN's link with skilled writing in Hangul. Future research can test the common subskills of RAN tasks and writing by directly manipulating visual, orthographic, motor and automatic processing tasks in addition to phonological tasks (e.g. Logan et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref123">39</reflink>] ; Poulsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref124">50</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-38">Rapid automatised naming and English</hd> <p>L1 Korean alphanumeric RAN was linked to L2 English reading, suggesting cross‐language transfer of L1 RAN to L2 reading and consistent with L1 English reading. L1 Korean alphanumeric RAN and early reading of L2 English might share some common mechanisms such as arbitrary mapping between print and sound among Korean children (e.g. Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref125">46</reflink>] ). The cross‐language transfer accords with studies showing L1 Chinese RAN's contribution to L2 English reading among Chinese children (Chung & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref126">16</reflink>] ; Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref127">46</reflink>] ). Furthermore, Korean children did not master English decoding skills yet but tended to read L2 English words by sight as early readers of L1 English did (e.g. Share, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref128">53</reflink>] ). Thus, RAN's link to L2 English reading is also consistent with RAN's link to early L1 English reading (Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref129">60</reflink>] ) and to poor L1 English readers (Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref130">43</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Rapid automatised naming was not linked to L2 English spelling, similar to studies showing that RAN was not linked to early L1 English spelling (Caravolas et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref131">6</reflink>] ; Chiappe et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref132">8</reflink>] ; Pennington et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref133">48</reflink>] ). According to the traditional stage models of literacy acquisition (Frith, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref134">26</reflink>] ), beginning spellers are at the logographic or alphabetic stages but not the orthographic stage. Thus, early English learners in this study perhaps could not use orthographic knowledge in their writing. These results suggest that the components of the processes underlying L1 and L2 English reading and writing are highly comparable at least at the word level (e.g. Chiappe et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref135">8</reflink>] ), consistent with the linguistic interdependence hypothesis (e.g. Cummins, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref136">20</reflink>] ; Geva, Wade‐Woolley & Shany, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref137">28</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-39">Rapid automatised naming and Hanja</hd> <p>RAN was linked to both Hanja character recognition and writing, consistent with most findings on early Chinese word recognition (Chan et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref138">7</reflink>] ; Chow et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref139">15</reflink>] ; McBride‐Chang & Ho, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref140">42</reflink>] ) and Chinese writing (e.g. Ding et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref141">23</reflink>] ; cf. Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref142">46</reflink>] ; Tong et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref143">59</reflink>] ). As both print‐to‐sound and sound‐to‐print correspondences are opaque in Chinese, common mechanisms, such as arbitrary symbol mapping, might underlie in RAN and Hanja reading and writing (e.g. Manis et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref144">40</reflink>] ; Pan et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref145">46</reflink>] ). Furthermore, Korean children learn to read and write Hanja characters via rote instruction, which may facilitate symbol processing (McBride‐Chang, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref146">41</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-40">Metalinguistic skills in reading and writing in Hangul, Hanja and L2 English</hd> <p>The results showed several cross‐language links involving phonological awareness and morphological awareness. These cross‐language links suggest the presence of metalinguistic skills.</p> <p>Phonological awareness in one language was linked to reading and writing in a different language, suggesting that phonological awareness might be a metalinguistic skill applicable to multiple languages. In this study, English phonological awareness accounted for literacy skills in Hangul, Hanja and L2 English among Korean children. Other studies have shown similar cross‐language results. For example, Korean phonology was linked to Hanja reading for low‐skill adult Hanja readers but not among high‐skill Hanja readers (Cho & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref147">10</reflink>] ). Also, Bialystok, McBride‐Chang, and Luk ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref148">3</reflink>] ) showed that L2 English syllable deletion explained variance in L1 Chinese character recognition among Hong Kong L2 learners. Together, these results suggest that phonological awareness might be a metalinguistic skill that can be applied to both L1s and L2s (e.g. Bialystok et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref149">3</reflink>] ). Also, both Korean and English phonological awareness accounted for Hangul word writing. This result suggests that Hangul writing requires strong phonological awareness skills because of irregular phoneme‐to‐grapheme connections similar to other orthographies such as German and English (e.g. Fitzgerald & Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref150">25</reflink>] ; Landerl & Wimmer, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref151">36</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Korean morphological awareness independently contributed to writing in L2 English. This result is likely related to the fact that spelling in English as an L1 requires strong morphosyntactic knowledge among English‐speaking children (e.g. Bryant & Nunes, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref152">5</reflink>] ). On the basis of our survey of the literature, this is the first study to show the contribution of L1 morphological awareness to L2 spelling.