developmental interdependence hypothesis

• Acknowledgements
• 1. Language and Identity
• 1.1. What Is a Speech Community?
• 1.2. Coercive vs. Collaborative Relations
• 1.3. Language Minority Stories
• 2. Who Are English Learners?
• 2.1. Reflection Model
• 2.2. Inclusive Pedagogy
• 2.2. Makoto Critical Incident
• 2.3. Assumptions to Rethink about English Learners
• 2.4. Critical Learning Domains
• 3. Understanding Theory
• 3.1. Communication, Pattern, and Variability
• 3.2. Five Curriculum Guidelines
• 3.3. Indicators of Instructional Conversation (IC)
• 3.4. Indicators of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy
• 3.5. Standards for Effective Pedagogy
• 3.6. Examining Current Realities
• 4.1. Input and Native Language Acquisition
• 4.2. Input and Second Language Acquisition
• 4.3. The Interdependence Hypothesis
• 4.4. The Threshold Hypothesis
• 4.5. Vocabulary Development and Language Transfer
• 4.6. Text Modification
• 5. Interaction
• 5.1. Code Switching and Interaction
• 5.2. Characteristics of Modifications for Interaction
• 5.3. How Can Teachers Help Second Language Learners Begin to Communicate?
• 5.4. Classroom Routines and Participation Structures
• 5.5. We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classroom
• 6. Stages of Development
• 6.1. Proficiency Levels Defined
• 7. Errors and Feedback
• 7.1. Points to Remember About Errors
• 7.2. Effective and Appropriate Feedback for English Learners
• 8. Types of Proficiencies
• 8.1. Fostering Second Language Development in Young Children
• 8.2. Instructional Conversation in Native American Classroom
• 8.3. Student Motivation to Learn
• 8.4. Language Learning Strategies: An Update
• 8.5. Three Misconceptions about Age and L2 Learning
• 9. Types of Performances
• 9.1. Understanding BICS and CALP
• 9.2. The Order of Acquisition and The Order of Use
• 9.3. Schumann's Acculturation Model
• 9.4. Implications From the Threshold and Interdependence Hypotheses
• 9.5. Lily Wong Fillmore’s Cognitive and Social Strategies for Second Language Learners
• 10. Classroom Practices and Language Acquisition
• Translations

The Interdependence Hypothesis

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

How Knowledge of First Language (L1) Affects Second Language (L2) Acquisition

In linguistic communities all over the world, literate and non-literate, children at the age of four have developed the essentials of basic interpersonal communication. That is, their pronunciation system is approaching that of an adult speaker, their word formation skills are essentially developed, they have a conversational vocabulary of between one and two thousand word families, their basic abilities with conversational sentence structure are nearing those of adult speakers, and they have developed the basic discourse skills which serve as a foundation for social interaction. All of this has happened before they have fully reached Piaget’s concrete operations stage of mental development; that is, before they have developed the intellectual ability to reason as adults do. It has happened before they are capable of discussing language structure, and before they have developed literacy. As a matter of fact, the development of basic conversational skills in a language is not a good indicator of intellectual ability, except in cases of severe disabilities. Neither is the development of BICS a good predictor of academic success. All normal native speakers, even those at the lower end of the curve on standardized academic tests generally have good conversational ability in their language.

On the other hand, there is a strong correlation between academic success and vocabulary development, use of academic discourse, metalinguistic skills and levels of literacy, all of which are a part of CALP and continue to grow throughout childhood and adolescence. It is estimated, for example, that native speakers, on average, learn about 3,000 new word families per year during their elementary and secondary school years. Along with this vocabulary, they learn thousands of concepts in math, science, social studies, and other subjects. In addition, they become better and better readers and writers and develop analytical skills and complex higher-order thinking skills.

So, in addition to developing BICS, the absence of which can act as a temporary bottleneck to the processing of content information, L2 learners have to develop the CALP skills that native speakers are developing from year to year. It should not be surprising then, that in second language development, children immersed in L2 environments, develop BICS to near-native levels in one to three years, while it takes them from five to ten years on average to catch up to native speakers in CALP.

Also, since BICS is acquired primarily through social interaction and it is used primarily in face to face communication and does not place great demands on cognitive resources, children of many different intellectual and academic abilities acquire it in about the same amount of time given similar learning conditions. On the other hand, there are great differences among individuals in their rate of acquisition of CALP. This is where the Interdependence (IH) or Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) Hypothesis comes in.

Interdependence Hypothesis (Cummins, 1981)

Cognitive academic proficiency in the L1 and L2 are interdependent. Increases in the capacity for cognitive activity in one language also enhances the same capacity in the other. Consequently, learners who develop more cognitive skills through the use of their native language before beginning the acquisition of the L2 will develop the ability to manifest those skills in the L2 more rapidly than those who have not.

Simply put, it means that concepts developed in the L1 do not have to be relearned when children learn a second language; if children are already literate in their L1 when they are introduced to theL2, they will learn to read more rapidly in the second language; or children who have a strong background in math in the L1 will be able to use those  skills when they continue to learn math in the L2. What this means in practical terms is that time spent in learning academic content and literacy in the native language is not time lost to educational achievement in the L2. While these claims seem self- evident to people who have worked with second language learners, this hypothesis has been hotly contested by those who are against native-language instruction in American schools. Because of this many studies have been conducted to test this hypothesis. Here we will review only a few of the most important.

An early study that prompted a lot of later research was done by Skutnabb-Kangas (1977). In it she examined the educational performance of Finnish immigrant children in Sweden. When she compared the performance of Finnish speaking children who began studying in Swedish schools in kindergarten with those who had studied in Finnish schools for up to two years before being immersed in Swedish, to her surprise, those who had entered later performed better on academic content measures in Swedish. This is the opposite of what one would predict if language fluency (BICS) were the only factor operating. That is, one would predict that the earlier the exposure to the second language, the better for academic performance in that language.

In a similar study by Gonzalez (1986, 1989) he examined the sixth grade reading skills of two groups of learners, one who attended school for at least two years in Mexico prior to entering school in the U.S. (34 students) and the other group who were Spanish speakers but were born and schooled entirely in the U.S. (36 students). Both were from similar low SES backgrounds. The group with prior education in Mexico outperformed the other group in both Spanish and English reading, while the U.S. born group outperformed the Mexico group in basic oral communication skills in English.

In 1985 the California State Department of Education conducted an evaluation of five schools in which children had been taught initial literacy in their L1. They found consistently higher correlations between English and Spanish reading scores (r= 0.60 to 0.74) in later grades than between English reading and English oral proficiency scores (r=0.36 to 0.59). They also found that the correlations between L1 and L2 reading scores became stronger as oral language proficiency increased.

Cummins (1991) reviews a number of additional studies which support the Interdependence Hypothesis for both reading and writing skills, for languages which are closely related (English-Spanish) as well as languages that are linguistically more distantly related (Japanese-English). He concludes that the relationships between skills across similar languages are stronger than those across more distantly related ones. He attributes this to the fact that for distantly related languages, transfer occurs primarily from cognitive and personality attributes of learners, whereas for more closely related languages, the transfer includes that of linguistic elements as well.

Cummins’ interdependency hypothesis and the research which supports it provide clear evidence that the development of literacy in a first language will support the development of literacy in a second. Becoming literate in their native language will support second language learners’ academic language development, as well as their skills in social interaction.

Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant children: Logic or intuition? Journal of multilingual and multicultural development,1, I 97–111.

Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students (pp. 3–49). In California State Department of Education (ed.) Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center California State University.

Cummins, J. (1991). Interdependence of first- and second-language proficiency in bilingual children (pp. 70–89). In E.-Bialystok (ed.) Language processing in bilingual children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

González, L.A. (1986). The effects of first language education on the second language and academic achievement of Mexican immigrant elementary school children in the United States. Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

González, L.A. (1989). Native language education: The key to English literacy skills (pp. 209–224). In D.J. Bixler- Márquez, G.K. Green, and

J.L. Ornstein-Galicia (Eds.) Mexican-American Spanish in its societal and cultural contexts. Brownsville: Pan American University.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1977). Are all Finns in Northern Sweden semilingual? International Journal of the Society of Language, 10, 144 –145.

Adapted with permission from:

Teemant, A. & Pinnegar, S. (2007). Understanding Langauge Acquisition Instructional Guide. Brigham Young University-Public School Partnership. 

Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI)

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by EdTech Books.

Access it online or download it at https://edtechbooks.org/language_acquisition/jigsaw_reading_d .

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

Home > ETDS > DISSERTATIONS > AAI9988850

Off-campus UMass Amherst users: To download dissertations, please use the following link to log into our proxy server with your UMass Amherst user name and password.

