ABSTRACT
This chapter explores whether findings support or refute the model. Findings are evaluated in terms of other models such as E. Bernhardt’s second-language model and Cummins and M. Swain’s Common Underlying Proficiency model. The English-speaking student who sees the French word “porc” or “chance” in print may recognize they are cognates and understand their meanings. There are languages that are shallow in that their grapheme–phoneme correspondences are one-to-one. There have been a number of classification procedures to group languages and orthographies such as the one developed by DeFrancis. This system divides orthographies into two broad categories: graphic symbols and alphabetic symbols. Efforts were made to categorize the orthographies of the languages represented in the sample in some way that would allow a test to be made of any advantages or disadvantages for students involved in learning English as a second or additional language. The purpose for categorizing orthographies is to attempt to measure in some way common underlying proficiencies.
