Does the Reading Ability in a Native Language
Transfer ・to a Foreign Language？
Hiroo MlzuNo＊
（Received August 30，1991）
Synopsis
This paper presents the results of an experiment which was carried out to investigate how the students ability in reading comprehension in Japanese as a native language and that in English as a foreign language （EFL） are interrelated，
Subjects， who consisted of 173 freshmeri in college， were required to answere the comprehension tests in both Japanese and English， and the results obtained shows that there is no interrelation between the reading ability in English and Japanese．
1． lntroduction
In this paper， an atterppt will be made to investigate．the correlation of the students ability in reading com−
prehension between in Japanese as a native language and in English as a foreign language，
In Japan， much of the time in English lessons at school 4re allotted to reading activity， But the resusts com−
mensurate with the efforts seem not to be obtained， because the students are learning the language through reading， not learning to read． Language learning is， of course， prerequisite to reading， but how to read in a foreign language als6 must be taught in EFL classes．
So this paper is offered as the first step of carrying out a research into giving instruction in reading for co皿prehension in EFL cl．asses．
The paper is divided into three parts． The first part deals with nature of reading： four conventional models of reading process， speed and comprehension． The second part gives an experiment of reading comprehension in English and Japanese， its results and interpretations of the results． The last part draws eonclusions．
2． Nature of Reading
2−1・ Four models of read・ing
Different people use th @e term reading ip different ways and much confvsion cap aris．e from consequent mis−
understandings． ln order to grasp con6eptual framework upon the phenomena subsumed under reading， four conventional models of reading process will be shown．
Mode豆1
Graphic lnput I 一一一一一一 （Recoding） 一L−L一一一 IAural lnputlJ一一一JJ （Recoding） m． 一一一 ． iOral Languagel 一一一一一一 10ral Output
This activity is just practice of sound−symbol correspondence， and only has the effect of encouragi．ng the students to look closely at individual words， or even syllables． ln many EFL Classes， reading aloud of unfamil−
iar material being followed by questions qn what has been read aloud is common activity， This practic．e does
＊ Division of General Education， Tsuyama National College of Technology．
一 155 一
津山高専紀要第29号 （1991）
not help the students to develop confidence in drawing coherent meaning from the tekts． Reading aloud of unfamiliar material can only demonstrate the students ability to relate rules of sound−symbol correspondences to graphic material， accompanied by the activation of appropriate articulators， without indicating comprehen−
sion． This lack of comprehension will be evident in occasional misapplication of stress， junctu re and intonation rules in particular， since these indicate the appropriate allocation of wotds to meaningful segments in the com−
prehension phase which precedes． the oral production．
This model ean be described in another way like this．
Model 1
surface structure l l surface structure of writing 1 l of spoken language
In the nekt model， recoding wtitten language to oral language is used for getting meaning．
Model 2
Graphic lnput 1 （Recoding） ．1 Aural lnput 1 （Recoding） 1 Oral Language l．1 Oral Output 1 （Decoding） 1 Meaning
This model can be s een in the early stage of learning to read， especially of those who have learned oral lan−
guage like native speakers， before learning to read． In this type of reading， pheno皿ena of oral output may be at times and shQwn as Vocalization or subvacalization． This habit offers elementary readers the support of the sopken languagei with which theY are more familiari． when they try to interpret the written eode． Children make use of it in Ll reading （Where it is encouraged for beginners）， and so， understandably．do students learn−
ing to read a FL． Here is another description of this model．
Model 2
surface structure surface structure deep structure of of writing of spoken language sPoken langUage
It is clear that efficient readers do not subvocalize；reading aloud is much slower than silent reading（our
コ
eyes move faster than our tongue）and subvocalization takes almost．as long as reading aloud， If you subvocal−
ize you will tend to read word by．翌盾窒пDinstead of in Sense grOups and it will be．difficult to．奄高垂窒曹魔?@your．
speed．
The next model i自what we call silent reading． In this model， meaning is derived directly from written form wi七hout transferring it to oral form．
Mode】3
Graphic lnput f一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一一u−JJ一一一@（Decoding）一一一一 ± 一一一一一一一一一； 一一一一一 Meaning
Model 3
surface structure of writing
一deep structure of writing