Non-UMass Amherst users, please click the view more button below to purchase a copy of this dissertation from Proquest.

(Some titles may also be available free of charge in our Open Access Dissertation Collection , so please check there first.)

The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis and the language development of Yucatec Maya -Spanish bilingual children

Michael D Vrooman , University of Massachusetts Amherst

The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis as developed by Cummins (1978) argues that certain first language (L1) knowledge can be positively transferred during the process of second language (L2) acquisition. The L1 linguistic knowledge and skills that a child possesses can be extremely instrumental to the development of corresponding abilities in the L2. An integral component of these facilitative aspects of language influence is that the L1 be sufficiently developed prior to the extensive exposure to the L2 as would be found, for example, in an educational environment. An additional theoretical framework that has motivated this study incorporates principles of Universal Grammar, namely, that there are innate properties of language shared by the human species, and that language acquisition is the result of the interaction between these biologically determined aspects of language with the learner's linguistic environment. The principal goal of this dissertation is to examine children's knowledge of one area of Yucatec Maya L1 syntax, specifically, the word order of simple transitive sentences. By means of an experiment conducted with 28 Mayan children of 4 and 5 years of age, data were gathered and analyzed. Overall, the findings suggest that the subjects of the study are still in the process of acquiring the syntactic structure under investigation, that their L1 is still developing. Very few of the subjects demonstrated mastery of the structure under investigation. With regards to pedagogical concerns within the context of minority language education, the potentiality for these findings to enhance or inhibit the subsequent acquisition of Spanish as an L2 is examined.

Subject Area

Curricula|Teaching|Higher education|Science education

Recommended Citation

Vrooman, Michael D, "The Linguistic Interdependence Hypothesis and the language development of Yucatec Maya -Spanish bilingual children" (2000). Doctoral Dissertations Available from Proquest . AAI9988850. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations/AAI9988850

Since July 19, 2006

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Login for Faculty Authors
• Faculty Author Gallery
• Expert Gallery
• University Libraries
• UMass Amherst

This page is sponsored by the University Libraries.

© 2009 University of Massachusetts Amherst • Site Policies

Privacy Copyright

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Language-Independent and Language-Specific Aspects of Early Literacy: An Evaluation of the Common Underlying Proficiency Model

According to the common underlying proficiency model ( Cummins, 1981 ), as children acquire academic knowledge and skills in their first language, they also acquire language-independent information about those skills that can be applied when learning a second language. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relevance of the common underlying proficiency model for the early literacy skills of Spanish-speaking language-minority children using confirmatory factor analysis. Eight hundred fifty-eight Spanish-speaking language-minority preschoolers (mean age = 60.83 months, 50.2% female) participated in this study. Results indicated that bifactor models that consisted of language-independent as well as language-specific early literacy factors provided the best fits to the data for children’s phonological awareness and print knowledge skills. Correlated factors models that only included skills specific to Spanish and English provided the best fits to the data for children’s oral language skills. Children’s language-independent early literacy skills were significantly related across constructs and to language-specific aspects of early literacy. Language-specific aspects of early literacy skills were significantly related within but not across languages. These findings suggest that language-minority preschoolers have a common underlying proficiency for code-related skills but not language-related skills that may allow them to transfer knowledge across languages.

Early literacy skills are the developmental precursors to conventional reading skills and are measurable during the preschool years, prior to the beginning of formal reading instruction. Research indicates that three early literacy skills are the strongest predictors of children’s future reading ability: phonological awareness, print knowledge, and oral language ( Lonigan, Schatschneider, & Westberg, 2008 ; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998 ). Phonological awareness refers to the ability to detect and manipulate the individual sound components of words, independent of meaning. Print knowledge refers to children’s knowledge of the conventions of print (e.g., text is read from left to right in English) as well as knowledge of letters and letter-sound correspondence. Oral language refers to the ability to use spoken language to understand and convey meaning, and includes children’s vocabulary and syntactic knowledge, among other skills. Phonological awareness and print knowledge are code-related skills that are highly related to children’s later decoding (i.e., word reading) abilities whereas oral language is more strongly related to children’s later reading comprehension skills (e.g., Storch & Whitehurst, 2002 ). Evidence indicates that early literacy skills are causally related to children’s later reading abilities (e.g., Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1995 ; Hulme, Bowyer-Crane, Carroll, Duff, & Snowling, 2012 ). Consequently, it may be important to identify children with poor early literacy skills and intervene early to prevent difficulties in acquiring conventional reading abilities.

Children whose home language is different than that spoken by the majority of the population of the country in which they live are often referred to as language-minority (LM) children (e.g., August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009 ). Children who speak Spanish at home comprise the largest group of LM children in the U.S., and these children are at a high risk for struggling academically ( Hemphill, Vanneman, & Rahman, 2011 ). Prior research on the early literacy skills of LM children indicates that the same skills that are important precursors to conventional reading skills among monolingual children are also predictive of LM children’s later reading abilities (e.g., Manis, Lindsay, & Bailey, 2004 ). However, LM children often score lower on measures of early literacy and enter elementary school with weaker English reading abilities than do monolingual children ( Hoff, 2013 ; Lonigan, Farver, Nakamoto, & Eppe, 2013 ). Additionally, evidence indicates that rates of growth of reading abilities do not differ for LM and monolingual children ( Kieffer & Vukovic, 2013 ), indicating that the gap between LM and monolingual children does not begin to narrow once LM children are exposed to formal reading instruction in English. Therefore, it is important to understand how LM children’s early literacy skills develop to prevent them from falling behind their monolingual peers early in life.

Theory regarding the development of language and literacy skills among LM children suggests that children can transfer knowledge across languages. According to the developmental interdependence hypothesis ( Cummins, 1979 ), for children exposed to a second language (L2), development of that language is dependent on the level of proficiency in their first language (L1) at the time of sustained exposure to L2. This claim suggests that children with low levels of proficiency in Spanish may have more difficulties with English acquisition than children with high levels of proficiency in Spanish. Similarly, some researchers suggest that children with higher levels of proficiency in L1 are more likely to benefit from L2 instruction than are children with lower levels of proficiency in L1 because they can transfer preexisting L1 knowledge to their L2 when exposure to L2 begins (e.g., Cummins, 2008 ). However, current evidence for cross-language transfer is predominantly correlational (e.g., Durgunoglu, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993 ; Lindsay, Manis, & Bailey, 2003 ), and significant cross-language correlations of L1 and L2 skills do not necessarily represent evidence of transfer because such findings are open to alternative explanations, such as common language-learning environments across L1 and L2. Additional research is needed to determine empirically whether cross-language transfer occurs and how to best leverage LM children’s existing L1 skills when they begin to learn L2.

Cummins (1981) introduced the idea of a common underlying proficiency to describe a potential mechanism through which cross-language transfer could occur. According to the common underlying proficiency model, proficiencies in L1 and L2 are not separate abilities. Although there are surface features of each language that are distinct, L1 and L2 are intrinsically connected. As proficiency in one language develops, so does language-independent knowledge (i.e., the common underlying proficiency) that supports the development of skills in both languages. Exposure to either L1 or L2 will contribute to the development of the common underlying proficiency, which may allow children to transfer knowledge across languages. Although this model was developed based on evidence of the transferability of language-independent skills (e.g., inferring meaning from text), Cummins argued that even when a task seems relatively language-specific (e.g., spelling), there will be strong relations between L1 and L2 due to the common underlying proficiency. Some support for the common underlying proficiency model comes from studies demonstrating that educational curricula that incorporate instruction in both languages have larger effects on academic outcomes than do curricula that exclusively provide instruction in L2 (e.g., Cheung & Slavin, 2012 ). For many LM children in the U.S., substantial exposure to L2 (i.e., English) begins with enrollment in preschool. A few studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for LM preschoolers’ literacy-related skills provide support for the common underlying proficiency model (e.g., Farver, Lonigan, & Eppe, 2009 ). However, no study to date has attempted to evaluate empirically whether LM children’s L1 and L2 literacy-related skills are represented by a common underlying proficiency.

Cross-Language Relations of Early Literacy Skills

The common underlying proficiency model suggests that children’s early literacy skills are related across languages. Over the past several decades, Cummins’ theory (1981) has led to a large amount of research examining the cross-language relations of various academic skills among LM children (e.g., Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011 ). However, the common underlying proficiency may be more relevant for some skills than it is for others. Some skills may be relatively language independent, such as phonological awareness, which requires manipulation of sounds of words, independent of meaning. Once the understanding that words are made up of sounds that can be manipulated (e.g., isolated, removed) is acquired, children should be able to apply this skill to words they do not know, and potentially to words in another language. In contrast, other skills, such as vocabulary knowledge, are more specific to a particular language. For language-independent skills, LM children should develop a common underlying proficiency that can then be applied to other languages. For language-specific skills, children should acquire knowledge that is not necessarily applicable to other languages, limiting the extent to which acquisition of knowledge and skills would be associated with development of a common underlying proficiency for those skills.

