Such models (as proposed by Frith, Ehri and others) have also been criticized because the order of the stages is fixed and identical for all children; because no stage can be skipped so that proceeding to the next stage results only from mastery of the previous stage; because performance in the middle of each stage is homogenous; and because progression is characterized by qualitative changes, as processing strategies seem to differ radically from one stage to the next (e.g., Sprenger-Charolles & Casalis, 1996).
2.1.2 L2 reading
Unlike L1 reading and writing, reading and writing in an L2 always involves the interaction of different languages. As Koda (2007: 1) points out, this “dual-language involvement implies continual interactions in between the two languages as well as incessant adjustments in accommodating the disparate demands each language imposes”. In other words, L2 reading and writing are inherently more complex than L1 reading and writing.
In Grabe’s view (e.g., 2009; 2014: 10ff.), differences between L1 and L2 reading center around the linguistic resources that are available to the L2 reader. For example, L2 readers have limited L2 language skills (i.e., knowledge of grammar, vocabulary and discourse structure) when they begin reading. Furthermore, L2 students have less experience with reading exposure in the L2 and consequently less practice in L2 reading. In addition, L2 readers need to develop somewhat distinct cognitive processing which involves two language systems, using a joint strategy system, (e.g. Koda, 2005). Interference from the L1 (i.e., cognitive skills, strategies, goals and expectations) may affect L2 reading and either facilitate or hinder its outcomes. Finally, L2 readers rely on different combinations of general background knowledge when reading in the L2 because “world knowledge” (e.g., social and cultural assumptions in texts) may vary between L1 and L2 reading experiences.
So far, L2 reading comprehension has been studied more frequently than L2 reading fluency, and there are far fewer studies dealing with reading fluency in the L2 than in the L1 (e.g., Grabe, 2010). Determinants of L2 reading fluency seem to be the same as those for L1 reading fluency and include automatic word recognition, a large recognition vocabulary, skilled grammatical processing, and automaticity and chunking (i.e., the detection of larger units). Several studies have shown L1 reading fluency skills to affect L2 fluency skills, and L2 reading comprehension to affect L2 reading fluency and vice versa, although the effects so far seem to be rather moderate (see e.g., Grabe, 2010: 73).
Stages in L2 reading seem to parallel those in L1 reading. For example, Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe (2012) extended to L2 reading the Simple View of Reading Framework from Hoover and Gough (1990), which places reading comprehension as a product of word reading (decoding) and listening comprehension. Verhoeven & Van Leeuwe (2012) found that the word decoding skills of L1 and L2 learners (in the long run) seem to develop at more or less equal rates, probably due to the fact that many L2 learners have already acquired essentials of the target language in the domains of phonology and orthography. The same seems to apply to reading fluency: for example, O’Brien & Wallot (2016) reported that the transition from fluent reading of words to texts emerges roughly at the same time for the L1 and the L2, namely in grade 4, i.e., around age 10.
Following Frisch (2013), there are currently three models to account for the relationship between L1 and L2 reading, namely the Interdependence Hypothesis, the Threshold Hypothesis and the Transfer Hypothesis. According to the Interdependence Hypothesis (e.g., Cummins, 1991), the development of L2 reading is affected by the cognitive and general linguistic skills in the L1, and in particular by L1 reading skills. Many studies have shown that cognitive, linguistic and reading skills in the L1 predict L2 reading skills (e.g., Van der Leij, Bekebrede & Kotterink, 2010) and that there is a high correlation between L1 and L2 reading skills (e.g., Skutnabb-Kangas & Toukomaa, 1976). The Threshold Hypothesis posits that “some minimal threshold of proficiency in the L2 must be attained in order for the reader’s first language reading skills to transfer to reading in the second language” (Carroll & Grabe, 2010: 223). Thus, a certain level of L2 proficiency is necessary before L1 reading strategies and skills can be utilized effectively in L2 reading. An important prerequisite is a learning context that promotes overall L2 language proficiency, at least for lower-level students. So far, however, empirical data are scarce regarding the nature of such a threshold. Finally, language proximity and language distance of the two involved systems are important components of the Transfer Hypothesis (e.g., Koda, 2008: Transfer Facilitation Model) to account for cross-linguistic transfer in reading. In Koda’s view, transfer is “an automated activation of well-established first-language competencies, which is triggered by second-language input” (Koda, 2008: 78). Transfer from L1 to L2 may also occur cross-modally (e.g., knowledge of L1 spoken language may be transferred to L2 reading development), for example, when L1 phonological awareness predicts L2 word recognition. Thus, transfer not only includes a set of rules but also any form-function relationship that the L2 users have acquired in their L1, which may be utilized in their L2 as well.
2.1.3 L1 writing
Writing is a complex task which requires the coordination of fine motor skills and cognitive skills and reflects the social and cultural patterns of the writer’s time. Dyson & Freedman (1991: 58) define writing as “a process-oriented, goal-directed and problem-solving process, which involves the writer’s awareness of the composing process and the teacher’s or peer’s intervention at any time needed”. Writing relies on many of the same structures as speech within a language system, such as vocabulary, grammar and semantics, with the added dependency on a system of signs or symbols, often (as in the case of German and English) in the form of a formal alphabet.
The writing process has been characterized in several cognitive models as a complex process with several feedback loops (e.g., Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). In simple terms, the text is planned, formulated and revised several times in accordance with the writing goal. A monitor controls for language (i.e., for linguistic-stylistic means) and content. Finally, the writer’s environment affects this process, in particular with respect to the writing task, the audience and the writer’s personal requirements (e.g., Thaler, 2012). Writing thus depends to a large extent on reading skills, because the process of composing a text always involves reading and rereading of the unfolding text (e.g., Myhill & Fisher, 2010).
Other fundamentals of successful writing include a positive attitude towards writing, topic knowledge, the ability to rapidly access lexical items, knowledge of text features, writing strategies, cognitive skills, visual-spatial performance and, in addition, spelling skills and strategies (see Myhill & Fisher, 2010). During their development, children progress from the level of copying familiar structures to recognizing and reproducing text structures. With respect to the elementary school context, evaluations of writing proficiency usually rely on components such as spelling, punctuation, vocabulary and grammar (e.g., Rathvon, 2004).
There are many models which illustrate the development of L1 writing. The classical model by Hayes & Flower (1980) describes writing as consisting of three primary processes—planning, translating (i.e., the production of text), and reviewing—all operating under executive control within the constraints of the external task environment and the writer’s long term memory. Although the model has been revisited and revised over the years (Hayes, 1996, 2006), it has retained its cognitive character as well as its influence on the field. Berninger & Swanson (1994) revised the Hayes & Flower (1980) model to highlight the challenges that young or immature writers come to face during writing. According to the authors, two sub-processes at the translating level