When a reader has reached the most proficient stage， he can decode graphic input・first and then eneode the meaning as oral output， In this model， encoding to oral form has nothing to do with deriving meaning fro皿the
written form， in other words， it is additional activity．
Model 4
Graphic lnput 1 一 一一一一一 （Decoding） 一一一一一 一一 ．1 Meaning i 一一一一一一一 ．（Encoding） 一 一一一 一1 Oral Language
Model 4
surface structure l 1 deep structure df l ［surface structure
of writing 1． I writing 1． I of spoken language
一一一一一一 1 Oral Output
From these models shown so far， We can notice that there different types of vocalilation； vocalization just for word−call．ing in model 1， vocalization which is used in order to derive meaning in model 2， vocalization which． appears after comprehension a．s is shown inエnode14．
2−2 rpeed and comprehension
How well a reader comprehends what he has read and his reading speed is so closely interrelated that it is meaningless to talk of speed without reference to comprehension， and vice versa．
As for reading speed，reading must be fast． lt means that the brain must always．move ahead quickly， to avoid becoming bogged down in the visual detail of the text to the extent that tunnel vision （information overload）
might result， does not mean that eyes shottld be speeded up， Reading cannot be improved by accelerating the eyeballs， beeause there is a limit to the rate at which the brain can make sense of visual information from the eyes and simply increasing the rate at which fixations are made would have the consequence of further over−
whelming the brain rather than facilitating its decisions，
In fact， the customary reading rate of three or four fixations a second would appear to be an optimum， At a slower rate the cdntents of sensory store may begip to fade and the reader might be in the position of staring at nothing． At a faster rate than four fixations a second， masking can intrude so that the reader loses informa−
tion before it is properEy analysed．
There is no one best reading rate； that depends on the difficulty of the passage and the skiil of the reader．
The rate must be different if extensive memorization is being attempted， because rote learning cannot be accomplished quickly． But a reader is unlikely to comprehend while reading slower than 20e words a minute，
because a lesser rate would imply that words were being read as isolated units rather than as meaningful sequences， Limitations of memory prevent sense being built up from isolated words．
Thus， while comprehension demands relatively fast reading， memorization slows the reader down． As a con−
sequeh．Ce，co血pr ehension． may be impaired and memorization become pointless in eny case． If the brain already has a good idea of what is on the page， then slower reading is more tolerable and more time can be spared for memorization， But heavy memory burdens should be avoided when ope is 獅盾煤@familiar with the language or subject matter，．．
The second inatter to be referred to ・is levels of comprehensiori． According to the suggestion by Adams
（1969） ， there are three levels of comprehension we need to develop； literal ， critical and aesthetic． Literal com−
prehension is the level we use to understand and recall main ideas， to follow direction and to understand and recall a sequence of events， to paraphrase or summarize what we have read． Critical comprehension is what we need to understand the difference between fact and opinion， to recognize bias and propaganda， to recognize an aqthor s inference and to make valid judgement． Aesthetic comprehension is the awareness of beauty and sub；
tleties in writing． lt is our ability to recognize and appreciate stylistic devices， humor， irony， satire and quality in writing．
一157一
津山高専紀要第29号 （1991）
3． An Experiment of Reading Comprehension
3−1 Method ，
An experiment was carried out・in July in 1991 with the subjects of 173 students in the first year in college．
The experiment consisted of comprehension ．tests both in English and Japanese． For the test of reading compre−
hension in Japanese， two materials of the same level， with 7 multiple−choice questions in total， were used． As for the English comprehension test， two materials of the different level were used． Easier one （test A） has one multiple−choice question which requires the subjects to choose 3 correct answers out of 8； and the other one
（test B） also has one multiple−chice question by which they were instructed to choose 4 correct．answers out of 10．
More information on the materials used and the readability scores of them which were calculated according to the Dale−Chall formula （1980） are given in Table 1．
Table． 1
Test A Test B
Number of the sentences 24 21
N廿mber of words per sentence 10．5 16．2 Allotted tilne for the test 5min． 151nin．
US grade 4．53 5．41
Us grade ＝ （O．1579 X PERCENT UFMWDS）
十（0．0496×WDS／SEN）
十3．6365
UFMWEDS＝Unfa皿iliar words
WDS／SEN＝Average number of words per sentence
Test A Test B Correlation coefficient 0，152 0，046 3−2 Results and．lnterpretations