Phonological awareness is a relatively language-independent ability. For example, the knowledge that words are made up of smaller units of sound that can be manipulated is applicable to both English and Spanish, as long as the sounds of both languages can be detected. Therefore, the common underlying proficiency may be particularly relevant for the development of phonological awareness. Research has demonstrated that LM children’s phonological awareness skills are significantly related across languages (e.g., Branum-Martin et al., 2006 ; Durgunoglu et al., 1993 ). Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of the correlational studies of cross-language relations of literacy-related skills and reported that the average cross-language correlation of phonological awareness was large ( r = .54). If this cross-language correlation is due to a common underlying proficiency for phonological awareness, it would be expected that development of phonological awareness in L1 would support the development of phonological awareness in L2, and vice versa.

Print knowledge is somewhat less language-independent than is phonological awareness. Although print knowledge consists of the language-independent knowledge that letters have names and are associated with sounds, it also includes language-specific information (e.g., specific letter names and letter-sound correspondences). Therefore, the common underlying proficiency model may be less relevant for the development of print knowledge than it is for phonological awareness. The extent to which LM children develop a common underlying proficiency for print knowledge and transfer print knowledge skills across languages should be dependent on the amount of overlap in information pertaining to print knowledge across two languages. For example, because Spanish and English share almost all alphabetic symbols and letter names are similar across the two languages, the common underlying proficiency model may be more relevant for Spanish and English print knowledge than it is for two languages that have fewer similarities in surface-level features (e.g., English and Arabic). Consistent with this idea, Bialystok, Luk, & Kwan (2005) reported that L1 and L2 were only related for children who were acquiring two languages that used the same writing system. Several studies have reported significant cross-language correlations of print knowledge among Spanish-speaking LM children (e.g., Goodrich, Lonigan, & Farver, 2013 ; Lindsey et al., 2003 ), indicating that the common underlying proficiency model may be relevant for print knowledge.

Oral language primarily consists of language-specific knowledge. For example, oral language skills of preschool children are commonly assessed using vocabulary measures. With the exception of cognates, vocabulary knowledge is language specific because words in a language are arbitrarily associated with their underlying concepts. Therefore, the common underlying proficiency model should have limited relevance for the development of oral language among preschool children. For example, although children may have language-independent knowledge of a concept because they know the corresponding word for that concept in L1, there is often little to no information about that concept or its L1 label that children could use to acquire the word in L2. Results of prior research indicate that LM children’s vocabularies are distributed across their two languages, with approximately 70% of words known in L1 or L2, but not both ( Peña, Bedore, & Zlatic-Giunta, 2002 ). Additionally, several studies indicate that cross-language correlations of vocabulary knowledge are often non-significant or negative ( Bialystok et al., 2005 ; Goodrich, Lonigan, Kleuver, & Farver, 2016 ; Gottardo & Mueller, 2009 ), suggesting that there is not a common underlying proficiency for young LM children’s oral language skills; however, in their meta-analysis Melby-Lervåg and Lervåg (2011) reported that the correlation between L1 and L2 oral language skills was significant, albeit small ( r = .16), suggesting that a common underlying proficiency may play a small role in the development of L1 and L2 oral language.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relevance of the common underlying proficiency model for the development of early literacy skills among Spanish-speaking LM preschoolers by using bifactor models. Bifactor models are a special case of confirmatory factor analysis in which variance in indicators is partitioned into general variance that is common across all indicators (i.e., all items load on to a general factor) as well as construct-specific variance (i.e., items also load on to construct-specific factors; Reise, 2012). Bifactor models account for overlapping variance across constructs (i.e., the general factor). Therefore, if two constructs are not significantly related to each other a bifactor model should not provide an improvement in fit to the data over a more parsimonious correlated-factors model. In this study, we estimated bifactor models to determine the extent to which variance in items on Spanish and English early literacy assessments is shared across languages or is unique to the language of assessment. Evidence that a bifactor model fit the data significantly better than a correlated-factors model would indicate that children have a common underlying proficiency for early literacy skills (as represented by the general factor). Based on theory and prior evidence (e.g., Melby-Lervåg & Lervåg, 2011 ), it was hypothesized that the common underlying proficiency would be relevant for phonological awareness and print knowledge but not for oral language. Additionally, it was expected that the common underlying proficiency model would be more relevant for phonological awareness than it would for print knowledge.

We also evaluated cross-construct correlations between language-specific early literacy abilities and LM children’s common underlying proficiencies for early literacy skills. We expected that unique Spanish abilities would not be significantly related to unique English abilities. If children’s common underlying proficiencies for early literacy abilities represented variance unique to each construct, it would not be expected that the common underlying proficiencies would be related to language-specific aspects of early literacy across constructs. For example, if language-independent phonological awareness and print knowledge skills represented abilities that were entirely unique to phonological awareness and print knowledge, respectively, those constructs would not be related to each other or to other language-specific aspects of early literacy (e.g., English oral language). However, some researchers have speculated that evidence of cross-language relations of academic skills emerges due to children’s underlying language-learning capacity ( Castilla, Restrepo, & Perez-Leroux, 2009 ). If the common underlying proficiency is indicative of a general language-learning capacity and is not unique to any specific construct, it would be expected that children’s common underlying proficiencies would be related to each other and to language-specific aspects of early literacy across constructs (e.g., common underlying proficiency for print knowledge would be correlated with Spanish-specific aspects of phonological awareness).

Participants

Spanish-speaking LM children ( N = 858) enrolled in 102 preschool classrooms participated in this study. Children in this study represented the LM portion of a larger sample recruited for participation in a curriculum evaluation study that was designed to target the development of early literacy skills in at-risk, low-income preschool children. Children came from classrooms in which at least 50% of children were Spanish-speaking LM children, and all preschool classrooms were required to have at least one teacher who was a fluent Spanish speaker. Children in this sample were recruited from several regions across the U.S., including Central Florida, South Florida, New Mexico, Kansas, and Southern California. Consequently, children’s home language experiences came from diverse countries of origin, including Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Central and South American countries. Children ranged in age from 44 months to 74 months ( M = 60.83, SD = 4.74). Among participants for whom data on sex were available (n = 804), 49.8% of participants were identified as male and 50.2% were identified as female. Among participants for whom parent report data were available, parent report of language spoken at home indicated that for 71.7% of children Spanish was the language most frequently spoken at home, for 13.9% of children English was the language most frequently spoken at home, for 12.6% of children Spanish and English were spoken equally often at home, and for 1.8% of children some other pattern of languages was spoken at home. Among participants for whom parent report data were available, 22.4% of mothers and 19.1% of fathers were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, whereas 94.5% of children were born in the U.S. or Puerto Rico, indicating that the majority of these children were first generation.

Phonological awareness

Children completed the Phonological Awareness subtest of the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan, Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007 ). This subtest contained 15 blending and 12 elision items. Blending items required children to combine words or parts of words to form a new word (e.g., combining star and fish to form starfish ). Elision items required children to remove individual sounds or segments of sound from words to form new words (e.g., removing flower from sunflower to create sun ). Six of the blending items were multiple choice and nine were free response. Six of the elision items were multiple choice and six were free response. Multiple-choice items required children to either point to a visual depiction of the correct answer (out of four possible pictures) or verbally say the correct answer. Free-response items required children to verbally say the correct answer in the absence of pictures. Items on the Phonological Awareness subtest spanned the range of linguistic complexity, with items requiring manipulation of individual phonemes, syllables, and whole words. Internal consistency reliability on the Phonological Awareness subtest of the TOPEL is high ( α = .89). Children also completed the Blending and Elision subtests of the Spanish Preschool Early Literacy Assessment (SPELA; Lonigan, 2012 ). The Blending and Elision subtests of the SPELA contained 32 items each, 16 of which were multiple choice and 16 of which were free response. The SPELA was designed to mirror the TOPEL in structure and form. Internal consistency reliability on the SPELA was very high in this sample of children (for Blending α = .96; for Elision α = .93).