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-41">Other findings</hd> <p>There was one unusual finding regarding Korean phonological awareness, whereas the remaining findings were expected. Korean phonological awareness was correlated with Hangul reading (consistent with past research, e.g., Cho & McBride‐Chang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref153">12</reflink>] ; Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref154">14</reflink>] ; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref155">33</reflink>] ). However, Korean phonological awareness was not linked to Hangul reading after controlling for other variables such as English phonological awareness, possibly because of the ceiling effect of the students' high Korean phonological awareness and its low variability in older children. Perhaps because of the Korean phonological task's low sensitivity, English phonological awareness explained significant variance in both word reading and writing in Hangul. This relationship between the Korean and English phonological tasks may resolve the conflicting findings of phonology on Hangul reading: strong effect (Cho & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref156">10</reflink>] ) versus weak effect (Cho & Lee, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref157">11</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The remaining findings were expected and consistent with past studies. Morphological awareness was linked to both reading and writing in Hangul and Hanja (e.g. Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref158">14</reflink>] ). Also, Korean vocabulary was not linked to Hangul and Hanja reading and writing, consistent with previous findings on Hangul word recognition and writing (Cho et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref159">14</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref160">13</reflink>] ). Meanwhile, English phonological awareness was linked to L2 English word reading and writing, consistent with earlier L2 English studies (Comeau, Cormier, Grandmaison & Lacroix, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref161">18</reflink>] ). Also, English vocabulary was strongly associated with English reading and writing, supporting the importance of vocabulary during early L1 literacy development (Storch & Witehurst, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref162">56</reflink>] ), L2 reading (Chiappe et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref163">8</reflink>] ) and reading with disabilities (Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref164">60</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-42">Limitations</hd> <p>This study has several limitations that future studies can address. First, most items used in Korean phonological awareness were nonwords in Korean, whereas those in the English phonological awareness were words. Hence, English phonological awareness might be confounded by semantic processing. Future studies may use comparable measures of phonological awareness in Korean and English.</p> <p>Second, morphological awareness was only measured in Korean, whereas phonological awareness was measured in both Korean and English. In addition, we administered receptive vocabulary in English and expressive vocabulary in Korean. Future studies can include comparable tasks in L1 and L2 to study relations among vocabulary, literacy and metalinguistic skills.</p> <p>Third, we tested children's RAN only with numbers. As suggested by a recent cross‐linguistic study, different aspects of RAN may be differently related to reading and writing in diverse orthographies. Georgiou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref165">27</reflink>] ) suggested that articulation and pause time were more related to reading in transparent and deep orthographies, respectively. Future studies can include diverse measures of RAN using objects, colours and letters for Hangul, Hanja and L2 English among Korean participants.</p> <p>Fourth, we did not control nonverbal intelligence of the participants in this study, although we measured L1 Korean vocabulary as a proxy of verbal intelligence (e.g. Cho & McBride‐Chang, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref166">12</reflink>] ). Future studies can include nonverbal intelligence measures.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-43">Conclusion</hd> <p>Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study of Korean children yielded results that contribute both theoretically and practically to understanding RAN and reading and writing in Korean Hangul, Chinese Hanja and L2 English. RAN was linked to Hangul word writing, Hanja reading and writing and L2 English reading. However, RAN was linked to neither Hangul reading nor English writing. Theoretically, our findings add to the growing evidence suggesting the differential associations of RAN between reading and writing in English and German (Moll & Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref167">45</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref168">51</reflink>] ). In addition, our results suggest that RAN's differential associations with reading and writing are likely specific to literacy fluency (e.g. Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref169">4</reflink>] ; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref170">52</reflink>] ). Practically, our findings imply the link of alphanumeric RAN skill for literacy development of skilled writing of Hangul words, early reading of L2 English and early reading and writing of Chinese characters among fifth and sixth graders in Korea – especially notable evidence of cross‐language transfer. RAN skills should be considered in future intervention programmes for enhancing spelling fluency of L1 and reading fluency of L2 among elementary school children.</p> <hd id="AN0110340234-44">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This work was supported by the Kyungnam University Foundation Grant, 2012. We are grateful to Soon‐Gil Park, Jee‐Hyun Lee, Na‐Young Park, Kyung‐Mee Woo and Kyung‐Lim Kang for their assistance in data collection. We appreciate the research assistance of Yik Ting Choi and Sze Wing Kuo. We also thank the students of Hoegae Primary School in Masan, Korea, for their participation.</p> <ref id="AN0110340234-45"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref99" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Baker, F.B. & Kim, S.‐H. ( 2004 ). Item response theory. Boca Raton, FL : CRC. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref112" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Benjamini, Y., Krieger, A.M. & Yekutieli, D. ( 2006 ). Adaptive linear step‐up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93, 491 – 507. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref148" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Bialystok, E., McBride‐Chang, C. & Luk, G. ( 2005 ). Bilingualism, language proficiency, and learning to read in two writing systems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 580 – 590. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref169" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Bowers, P.G. ( 1993 ). Text reading and rereading: Predictors of fluency beyond word recognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 133 – 153. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref152" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Bryant, P. & Nunes, T. ( 2004 ). Morphology and writing. In T. Nunes, & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children's literacy. (pp. 91 – 118 ). Dordrecht : Kluwer. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref54" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Caravolas, M., Hulme, C. & Snowling, M.J. ( 2001 ). The foundations of spelling ability. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 751 – 774. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Chan, D., Ho, C.S.‐H., Tsang, S.‐M., Lee, S.‐H. & Chung, K. ( 2006 ). Exploring the reading–writing connection in Chinese children with dyslexia in Hong Kong. Reading and Writing, 19, 543 – 561. doi: 10.1007/s11145‐006‐9008‐z. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref55" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Chiappe, P., Glaeser, B. & Ferko, D. ( 2007 ). Speech perception, vocabulary, and the development of reading skills in English among Korean‐ and English‐speaking children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 154 – 166. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref22" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Cho, J.R. ( 2009 ). Syllable and letter knowledge in early Korean Hangul reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 938 – 947. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref147" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Cho, J.R. & Chen, H.C. ( 1999 ). Orthographic and phonological activation in the semantic processing of Korean Hanja and Hangul. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 481 – 502. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref45" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Cho, J.‐R. & Lee, J.‐Y. ( 2010 ). Transfer of phonological and morphological awareness to reading in English and logographic Hanja among Korean children. Journal of Cognitive Science, 11, 57 – 78. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref46" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Cho, J.‐R. & McBride‐Chang, C. ( 2005 ). Correlates of Korean Hangul acquisition among kindergartners and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 3 – 16. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref83" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Cho, J.R., Chiu, M.M. & McBride‐Chang, C. ( 2011 ). Morphological awareness, phonological awareness and literacy development in Korean and English: A 2‐year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 383 – 408. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.487143. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref44" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Cho, J.‐R., McBride‐Chang, C. & Park, S.‐G. ( 2008 ). Phonological awareness and morphological awareness. Reading and Writing, 21, 255 – 274. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref38" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Chow, B.W., McBride‐Chang, C. & Burgess, S. ( 2005 ). Phonological processing skills and early reading abilities in Hong Kong Chinese kindergarteners learning to reading English as a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology. 97, 81 – 87. doi: 10.1037/0022‐0663.97.1.81. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref72" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Chung, K.K. & Ho, C.S. ( 2010 ). Second language learning disabilities in Chinese children with dyslexia: What are the reading‐related cognitive skills that contribute to English and Chinese word reading? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 195 – 211. doi: 10.1177/0022219409345018. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref70" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Cisero, C.A. & Royer, J.M. ( 1995 ). The development and cross‐language transfer of phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275 – 303. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref161" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, E. & Lacroix, D. ( 1999 ). A longitudinal study of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29 – 43. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref71" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Cossu, G. ( 1999 ). The acquisition of Italian orthography. In M. Harris & G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and write. (pp. 10 – 33 ). New York : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref136" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Cummins, J. ( 1979 ). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222 – 251. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref5" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>De Jong, P.F. & van der Leij, A. ( 1999 ). Specific contributions of phonological abilities to early reading acquisition: Results from a Dutch latent variable longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 450 – 476. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref1" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Denckla, M.B. & Rudel, R. ( 1976 ). Rapid ‘automatized’ naming of pictured objects, colors, letters, and numbers by normal children, Cortex, 10, 186 – 202. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref16" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Ding, Y., Richman, L.C., Yang, L. & Guo, J. ( 2010 ). Rapid automatized naming and immediate memory functions in Chinese Mandarin‐speaking elementary readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 48 – 61. doi: 10.1177/0022219409345016. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref98" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, L.M. ( 1996 ). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test ( 3rd edn. ). Circle Pines, MN : American Guidance Service. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref48" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Fitzgerald, J. & Shanahan, T. ( 2000 ). Reading and writing relations and their development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 39 – 50. doi/pdf/ 10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref36" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Frith, U. ( 1980 ). Unexpected spelling problems. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. (pp. 495 – 515 ). London : Academic Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref7" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Georgiou, G.K., Parrila, R. & Liao, C.‐H. ( 2008 ). Rapid naming speed and reading across languages that vary in orthographic consistency. Reading and Writing, 21, 885 – 903. doi: 10.1007/s11145‐007‐9096‐4. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref137" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Geva, E., Wade‐Woolley, L. & Shany, M. ( 1997 ). Development of reading efficiency in first and second language. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 119 – 144. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref103" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Goldstein, H. ( 1995 ). Multilevel statistical models. Sydney : Edward Arnold. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref102" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. ( 2004 ). LISREL 8.7. New York : Scientific Software. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref107" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Kennedy, P. ( 2004 ). A guide to econometrics. Cambridge : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref58" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Kessler, B. & Treiman, R. ( 2003 ). Is English writing chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24, 267 – 289. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref155" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Kim, Y.‐S. ( 2007 ). Phonological awareness and literacy skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role of body‐coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 69 – 94. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref43" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Kim‐Renaud, Y.K. (Ed.) ( 1997 ). The Korean alphabet: Its history and structure. Honolulu, HI : University of Hawaii Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref97" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Kwak, K.J., Park, H.W. & Kim, C.‐T. ( 2001 ). Korean‐Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (K‐WISC‐III). Seoul : Special Education Publishing Co. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref50" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Landerl, K. & Wimmer, H. ( 2008 ). Development of word reading fluency and spelling in a consistent orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 150 – 161. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref41" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Liao, C.H., Georgiou, G.K. & Parrila, R. ( 2008 ). Rapid naming speed and Chinese character recognition. Reading and Writing, 21, 231 – 253. doi: 10.1007/s11145‐007‐9071‐0. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref21" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Lim, J.‐R. ( 2002 ). The realities of modern Korean vocabulary usage and the properties of its word formation. Korean Language, 30, 41 – 67. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref27" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Logan, J., Schatschneider, C. & Wagner, R.K. ( 2011 ). Rapid serial naming and reading ability: The role of lexical access. Reading and Writing, 24, 1 – 25. doi: 10.1007/s11145‐009‐9199‐1. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref2" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Manis, F.R., Seidenberg, M.S. & Doi, L.M. ( 1999 ). See Dick RAN. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 129 – 157. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref87" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>McBride‐Chang, C. ( 2004 ). Children's literacy development. New York : Oxford University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref39" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>McBride‐Chang, C. & Ho, C.S.‐H. ( 2005 ). Developmental issues in Chinese children's character acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 50 – 55. doi: 10.1207/ s1532799xssr0902 _ 2. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref130" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Meyer, M.S., Wood, F.B., Hart, L.A. & Felton, R.H. ( 1998 ). Longitudinal course of rapid naming in disabled and nondisabled readers. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 91 – 114. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref108" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Mislevy, R.J. & Bock, R.D. ( 1990 ). Bilog 3. Mooresville, IN : Scientific Software. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref3" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Moll, K. & Landerl, K. ( 2009 ). Double dissociation between reading and spelling deficits. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 359 – 382. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref17" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Pan, J., McBride‐Chang, C., Shu, H., Liu, H., Zhang, Y. & Li, H. ( 2011 ). What is in the naming? Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 897 – 908. doi: 10.1037/a0024344. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref11" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>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, 785 – 797. doi: 10.1037/0022‐0663.96.4.785. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref14" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Pennington, B.F., Cardoso‐Martins, C., Green, P.A. & Lefly, D.L. ( 2001 ). Comparing the phonological and double deficit hypotheses for developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 707 – 755. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref51" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>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. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref31" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>Poulsen, M., Juud, H. & Elbro, C. ( 2012 ). Multiple mediation analysis of the relationship between rapid naming and reading. Journal of Research in Reading, Early View. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2012.01547.x. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref12" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Savage, R.S., Fredrickson, N., Goodwin, R., Patni, U., Smith, N. & Tuersley, L. ( 2005 ). The relationship between rapid digit naming, phonological awareness, motor automaticity, and speech perception. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 12 – 28. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref4" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Savage, R.S., Pillay, V., & Melidona, S. ( 2008 ). Rapid serial naming is a unique predictor of spelling in children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 235 – 250. doi: 10.1177/0022219408315814. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref78" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Share, D.L. ( 2008 ). On the angloeccentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an ‘outlier’ orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584 – 615. doi: 10.1037/0033‐2909.134.4.584. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref96" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Shu, H., McBride‐Chang, C., Wu, S. & Liu, H. ( 2006 ). Understanding Chinese developmental dyslexia: Morphological awareness as a core cognitive construct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 122 – 133. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref86" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Snowling, M.J. ( 2000 ). Dyslexia. Oxford : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref162" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Storch, S.A. & Witehurst, G.J. ( 2004 ). Oral language and code‐related precursors to reading. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934 – 947. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref25" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Swanson, H.L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D.M. & Hammill, D.D. ( 2003 ). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta‐analysis of the correlational evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73, 407 – 440. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib58" idref="ref19" type="bt">58</bibl> <bibtext>Taylor, I. & Taylor, M. ( 1995 ). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Amsterdam : John Benjamins. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib59" idref="ref18" type="bt">59</bibl> <bibtext>Tong, X.L., McBride‐Chang, C., Shu, H. & Wong, A.M.Y. ( 2009 ). Morphological awareness, orthographic knowledge, and spelling errors: Keys to understanding early Chinese literacy acquisition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 426 – 452. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib60" idref="ref8" type="bt">60</bibl> <bibtext>Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K. & Rashotte, C.A. ( 1997 ). Approaches to the prevention and remediation of phonologically based reading disabilities. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia. (pp. 287 – 304 ). London : Lawrence Erlbaum. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib61" idref="ref26" type="bt">61</bibl> <bibtext>Vukovic, R.K. & Siegel, L.S. ( 2006 ). The double‐deficit hypothesis: A comprehensive analysis of the evidence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 25 – 47. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib62" idref="ref9" type="bt">62</bibl> <bibtext>Wagner, R.K. & Torgesen, J. ( 1987 ). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192 – 212. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib63" idref="ref29" type="bt">63</bibl> <bibtext>Wimmer, H. & Mayringer, H. ( 2002 ). Dysfluent reading in the absence of spelling difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 272 – 277. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib64" idref="ref37" type="bt">64</bibl> <bibtext>Wolf, M. & Bowers, P.G. ( 1999 ). The double‐deficit hypotheses and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology 92, 668 – 680. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib65" idref="ref82" type="bt">65</bibl> <bibtext>Zhang, J., Anderson, R., Li, H., Dong, Q., Wu, X. & Zhang, Y. ( 2010 ). Cross‐language transfer of insight into the structure of compound words. Reading and Writing, 23, 311 – 336. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib66" idref="ref10" type="bt">66</bibl> <bibtext>Ziegler, J.C., Bertrand, D., To'rth, D., Cse'pe, V., Reis, A., Faı'sca, L. et al. ( 2010 ). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross‐language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551 – 559. doi: 10.1177/0956797610363406 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jeung‐Ryeul Cho and Ming Ming Chiu</p> <p></p> <p>Jeung‐Ryeul Cho is a Chairperson and Professor of the Psychology Department at Kyungnam University in South Korea. She has been teaching Cognition in graduate and undergraduate programmes for more than 20 years. The focus of her research is literacy development and instruction of Korean Hangul, Chinese Hanja and L2 English among Korean children.</p> <p>Ming Ming Chiu is a Professor of the Department of Learning and Instruction at the Graduate School of Education, University of Buffalo, The State University of New York. He has been teaching Statistical Analysis in the graduate programme. The focus of his research and teaching is the analysis of complex data sets in the domains of social metacognition and cross‐country studies of literacy and school achievement.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1078331
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Rapid Naming in Relation to Reading and Writing in Korean (Hangul), Chinese (Hanja) and English among Korean Children: A 1-Year Longitudinal Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cho%2C+Jeung-Ryeul%22">Cho, Jeung-Ryeul</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chiu%2C+Ming+Ming%22">Chiu, Ming Ming</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Reading%22"><i>Journal of Research in Reading</i></searchLink>. Nov 2015 38(4):387-404.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Intermediate+Grades%22">Intermediate Grades</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Korean%22">Korean</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+5%22">Grade 5</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Naming%22">Naming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Recognition%22">Word Recognition</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Orthographic+Symbols%22">Orthographic Symbols</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alphabets%22">Alphabets</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphology+%28Languages%29%22">Morphology (Languages)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+Skills%22">Writing Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22South+Korea%22">South Korea</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1467-9817.12020
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-0423
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The relation of rapid automatised naming (RAN) to word recognition may depend on the phonological regularity of the orthography. This study examined differential contributions of RAN to reading and writing in Korean alphabetic Hangul, logographic Hanja (Chinese) and English as a second language among 73 fifth graders in Korea across 1?year. RAN was differentially associated between reading and writing in Hangul and English. After statistically controlling for age, gender, morphological awareness, vocabulary and phonological awareness, RAN was uniquely predictive of Hangul word writing but not Hangul word recognition, and it uniquely accounted for English word recognition but not English word writing. Meanwhile, RAN explained both reading and writing in Hanja. Findings were discussed in terms of their orthography characteristics and different levels of proficiency.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2015
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1078331
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1078331
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1467-9817.12020
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 387
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Korean
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 5
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Naming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Recognition
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Orthographic Symbols
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Alphabets
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chinese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English (Second Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Morphology (Languages)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: South Korea
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Rapid Naming in Relation to Reading and Writing in Korean (Hangul), Chinese (Hanja) and English among Korean Children: A 1-Year Longitudinal Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cho, Jeung-Ryeul
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chiu, Ming Ming
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2015
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-0423
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Reading
              Type: main
ResultId 1