To every correct answer in both English apd Japafiese， one point was given and the correlation coefficient between the total score of the Japanese comprehension test and that of test A， and B were calculated indi−
vidually． （Table 2）i
Both results obtained by the experiment show Table． 2
that there． is no interrelationship between the ．read−
ing comprehension ability in English and Japanese．
Whether the material to be．．read in English is eaSy or difficult makes no difference is another finding．
Possible reasons for the results are as follows：
（1） Poor knowledge of ．the relevant language
The knowledge of English of the students is not sufficienf compared with that of their native language， so they must feel difficulty in reading English．
Reading is a kind of trade−off between visual inforrnation and nonvisual ．information （nonvisual information here m ?≠獅刀@knowledge of the relevant language）． The less nonvisual information a reader has， the more visual information the reader needs． But insufficiericy of nonvisual information will make reading difficult， for the simple but inescapable reason that there is a limit to how much visual information the brain can handle at any one ttme．
（2） lnsufficient knowledge of how to read ．
In many EFL classes， the teachers mainly devote themselves to teaching grammatical points． lt is， as men−
tioned in （2）， of importance but that the students are scarcely given the opportunity to learn how to read seems to be the problem． We must keep in mind that knowledge of how to read is another kind of nonvisual informa−
tion which is of evident importance in making reading possible．
（3） Translation habit ，
Learning of the foreign language usually begins after the native language habits have already．established and there are only three or four clas 唐?刀@in a week at junior high school， six or seven at most at senior high school． The students can not possibly acquire the foreign language habits as they did in their native language．
To make the matter worse， learning of the foreign language in class is abstract learning which is completely detached from our daily ！ives． So， in almost・ every ・school， reading skill is learned by translation method， or some method like that． ln such a method， the students are urged to devote themselves to translating with abso−
lute literalness and then they may fall into a bad habit of being engaged iri translation whenever they read in the．foreign language． As a result， it often happens that they can not understand what they read， even if they translate it．
In the beginning， thinking directly in the foreign language is difficult and irustrating， the tendency is to slip into practice of attempting to convert all the elements in the reading into equivalent for皿s in the native lan−
guage， But the students need to be able to read in the foreign language as they do in their own language， they should make every effor 煤@to eliminate their language from their minds while they are reading ．
4． Conclusion
It seems that reading skill is learned only through reading． lt may be true in the serise that we can not learn to read without reading activities． But if we see the reading activities in EFL classes， most of them are prac−
ticed mainly for language learning， not for learning to read． Language learning is surely indispensable for learning to read． But reading， like other skills such as speaking， listening writing， involves its peculiar tech−
nique and it also must be taught in EFL classes．
There are some foreign language teachers who assume that because the students have already acquired reading skM in their native language， reading in the foreign language is not a hard task for them． But readihg in the foreign language involves some new difficulties which do not appear in reading in the native language．
Such difficulties often rob them of good reading habits． The EFL teachers need to make some suggestions so that they can read in the foreign language as they do in their native language，
References
Adams，W， Royce （1969） lncreasing Reading Speed．
London：The Macmillan Company Collier−Macmillan，111．
Aron，Helen （1986） The lnfluence of Backgrotind Knowledge on Memory for Reading Passages by Native and Nonnative Readers． TESOL Quarterly， VOL．2Q． NO，1，136−140，
DUI ay hHeidi． et． al． （1982） Lahguage Ttvo． Oxf6fd．：Oxford University Press．
Goodman，K：enneth S．．（1．968）乃e Psycholinguis亡fc IVa加re of亡力e Rea伽g Proce∬． Detroit：Wayne State Uni．
versity press．
Harrison， Colii｝（19．80）Readabゴlity加the Classroo1η・Ca皿bridge：Cambridge University Press，74−77．
Nuttall， Christine （1982） Teaching Reading SkiUs in a Foreign Laflguage． London：Heinemann Educational
Books，33−37．・
Segalowitz， Norman （1991） Does Advanced Skill in a Second Language Reduce Automaticity in the First Lan−
guage？ Language Learning， VOL， 41，NO．1，59−83．
Simon， Herbert A． （1969） The Science of the ArtificiaL Cambridge， Mass．：M．1，T．Press，
Smith，Frank （1978） Understanding Reading． New York： Holt，Rinehart and Wiston，
一159一