Print knowledge

Children completed the Print Knowledge subtests of the TOPEL and the Spanish Preschool Comprehensive Test of Phonological and Print Processing (Pre-CTOPPP-Spanish; Lonigan, Farver, and Eppe, 2002 ). The Print Knowledge subtests each contained 36 items. On the TOPEL, the Print Knowledge subtest contained four items each for print concepts (e.g., which picture shows the name of the book? ), letter discrimination (e.g., which is a letter? ), and word discrimination (e.g., which can you read? ), all of which were multiple choice. Sixteen items assessed children’s knowledge of letter names (e.g., which one is “b”? ), six of which were multiple choice and ten of which were free response. The remaining eight items assessed children’s knowledge of letter-sound correspondence (e.g., which one makes the /b/ sound?) , four of which were multiple choice and four of which were free response. Internal consistency reliability for the Print Knowledge subtest of the TOPEL is very high ( α = .96). The Print Knowledge subtest of the Pre-CTOPPP-Spanish is a direct Spanish-language translation of the TOPEL Print Knowledge subtest. Internal consistency reliability for the Print Knowledge subtest of the Pre-CTOPPP Spanish was very high in this sample ( α = .93).

Oral language

Children completed the Definitional Vocabulary subtests of the TOPEL and Pre-CTOPPP-Spanish. The Definitional Vocabulary subtests contained 35 items, each of which had an expressive and a definitional component. For the expressive component of the item, children were asked to name a picture (e.g., what is this? ). For the definitional component of the item, children were asked a follow-up question that required them to describe a feature or function of the item (e.g., what is it for? ). Internal consistency reliability for the Definitional Vocabulary subtest of the TOPEL is very high ( α = .95). The Definitional Vocabulary subtest of the Pre-CTOPPP-Spanish is a direct Spanish-language translation of the TOPEL Definitional Vocabulary subtest. Internal consistency reliability for the Definitional Vocabulary subtest of the Pre-CTOPPP-Spanish was very high in this sample ( α = .98).

Written informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians of participants prior to data collection. All assessments were administered in a quiet area of the child’s preschool by trained bilingual research assistants. Order of administration of Spanish and English measures varied across participants, and Spanish and English assessments were completed on separate days that were no more than one week apart. Answers were only coded as correct if they were given in the language being assessed.

Data Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Mplus Version 7.31 ( Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2015 ) using full information maximum likelihood estimation to account for missing data. For Spanish variables, no variable had more than 5.1% missing data (print knowledge). For English definitional vocabulary there was a larger amount of missing data (14.9%). However, there was less missing data for English phonological awareness (7.8%) and print knowledge (0.6%). For each outcome (i.e., blending, elision, print knowledge, expressive vocabulary, definitional vocabulary), categorical, item-level data were analyzed to determine the factor structure of children’s Spanish and English early literacy skills. A one-factor model in which all items for a construct (i.e., phonological awareness, print knowledge, oral language) loaded on to the same factor was estimated. The one-factor model was then compared to a two-factor model in which Spanish items loaded on to a Spanish factor and English items loaded on to an English factor. The two-factor model was then compared to a bifactor model in which Spanish items loaded on to a specific Spanish factor, English items loaded on to a specific English factor, and all items also loaded on to a General factor for the skill being assessed. In the bifactor model an orthogonality constraint was imposed on all factors such that correlations between all factors were fixed to zero. Model comparisons were done using the likelihood ratio test, as well as comparing the values of Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC) and the Sample-Size Adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion (ABIC). A significant likelihood ratio test indicates better fit for the less parsimonious model, and a decrease greater than 10 in AIC or ABIC values represents significant improvement in model fit ( Kass & Raftery, 1995 ). For some model comparisons the likelihood ratio test resulted in a negative test statistic. In these instances the strictly positive likelihood ratio test was used ( Asparouhov & Muthén, 2013 ). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the maximum likelihood estimator with robust standard errors. All factor loadings were freely estimated and the variances of the factors were fixed for scale dependency. To determine variance accounted for by each factor, omega, omega hierarchical, and omega subscale were computed. These statistics can be used as estimates of reliability of factors in bifactor models and as metrics of variance accounted for by each factor (details of the computation of various forms of omega are described in Reise, Bonifay, & Haviland, 2012).

All models included a sandwich estimator to adjust the standard errors to account for nested structure of the data (i.e., children nested within classrooms). Although classrooms were nested within state, state-level variance components computed for all summary variables were not statistically significant (all p s > .20), whereas all classroom-level variance components were statistically significant (all p s < .001). For Spanish-language variables classroom-level intra-class correlations (ICCs) ranged from .28 to .36. For English-language variables classroom-level ICCs ranged from .19 to .29.

Descriptive statistics for raw scores on the Spanish and English early literacy measures are reported in Table 1 . Standard scores were computed for English early literacy skills; however, standard scores are not available for the measures of Spanish early literacy. Standard scores for English phonological awareness were based on the combined scores for all blending and elision items and standard scores for English definitional vocabulary were based on the combined scores for all expressive and definitional vocabulary items. Children’s English phonological awareness and print knowledge skills were in the average range (for phonological awareness, M = 94.66, SD = 17.52; for print knowledge, M = 103.20, SD = 14.12), despite having below-average English language skills ( M = 85.39, SD = 18.32).

Descriptive statistics of English and Spanish early literacy skills

Note. Exp. = Expressive. Def. = Definitional.

Phonological Awareness

Although blending and elision items measure the same underlying phonological awareness construct, within each language a two-factor model of phonological awareness in which items loaded on to separate Blending and Elision factors provided significantly better fit to the data than did a one-factor model in which all items loaded on to the same Phonological Awareness factor (likelihood ratio test for Spanish = 319.04, p < .001; likelihood ratio test for English = 575.16, p < .001). The Blending and Elision factors were significantly correlated for both Spanish and English phonological awareness (for Spanish: r = .72, p < .001; for English: r = .64, p < .001). Because Blending and Elision were separable factors, subsequent models evaluated the measurement structure of English and Spanish phonological awareness separately for blending and elision items.

A summary of model fit statistics is reported in Table 2 . For blending, the two-factor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the one-factor model, according to the likelihood ratio test and other model fit indices (i.e., AIC, ABIC). The correlation between the English and Spanish Blending factors was statistically significant ( r = .31, p < .001). The bifactor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the two-factor model. Detailed results of the bifactor model are reported in Table 3 . In this model, all English and Spanish blending items measured variance in blending ability that was unique to English and Spanish, respectively. All Spanish items and the majority of English items also measured variance in blending ability that was shared across languages. Omega statistics for the blending model are reported in the leftmost column of Table 4 . Omega statistics indicated that approximately 35% of variance in total blending scores was due to the General factor, approximately 53% was due to the Spanish factor, and approximately 12% was due to the English factor. Additionally, 28% of variance in scores on Spanish blending items was due to the General factor and 72% was due to the Spanish factor. Similarly, 14% of variance in scores on English blending items was due to the General factor and 86% was due to the English factor.

Model fit statistics from confirmatory factor analysis of Spanish and English phonological awareness, print knowledge, and vocabulary

Note. AIC = Akaike’s Information Criterion. ABIC = Sample-size-adjusted Bayesian Information Criterion.

Standardized factor loadings from bifactor blending model with two specific factors (Spanish and English blending)

Note. W = Word. S = Syllable. P = Phoneme. MC = Multiple Choice. FR = Free Response. Correlations between factors are constrained to zero for the estimation of bifactor models. All factor loadings statistically significant at p < .001 unless otherwise noted.

Omega values for bifactor models of early literacy.

Note. Dividing Omega Hierarchical by Omega Total yields the percent of variance in the total test score attributable to each factor. For each subset of items (i.e., Spanish and English). Dividing Omega Subscale by Omega yields the percent of variance in those items attributable to each factor.

For elision, the two-factor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the one-factor model. The correlation between the Spanish and English Elision factors was statistically significant ( r = .37, p < .001). The bifactor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the two-factor model. Detailed results of the bifactor model are reported in Table 5 . All English items measured variance in elision ability that was unique to English and English free-response items measured variance that was common across languages. All Spanish items measured variance in elision ability that was unique to Spanish and Spanish free-response items also measured variance that was common across languages; however, the majority of multiple choice items only measured variance in elision ability that was specific to Spanish or English.

Standardized factor loadings from bifactor model with two specific factors (English and Spanish elision)

Note. W = Word. S = Syllable. P = Phoneme. MC = Multiple Choice. FR = Free Response. Correlations between factors are set to zero for the estimation of bifactor models. All factor loadings statistically significant at p < .001 unless otherwise noted.

The formulas for the computation of omega statistics are only valid when all factor loadings are positive ( Gignac, 2014 ). Therefore, omega for the bifactor elision model was estimated with negative loadings from the full model removed to compute estimates of variance accounted for by the bifactor model. Omega statistics for the elision model are reported in the middle column of Table 4 . Omega statistics indicated that approximately 45% of variance in total elision scores was due to the General factor, approximately 46% was due to the Spanish factor, and approximately 9% was due to the English factor. Additionally, 44% of variance in scores on Spanish elision items was due to the General factor and 56% was due to the Spanish factor. In contrast, 5% of variance in scores on English elision items was due to the General factor and 95% was due to the English factor.

