Hi All-- sorry I did not catch up with the discussion earlier-- I am 
not using the list and messages correctly I fear, because the e-mail on 
my computer does not work and replying directly is impossible-- I have 
to jump to my other e-mail systems. But here is an attempt to get in 
and answer a few questions about non-literate learners and reading in 
first language. These were answers posted on the NIFL=ESL discussion 
list a week or so ago--the same questions came up there. This question 
was from a director of an ESL program in DC: 
 
Is there any research on teaching 
Adult LD or illiterate students in their own language for a semester or 
100 hours, before 
immersion into English???? Basically, if the student learns how to read 
and write and/or 
decode in their language, is that a benefit to them in their process of 
learning English??? 
 
Here are my responses to that question: - 
There is literature about that advantage. Many recommend that literacy 
happen in first language, if at all possible. The transferability of 
phonological skills that accrue through gaining literacy is considered 
to be very high. Thus becoming literate in one language supports 
gaining literacy in another--College students who start a foreign 
language in college are expected in two semesters (roughly 160 hours of 
instruction) to be able to converse at about SPL 3 ( basic 
conversations about everyday topicsthat are reasonably grammatically 
correct), read literature in that language and write brief compositions 
in that language. Compare that with the progress of someone who has low 
level literacy--or none at all-- in 160 hours of instruction.......The 
outcome would be very different. 
 
However, if the language of the student is an unwritten language (e.g. 
Dinka --a language spoken by many Sudanese) literacy would have to 
develop in a second language anyway.--the Sudanese usually speak Arabic 
or Kiswahili --some very fluently). It would presumably be better for 
that person to attempt literacy in his or her strongest language, as 
literacy requires a vocabulary of, I believe David Rosen said, roughly 
3,000--5,000 words --something many ESOL learners might be a long time 
acquiring. 
 
Basic literacy in any language is supported by phonological skills: 
phonological awareness, underlying literacy skills, and phonological 
memory, underlying aural/oral skills ( listening and speaking). Thus 
those skills must be verified to be strong in an adult that is becoming 
literate. These are pre-literacy skills--not directly related to 
text--the kind of skills nursery rhymes were intended to support in 
English. It is a sense of the sound chunks of a given language ( i.e. 
words, syllables--and sometimes discrete phonemes, though actual 
phoneme awareness in an alphabetic language takes exposure to print.) 
and how these chunks can be manipulated. In English, phonological 
awareness includes an awareness of rhyme. It also includes awareness of 
tone and pitch and other non-language sounds ( suprasegmentals). These 
are the skills the huge majority of children come to school with, or 
had well-developed before they were exposed to print concepts. In the 
researchi on reading difficulties ( dyslexia ) phonological awareness, 
has been found to be the basic skill needed for literacy--which is why 
it is so difficult for dyslexics to master reading--they are known to 
have difficulties with phonological awareness. Therefore, if it is not 
well 
developed, a learner will have enormous difficulty in becoming 
literate. 
 
************************************************* 
Another list question had to do with whether learning "fractured 
grammar" in one language would result in fractured grammar in another: 
 
Since understanding and mastering grammar is dependent on good 
phonological skills (remember the manipulating of chunks part-- moving 
or adding words, syllables or sounds to new meanings is what we 
describe as grammar-) then it is a universal skill and not a 
language-specific one. The field of second language acquisition does 
not consider that interference of one's first language with the new 
language is anything other than a normal language learning stage. If 
having fractured grammar in one language would lead to the same thing 
in the new language, then the opposite could also be presumed to be 
true. But having perfect grammar in one language does not guarantee 
having perfect grammar in the new language--if phonological awareness 
is fundamentally weak but that weakness was overcome through repetition 
and practice in one language, it will raise its ugly head when a new 
language is encountered. Think how many high school and college 
students who fail miserably at learning a foreign language even though 
they are highly literate in their first language. I know I have at 
least one person like that in every audience I address, large or small. 
  In fact, it was that very phenomenon--very bright college students 
unable to learn foreign languages--which launched research into how 
dylexia impacts foreign language learning. 
 
******************************************************* 
Still another question was what to do if learners wanted to learn 
English and not become literate in their own language: 
 
As for learners not wanting to become literate in their first language, 
it is their choice, not ours. But as always, we want it to be an 
informed choice. They should be helped to truly understand that it is 
probably actually a shorter route to English literacy to start with 
first language literacy. And becoming literate in their language 
doesn't have to mean they are barred from English classes--where a lot 
of other kinds of literacy-- signage, labels on groceries, directions 
on commeon objects--can take place. And of course, their becoming 
literate in their first language means being taught literacy by someone 
literate in it....which could be a challenge for many programs--finding 
someone literate enough and trained to teach it. 
 
Robin