Print Knowledge

A summary of model fit statistics for Spanish and English print knowledge is reported in Table 2 . The two-factor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the one-factor model. The correlation between the Spanish and English Print Knowledge factors was high ( r = .61, p < .001). The bifactor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the two-factor model. Factor loadings from the bifactor model are reported in Table 6 . All English print knowledge items and the majority of Spanish print knowledge items measured variance in print knowledge ability that was shared across Spanish and English. All Spanish print knowledge items also measured variance in print knowledge ability that was unique to Spanish. English print knowledge items assessing knowledge of print concepts, letter discrimination, and word discrimination abilities measured variance that was specific to English; however, items measuring knowledge of letter-names and letter-sound correspondence did not measure variance that was specific to English.

Standardized factor loadings from general and specific factors from bifactor model of Spanish and English print knowledge.

Note. PC = Print Concepts. LD = Letter Discrimination. WD = Word Discrimination. LN = Letter-Name Identification. LS = Letter-Sound Identification. MC = Multiple Choice. FR = Free Response. Correlations between factors are set to zero for the estimation of bifactor models. All factor loadings statistically significant at p < .001 unless otherwise noted.

Omega for the bifactor print knowledge model was estimated with the negative loadings from the full model removed to compute estimates of variance accounted for by the bifactor model. Omega statistics for the print knowledge model are shown in the rightmost columns of Table 4 . Omega statistics indicated that approximately 79% of variance in total print knowledge scores was due to the General factor, approximately 17% was due to the Spanish factor, and approximately 3% was due to the English factor. Additionally, 41% of variance in scores on Spanish print knowledge items was due to the General factor and 59% was due to the Spanish factor. In contrast, 91% of variance in scores on English print knowledge items was due to the General factor and 9% was due to the English factor.

Oral Language

Model fit statistics for expressive vocabulary are reported in Table 2 . For expressive vocabulary, the two-factor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the one-factor model. The correlation between the English and Spanish Expressive Vocabulary factors was negative and statistically significant ( r = −.12, p < .05). Detailed results of the two-factor model are reported in the left-most columns of Table 7 . All Spanish and English expressive vocabulary items loaded on their respective factors. A bifactor model of expressive vocabulary did not converge, indicating that English and Spanish expressive vocabulary items only measured variance unique to the language of the item.

Standardized factor loadings for English and Spanish vocabulary factors from two-factor models of expressive and definitional vocabulary

Note. All factor loadings significant at p < .001 unless otherwise noted.

Model fit statistics for definitional vocabulary are reported in the lowest panels of Table 2 . The two-factor model provided significantly better fit to the data than did the one-factor model. Detailed results of the two-factor model are reported in the right-most columns of Table 7 . The correlation between the Spanish and English Definitional Vocabulary factors was not statistically significant ( r = −.02, p = .72). All Spanish and English items loaded on their respective factors. A bifactor model of definitional vocabulary did not converge, indicating that English and Spanish expressive vocabulary items only measured variance unique to the language of the item.

Cross-Construct Relations

Factor scores estimated from best-fitting models were used to examine the relations between the general and specific early literacy factors across constructs. Results of correlational analyses are reported in Table 8 . For print knowledge, the orthogonality constraints imposed in the bifactor models were preserved in the factor scores; however, this was not the case for blending and elision factor scores. Within-Spanish factor correlations were positive and statistically significant. Within-English factor correlations were statistically significant for phonological awareness and vocabulary knowledge; however, the specific English Print Knowledge factor was not consistently related to other specific English early literacy factors. The General Phonological Awareness and Print Knowledge factors were significantly and positively related to each other and to most other factors, with the exception of the specific English Print Knowledge factor. In general, there were not strong cross-language relations between the specific English and Spanish factors.

Correlations between specific and general early literacy factors

Note. S = Spanish. E = English. G = General. EV = Expressive Vocabulary. DV = Definitional Vocabulary. Correlations shown in boldface are within-construct correlations.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relevance of the common underlying proficiency model for LM preschooler’s Spanish and English early literacy skills. Results indicated that there was a common underlying proficiency for children’s code-related but not language-related skills. Specifically, items assessing English and Spanish phonological awareness and print knowledge measured variance that was shared across languages as well as variance specific to English or Spanish. In contrast, items assessing English and Spanish oral language only measured variance unique to the language of the item. Cross-construct correlations indicated that skills unique to Spanish were related to each other and skills unique to English were related to each other (with the exception of English print knowledge). Language-independent phonological awareness and print knowledge abilities were related to each other and to children’s early literacy abilities that were unique to Spanish and English. Taken together, these findings indicate that Spanish-speaking LM preschoolers have a common underlying proficiency for phonological awareness and for print knowledge but not for oral language. Evidence for the common underlying proficiency suggests that children’s code-related skills can be more easily transferred across languages than can language skills. However, evidence of a common underlying proficiency is not necessarily evidence of cross-language transfer. Further research is needed to better understand the conditions under which LM children can utilize a common underlying proficiency to transfer knowledge across languages.

Code-Related Skills

Prior studies examining the interdependence of L1 and L2 phonological awareness skills have indicated that LM children’s phonological awareness skills are significantly related across languages (e.g., Branum-Martin et al., 2006 ). Significant cross-language correlations of phonological awareness are often interpreted as evidence that children transferred knowledge across languages (e.g., Durgunoglu et al., 1993 ). However, it is possible that cross-language correlations are due to other factors, such as common language-learning environments for L1 and L2. Alternatively, cross-language correlations could be indicative of the presence of a common underlying proficiency ( Cummins, 1981 ), which is one mechanism through which cross-language transfer could occur. This is the first study to date to evaluate empirically whether there is a common underlying proficiency for phonological awareness.

Results of this study indicated that items on phonological awareness assessments measured both language-specific and language-independent variance in phonological awareness ability, suggesting that LM preschoolers have a common underlying proficiency for phonological awareness. With the exception of elision items that were multiple choice, Spanish items had stronger loadings on the General Phonological Awareness factors than did English items, indicating that L1 phonological awareness is a better indicator of the common underlying proficiency than is L2 phonological awareness. Similarly, examination of variance accounted for indicated that more variance in Spanish phonological awareness scores than in English phonological awareness scores was due to the General Phonological Awareness factors. One possible explanation for this finding is the discrepancy in exposure to L1 and L2 for LM children. For many LM children in the U.S., substantial exposure to English (i.e., L2) does not occur until preschool entry. Language exposure should be associated with increases in vocabulary knowledge that may lead to improved phonological awareness abilities ( Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, 2003 ). Therefore, L1 phonological awareness assessments may better approximate preschool children’s underlying capacity for phonological awareness because of increased opportunities for the development of phonological awareness in L1 that come from language exposure. Consistent with this explanation, evidence indicates that L1 and L2 phonological awareness are only related for children with higher levels of L1 language skills ( Atwill, Blanchard, Christie, Gorin, & García, 2010 ; Goodrich, Lonigan, & Farver, 2014 ), suggesting that increased language exposure promotes the development of language-independent phonological awareness abilities. Additionally, the finding that the specific English factor accounted for a smaller amount of variance in total phonological awareness abilities than did the specific Spanish factor or the General factor may be an artifact of amount of exposure to each language. If LM children’s Spanish phonological awareness skills are more advanced relative to their English phonological awareness skills, items on Spanish assessments should be better indicators of children’s underlying capacity for phonological awareness, which was the pattern of results obtained in this study.

As was the case for phonological awareness, results of this study indicated that LM preschoolers have a common underlying proficiency for print knowledge. Prior research indicates that children’s print knowledge is significantly related across languages (e.g., Anthony et al., 2009 ). Although there is some language-independent information about print knowledge for which children could have a common underlying proficiency (e.g., the knowledge that letters have names and are associated with sounds), there is also language-specific information about print knowledge (e.g., letter names and letter-sound correspondences differ across languages). Therefore, the extent to which print knowledge is related across languages may be limited by the degree of similarity in letter names and letter-sound correspondence across languages. For example, many letters in English and Spanish have similar names and several letters correspond to the same sounds in English and Spanish. L1 and L2 print knowledge skills may not be as highly related when the alphabetic system differs across languages (e.g., English-Arabic) or for alphabetic and non-alphabetic languages (e.g., English-Chinese). However, McBride-Chang and Ho (2005) reported that knowledge of letter names in English was significantly correlated concurrently and longitudinally with Chinese character recognition, which may be indicative of transfer of language-independent information that pertains to print knowledge.

In contrast to results for phonological awareness, English print knowledge items had stronger loadings on the General Print Knowledge factor than did Spanish print knowledge items, and the General Print Knowledge factor accounted for a larger amount of variance in scores for English print knowledge items than it did for Spanish print knowledge items. This is likely because knowledge of letter names and letter-sound correspondence is language-specific information that is explicitly taught whereas phonological awareness is a language-independent ability that may be a developmental consequence of language exposure ( Walley et al., 2003 ). Because LM children in the U.S. are primarily instructed in English, English print knowledge assessments may be better indicators of children’s common underlying proficiency for print knowledge than are Spanish print knowledge assessments. When there is substantial overlap in letter names and letter-sound correspondence across languages (as is the case for English and Spanish), children may be able to apply knowledge gained from L2 print knowledge instruction to their L1, in which letter names and letter-sound correspondence may not have been explicitly taught.

Contrary to hypotheses, the common underlying proficiency model was more relevant for print knowledge than it was for phonological awareness, as the total variance accounted for by the general factor was higher for print knowledge than it was for both blending and elision. This finding is consistent with a stronger cross-language correlation in the two-factor model for print knowledge than in the two-factor models for phonological awareness. Because the primary language of instruction to which many LM children in the U.S. are exposed is English and there is a large degree of overlap in language-specific aspects of print knowledge across English and Spanish (e.g., letter sound-correspondence), the print knowledge skills of Spanish-speaking LM preschoolers in the U.S. may be better represented by a common underlying proficiency than are phonological awareness abilities.

In contrast to results for code-related skills, there was no evidence of a common underlying proficiency for LM preschoolers’ language skills. Expressive vocabulary knowledge was negatively correlated across languages and definitional vocabulary knowledge was not correlated across languages. This finding was consistent with prior evidence that LM children’s vocabulary knowledge is distributed across their two languages (e.g., Peña et al., 2003) and that vocabulary knowledge is not correlated or is negatively correlated across languages (e.g., Bialystok et al., 2005 , Goodrich et al., 2016 ). Words in a language are arbitrarily associated with their underlying concepts, and words used to describe the same object in two different languages are often remarkably different (with the exception of cognates). Therefore, unless words across English and Spanish are cognates, there is little to no information concerning the form of a word in L1 that could be applied to L2 to assist in the acquisition of its translation equivalent. However, the lack of a common underlying proficiency does not entirely rule out all types of transfer of language skills, as prior evidence suggests that children transfer some word-specific information across languages ( Goodrich et al., 2016 ).

Relations between Language-Independent and Language-Specific Aspects of Early Literacy

Consistent with hypotheses, the common underlying proficiencies for phonological awareness and print knowledge were significantly related to language-specific early literacy abilities across constructs (e.g., general phonological awareness had similar relations with English and Spanish expressive vocabulary). This finding suggests that the common underlying proficiencies for code-related skills represent a general language-learning capacity ( Castilla et al., 2009 ) rather than construct-specific abilities. Specific English and Spanish early literacy abilities were generally related to each other within but not across languages (e.g., specific Spanish phonological awareness was related to Spanish expressive vocabulary but not English expressive vocabulary). One unexpected finding was that English-specific aspects of print knowledge were not consistently related to other language-independent or language-specific early literacy abilities. It is possible that this finding is a result of over-extraction of variance in English print knowledge items by the General Print Knowledge factor, resulting in weaker and potentially less reliable loadings on the specific English Print Knowledge factor. Consistent with this explanation, loadings on the specific English Print Knowledge factor were negative and non-significant for items assessing knowledge of letter names and letter-sound correspondence.

Implications

The finding that LM children’s code-related, but not language-related, early literacy skills are represented by a common underlying proficiency has implications for researchers and practitioners. It is possible that examining the longitudinal relations between language-specific and language-independent aspects of early literacy and LM children’s conventional reading skills may reveal patterns of relations between L1 and L2 different than those that have been highlighted in prior research. For example, although prior studies have reported that L1 phonological awareness skills predict L2 reading outcomes (e.g., Sparks, Patton, Ganschow, Humbach, & Javorksy, 2008 ), it is possible that only variance in L1 phonological awareness scores that is common to both L1 and L2 accounts for subsequent L2 reading outcomes. Future research should examine the longitudinal predictive validity of language-specific and language-independent aspects of early literacy. Additionally, the presence of language-independent early literacy skills suggests that instruction in L1 will improve code-related skills in both L1 and L2. Therefore, for code-related skills like print knowledge and phonological awareness, evidence-based instruction in either language should provide LM preschoolers with the foundational skills that they need to succeed when formal reading instruction begins. However, this is not necessarily the case for children’s early language skills. The results of this study suggest that beneficial effects of language exposure and instruction will only be seen in the language of instruction. This pattern of results may explain the typical finding that LM children have code-related skills that are approximately equivalent to those of their monolingual peers, despite significantly lower language skills. It is important that the results of this study are interpreted with caution, as more research is needed to understand completely how L1 and L2 language skills develop and how educators of LM children can maximize children’s academic outcomes. For example, some studies suggest that among older LM children L1 vocabulary knowledge is uniquely predictive of L2 reading comprehension above and beyond the effects of L2 reading (e.g., Proctor, August, Carlo, & Snow, 2006 ), a finding that is in contrast to the pattern of results obtained in this study.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study had numerous strengths (e.g., sample size, diversity of LM children within this sample), it also had several limitations. First, this study did not control for other factors related to language and literacy acquisition, such as children’s overall cognitive ability. It is possible that the general factor extracted in bifactor models does not represent a common underlying proficiency for a skill, but rather overall level of cognitive ability. Additionally, the sample in this study was intended to represent an at-risk, low-income sample of preschoolers. Future studies should evaluate the relevance of the common underlying proficiency model for LM children with a wide range of skills from various demographic backgrounds. Furthermore, item-level data was used in this study, limiting the analytic options available. For example, many parameters were estimated in bifactor models, and more complex models (e.g., multilevel measurement models) could not be estimated because the number of parameters exceeded the number of cluster units in the data. Future research should attempt to replicate the findings of this study using scale-level data that would allow for the evaluation of more complex models (e.g., multilevel bifactor models) that could not be estimated in this study because item-level data were used. Finally, it is possible that a different pattern of results would be obtained with older LM children. For example, the oral language assessments used with preschool children in this study included mostly concrete words, and it is possible that knowledge of words that correspond to more abstract concepts is more easily shared across languages. Future research should examine whether the same pattern of results emerges for LM children across development.

Conclusions

Results of this study indicated that LM preschoolers’ code-related early literacy skills were best characterized by a common underlying proficiency as well as specific Spanish and English skills. In contrast, no evidence for a common underlying proficiency for oral language skills emerged, indicating that LM preschoolers’ oral language skills were best characterized by specific Spanish and English skills. Evidence in support of a common underlying proficiency for early literacy skills suggests that cross-language transfer of literacy-related skills is possible, as children should be able to apply language-independent knowledge gained from L1 when learning L2, or vice versa. Future research is needed to determine the relative predictive validity of language-independent and language-specific aspects of early literacy, and to better understand how children’s language and literacy environments foster development of a common underlying proficiency and language-specific aspects of early literacy.

Educational Impact and Implications Statement

Among preschool children who speak Spanish at home, code-related skills (i.e., phonological awareness, print knowledge), were best represented by abilities common to both languages as well as abilities specific to the first and second language. However, oral language skills (i.e., vocabulary knowledge) were language-specific. These results suggest that instructional practices designed to improve first language phonological awareness and print knowledge may also improve those skills in children’s second language, and vice versa. In contrast, targeted vocabulary instruction is likely to benefit skills in the language of instruction only.

Acknowledgments

This research and report was supported by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education (R305F100027) and the Eunice Kennedy Schriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD060292). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and have not been reviewed or approved by the granting agency.

• Anthony JL, Solari EJ, Williams JM, Schoger KD, Zhang Z, Branum-Martin L, Francis DJ. Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2009; 13 :535–564. [ Google Scholar ]
• Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Computing the strictly positive Satorra-Bentler chi-square test. Mplus Web Note No. 12. 2013 Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnote.shtml .
• Atwill K, Blanchard J, Christie J, Gorin JS, Garcia HS. English-language learners: Implications of limited vocabulary for cross-language transfer of phonemic awareness with kindergarteners. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education. 2010; 9 :104–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• August D, Shanahan T, Escamilla K. English language learners: Developing literacy in second-language learners—Report of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research. 2009; 41 :432–452. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bilaystok E, Luk G, Kwan E. Bilingualism, biliteracy, and learning to read: Interactions among languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2005; 9 :43–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Branum-Martin L, Mehta PD, Fletcher JM, Carlson CD, Ortiz A, Carlo M, Francis DJ. Bilingual phonological awareness: Multilevel construct validation among Spanish-speaking kindergarteners in transitional bilingual education classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 :170–181. [ Google Scholar ]
• Castilla AP, Restrepo MA, Perez-Lerous AT. Individual differences and language interdependence: A study of sequential bilingual development in Spanish-English preschool children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2009; 12 :565–580. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheung ACK, Slavin RE. Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research. 2012; 51 :879–912. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins J. Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research. 1979; 49 :222–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins J. California State Department of Education, editor. Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University; Los Angeles: 1981. The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummins J. Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual education. In: Cummins J, Hornberger NH, editors. Encyclopedia of language and education: Vol. 5. Bilingual education. 2. New York, NY: Spring Science + Business Media; 2008. pp. 65–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne B, Fielding-Barnsley R. Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1995; 87 :488–503. [ Google Scholar ]
• Durgunoglu AY, Nagy WE, Hancin-Bhatt BJ. Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1993; 85 :453–465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farver JM, Lonigan CJ, Eppe S. Effective early literacy skill development for young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods. Child development. 2009; 80 :703–719. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gignac GE. On the inappropriateness of using items to calculate total scale score reliability via coefficient alpha for multidimensional scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2014; 30 :130–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodrich JM, Longian CJ, Farver JM. Do early literacy skills in children’s first language promote development of skills in their second language? An experimental evaluation of transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2013; 105 :414–426. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodrich JM, Lonigan CJ, Farver JM. Children’s expressive language skills and their impact on the relation between first- and second-language phonological awareness skills. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2014; 18 :114–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Goodrich JM, Lonigan CJ, Kleuver CG, Farver JM. Development and transfer of vocabulary knowledge in Spanish-speaking language minority preschool children. Journal of Child Language. 2016; 43 :969–992. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottardo A, Mueller J. Are first- and second-language factors related in predicting second-language reading comprehension? A study of Spanish-speaking children acquiring English as a second language from first to second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009; 101 :330–344. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hemphill FC, Vanneman A, Rahman T. Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and White students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress [Statistical Analysis Report] National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2011 [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoff E. Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes; Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49 :4–14. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hulme C, Bowyer-Crane C, Carroll JM, Duff FJ, Snowling MJ. The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: Combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychological Science. 2012; 23 :527–577. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kass RE, Raftery AE. Bayes Factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1995; 90 :773–795. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kieffer MJ, Vukovic RK. Growth in reading-related skills of language minority learners and their classmates: More evidence for early identification and intervention. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2013; 26 :1159–1194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lindsey KA, Manis FR, Bailey CE. Prediction of first-grade reading in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2003; 95 :482–494. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ. Spanish preschool early literacy assessment. Tallahassee, FL: Author; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Eppe S. Preschool comprehensive test of phonological and print processing: Spanish version. Tallahassee, FL: Author; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Farver JM, Nakamoto J, Eppe S. Developmental trajectories of preschool early literacy skills: A comparison of language-minority and monolingual-English children. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49 :1943–1957. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Schatschneider C, Westberg L. Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy; 2008. Identification of children’s skills and abilities linked to later outcomes in reading, writing, and spelling; pp. 55–106. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lonigan CJ, Wagner RK, Torgesen JK, Rashotte CA. Test of preschool early literacy. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manis FR, Lindsey KA, Bailey CE. Development of reading in grades K-2 in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 2004; 19 :214–224. [ Google Scholar ]
• McBride-Chang C, Ho CS. Predictors of beginning reading in Chinese and English: A 2-year longitudinal study of Chinese kindergarteners. Scientific Studies of Reading. 2005; 9 :117–144. [ Google Scholar ]
• Melby-Lervåg M, Lervåg A. Cross-linguistic transfer of oral language, decoding, phonological awareness and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of the correlational evidence. Journal of Research in Reading. 2011; 34 :114–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 7. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peña ED, Bedore LM, Zlatic-Giunta R. Category-generation performance of bilingual children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2002; 45 :938–947. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Proctor CP, August D, Carlo MS, Snow C. The intriguing role of Spanish language vocabulary knowledge in predicting English reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2006; 98 :159–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reise SP, Bonifa WE, Haviland MG. Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2013; 95 :129–140. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sparks RL, Patton J, Ganschow L, Humbach N, Javorsky J. Early first-language reading and spelling skills predict later second-language reading and spelling skills. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2008; 100 :162–174. [ Google Scholar ]
• Storch SA, Whitehurst GJ. Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology. 2002; 38 :934–947. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walley AC, Metsala JL, Garlock VM. Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2003; 16 :5–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitehurst GJ, Lonigan CJ. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development. 1998; 69 :848–872. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children

1979, Review of Educational Research

The central thesis of this paper is that a cognitively and academically beneficial form of bilingualism can be achieved only on the basis of adequately developed first language (L1) skills. Two hypotheses are formulated and combined to arrive at this position. The “developmental interdependence” hypothesis proposes that the development of competence in a second language (L2) is partially a function of the type of competence already developed in L1 at the time when intensive exposure to L2 begins. The “threshold” hypothesis proposes that there may be threshold levels of linguistic competence which a bilingual child must attain both in order to avoid cognitive disadvantages and allow the potentially beneficial aspects of bilingualism to influence his cognitive and academic functioning. These hypotheses are integrated into a model of bilingual education in which educational outcomes are explained as a function of the interaction between background, child input and educational treatment...

Related Papers

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

Norbert Francis

Jim Cummins

Abstract: Studies conducted with middle-class balanced bilinguals in&quot; additive&quot; environments, where both languages are prestigious, have generally reported that bilinguals showed a higher level of cognitive performance than monolinguals. In these ...

Barbara Nagy

This research makes an attempt through a case study and the use of previous studies to the test hypotheses of prominent researchers (e.g.: Francois Grosjean, Ellen Bialystok, Jürgen Meisel) and show that bilingual development depends on environmental influence as much as on the children’s individual aptitude and general intelligence. The paper is divided into two parts. The first part presents the controversial theories on bilingual children’s language development, based on previous research, and makes a comparison between bilingual and monolingual children’s language development. The second part is going to carry out the case study, focusing on eight bilingual children’s (between the age of 4 and 11) language development process, and more closely on three of the most common assumptions: 1. Bilingual children start speaking later than monolingual children. 2. Bilingual children are equally proficient in their languages. 3. Code-switching is caused by bilingual children’s inability to distinguish their languages.

Advances in applied …

Bernardo M Ferdman

ENSAYOS. Revista de la Facultad de Educación de Albacete

Jesús Paz-Albo

This article offers an examination of how learning two languages from an early age may be an asset to children's development. Although discourses on language learning development are not new, it is crucial to understand the benefits of being bilingual from a very early age. At the interface of bilingual development, the present review article provides a summary of the knowledge gained by science into the effects on children's cognitive development during the language acquisition process. Results from this review suggest that bilingual children enjoy cognitive gains which are critical for students' success but there are some challenges that can be addressed to further enhance bilingual children's learning. Rather than causing any kind of delay, being bilingual improves cognitive skills and more research on early childhood bilingualism must be further developed.

Marial Cudera

Amir Torkashvand

Robbayani Shoghiro

Yavuz Akbulut

ABSTRACT. The belief that learning a second language (L2) poses challenges to cognitive performance in early childhood is questioned along with the ideas of proponents and opponents. It is regarded colorable to claim that development in bilinguals and monolinguals can be different because of the functions or advantages of specific experiences in each language.

Farin Ahmed

RELATED PAPERS

Smith Apple John

International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education

Muhammad Imam

Journal de Radiologie

Boletin De La Anabad

luis molero

Carsten Herrmann-Pillath

selçuk yaşar

Rajae El Khamsi

Journal of Biological Chemistry

Prasad Dhulipala

Biology of the Cell

Claudia Meins

vera khoirunisa

Ari Udijono

Arezou Sayad

Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry

Marcin Jabłoński

Proceedings of The Conference on Management and Engineering in Industry

Gembong Baskoro

Marie Faucher

Medical Physics

Zachary Levine

Journal on Education

Huswatun Hasanah

Cecilia Calvo Pesce

IFAC-PapersOnLine

Nikola Hure

Clinical Endocrinology

Paola Romagnani

Cultural Studies of Science Education

Barbara Johnson

Kristine Suna-Koro

Pharmacy & Pharmacology

sergey nadezhdin

Meir Benayahu ז״ל

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Acknowledgements
• 1. Language and Identity
• 1.1. What Is a Speech Community?
• 1.2. Coercive vs. Collaborative Relations
• 1.3. Language Minority Stories
• 2. Who Are English Learners?
• 2.1. Reflection Model
• 2.2. Inclusive Pedagogy
• 2.2. Makoto Critical Incident
• 2.3. Assumptions to Rethink about English Learners
• 2.4. Critical Learning Domains
• 3. Understanding Theory
• 3.1. Communication, Pattern, and Variability
• 3.2. Five Curriculum Guidelines
• 3.3. Indicators of Instructional Conversation (IC)
• 3.4. Indicators of the Standards for Effective Pedagogy
• 3.5. Standards for Effective Pedagogy
• 3.6. Examining Current Realities
• 4.1. Input and Native Language Acquisition
• 4.2. Input and Second Language Acquisition
• 4.3. The Interdependence Hypothesis
• 4.4. The Threshold Hypothesis
• 4.5. Vocabulary Development and Language Transfer
• 4.6. Text Modification
• 5. Interaction
• 5.1. Code Switching and Interaction
• 5.2. Characteristics of Modifications for Interaction
• 5.3. How Can Teachers Help Second Language Learners Begin to Communicate?
• 5.4. Classroom Routines and Participation Structures
• 5.5. We Can Talk: Cooperative Learning in the Elementary ESL Classroom
• 6. Stages of Development
• 6.1. Proficiency Levels Defined
• 7. Errors and Feedback
• 7.1. Points to Remember About Errors
• 7.2. Effective and Appropriate Feedback for English Learners
• 8. Types of Proficiencies
• 8.1. Fostering Second Language Development in Young Children
• 8.2. Instructional Conversation in Native American Classroom
• 8.3. Student Motivation to Learn
• 8.4. Language Learning Strategies: An Update
• 8.5. Three Misconceptions about Age and L2 Learning
• 9. Types of Performances
• 9.1. Understanding BICS and CALP
• 9.2. The Order of Acquisition and The Order of Use
• 9.3. Schumann's Acculturation Model
• 9.4. Implications From the Threshold and Interdependence Hypotheses
• 9.5. Lily Wong Fillmore’s Cognitive and Social Strategies for Second Language Learners
• 10. Classroom Practices and Language Acquisition
• Translations

The Threshold Hypothesis

Choose a sign-in option.

Tools and Settings

Questions and Tasks

Citation and Embed Code

Bilingualism and Content Instruction

Imagine yourself in a learning situation where your past experience has not prepared you to grasp the new content that you are expected to learn. Now imagine that these difficult ideas you are trying to learn are presented in a language that is not your native language; in fact, it is a language you do not understand. The teacher speaks without the use of pictures, illustrations, gestures or clues about meaning. Suppose further, that this is one of your first experiences with formal schooling and that you might also have a difficult time learning content.

You would have difficulty learning if the only medium of instruction available to you were written texts, even if these texts were in your native language. Finally, suppose that your classmates all have the language skills needed to learn the material and that the class pace is based on their speed of learning, not yours. As the days progress, you fall further and further behind. You are overwhelmed by all you are expected to learn. You begin to think “I’m just not good at this school thing.” You wonder what value your native language and culture have since performance in the new language is what is valued most in this environment.

The Threshold Hypothesis (Cummings, 2001)

Students whose academic proficiency in the language of instruction is relatively weak will tend to fall further and further behind unless the instruction they receive enables them to comprehend the input (both written and oral) and participate academically in class.

In learning a second language, a certain minimum ‘threshold’ level of proficiency must be reached in that language before the learner can benefit from the use of the language as a medium of instruction in school.

This situation is one that many language minority students find themselves in when they enter school. Because they cannot understand the language of instruction—it is not comprehensible to them—they cannot learn the content being taught. Educational experiences like this demonstrate the negative consequences of bilingualism. In order for bilingualism to have neutral consequences on children, they must develop enough academic literacy skills in either their first or second language for them to learn academic content. The positive benefits of bilingualism begin to accrue, according to Jim Cummins’ theory, when students reach a level of balanced bilingualism; namely, when students can gain access to academic written and spoken language in either their first or second language.

The threshold hypothesis explains two kinds of research findings. First, research by Collier and Thomas shows that four to seven-year-old language minority children are at the greatest risk for academic failure. When children have a minimum of two years of schooling in their native language and develop native language literacy, they are more likely to be academically successful in their second language. The threshold hypothesis explains these findings by arguing that when learners have minimal academic proficiency and literacy development in their native language, they are more able to learn from the school curriculum and develop academic proficiency and literacy in their second language.

Second, the threshold hypothesis also explains why learners who are allowed to use their minority language for most or part of their elementary school experience show cognitive and academic advantages over their monolingual peers. The threshold hypothesis argues that “balanced” bilinguals who are literate in both languages receive positive benefits from bilingualism.

Let us return once more to the initial story. The story suggests the teacher provided a context-reduced learning experience. In other words, the teacher is using only words to communicate the curriculum to the learner. The learning situation is not context-enriched through the use of pictures, links to the child’s native language, gestures, demonstrations, or clues to what the meaning of the language.

Making a learning situation context-embedded may appear easier for elementary teachers than secondary teachers. That may be an artifact of the kinds of textbooks used in secondary schools. Also, secondary teachers are often taught to make a course easier for students by reducing the complexity of the language and number of texts students are exposed to. The benefits of elaborating content through the use of pictures, examples, vocabulary activities, or embedding content in the experience of the students are less frequently discussed as strategies for reducing the complexity of language.

What the threshold hypothesis reveals is that students need to develop proficiency in a language so that they can gain access to the curriculum. Research results report that the best way to do this is to support students in developing and maintaining literacy in their native language. The threshold hypothesis also reveals that when students cannot gain access to the curriculum, because learning materials aren’t comprehensible, they fail to progress academically and linguistically. This suggests that the lower the language proficiency of the child, the more necessary it is that learning tasks use strategies that embedded communication and texts in a rich and relevant context for learners. In addition, these tasks should be cognitively demanding. Helping students develop cognitive complexity will increase the likelihood of growth in their linguistic skills in both languages. Of course, what it means to provide a context-embedded curriculum will change as students develop higher levels of academic language skills.

Unfortunately, second language learners can fool us. We may think, based on their spoken language that they have more sophisticated and advanced language skills than they do. The threshold hypothesis reminds us that students need academic language skills that will give them access to the curriculum in either or both of their languages or they will suffer the negative consequences of bilingualism. Teachers should think carefully about the learning tasks they assign bilingual students: What does it demand linguistically, cognitively, and socially)? Will the demands promote cognitive and linguistic development? What must the child bring to the task to be successful? How can it be made relevant to the students’ past experiences? How should it be presented? What text modification will support the student? What will constitute evidence of task success? The threshold hypothesis provides ways to think about the academic success and failure of our students. It also helps us think about how to promote their success rather than failure.

Adapted with permission from:

Teemant, A. & Pinnegar, S. (2007). Understanding Langauge Acquisition Instructional Guide. Brigham Young University-Public School Partnership.

Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis (IUPUI)

Brigham Young University

This content is provided to you freely by BYU Open Learning Network.

Access it online or download it at https://open.byu.edu/language_acquisition/jigsaw_reading_e .

Navigating Complex Interdependence: An In-Depth Analysis of Iran and Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Engagement with the BRI in the Middle East

• Original Article
• Published: 03 April 2024

Cite this article

• Asad Ullah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8629-6281 1 , 2 &
• Li Xinlei   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9801-240X 2  

Explore all metrics

The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), spearheaded by China, is reshaping the global economy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). This article focuses on Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), scrutinizing how the BRI has catalyzed economic changes in these countries. Using qualitative and quantitative data, it analyzes their unique responses to the BRI, considering their economic challenges and political goals. Employing the theory of complex interdependence, it examines how both countries leverage the BRI to diversify their economies and enhance cooperation, altering their global positions. This analysis highlights the BRI’s profound impact on Middle Eastern geopolitics beyond its economic implications. This study offers a more analytical understanding of its significance by providing insights into the BRI’s role in global economic dynamics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, Qingdao, China

School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University Qingdao Campus, 72 Binhai Road, Qingdao, Shandong, China

Asad Ullah & Li Xinlei

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Asad Ullah conceived and designed the study and conducted the research. Li Xinlei critically reviewed the manuscript, analyzed the data, provided valuable comments, and removed unnecessary passages. Both authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Xinlei .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval statement.

The study was conducted per the ethical guidelines of the journal. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and their privacy and confidentially were strictly maintained throughout the study.

Conflicting Interests

No potential conflicts of interest concerning this article’s research, authorship, and/or publication.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Ullah, A., Xinlei, L. Navigating Complex Interdependence: An In-Depth Analysis of Iran and Saudi Arabia’s Strategic Engagement with the BRI in the Middle East. Chin. Polit. Sci. Rev. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-024-00250-6

Download citation

Received : 16 November 2023

Accepted : 14 March 2024

Published : 03 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-024-00250-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Complex interdependence
• Saudi arabia
• Strategic engagement
• Middle east
• Energy security
• Regional politics
• Infrastructure development
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research