How Literacy Transfers Between Languages: A Bilingual Teacher's Perspective. - Débora Affonso

One of the reasons why I wanted to shift from music teaching to being a classroom teacher was how astonished I got when my daughter was not even 2 years old and she would already get a book and “read” it to me. She had memorised it, but she knew exactly when to move to the next page, as she would recognise the images and letters in the book already.  Later, when she was 4 years old, she was already writing a list of things she wanted for her birthday party. She wrote “bolo, brigadeiro, M & M” nearly accurately. Back then, she was studying in bilingual schools, but she managed to transfer sound-symbol knowledge to Portuguese. Those events made me really curious about the literacy process and how bilingual kids would develop their skills for reading and writing in different languages.

I read a lot about bilingual literacy, learning to read and write, the neuroscience behind the literacy process. Learning all of that made me a stronger and more skilled teacher, as I can help my students better, giving them tools to cope with this process that is so beautiful for most and so tiring for some. Recently I have also dug more into the literacy process in neurodivergent kids, but that will be the theme of another talk.

So one of the things neuroscience taught me is that reading and writing are not natural processes for the brain. Our primate brain was not wired for the written language. Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene explains that reading is not natural to the human brain in the way spoken language is. Writing is a cultural invention, and learning to read requires the brain to repurpose visual and language systems. That is why literacy doesn’t simply emerge through exposure, especially in bilingual contexts.

If literacy were natural, we wouldn’t need schools to teach it. Children would learn to read the way they learn to speak: simply by being surrounded by language. But they don’t. Reading and writing are cultural inventions, not biological guarantees, and pretending otherwise does children a disservice. Literacy only develops when it is taught intentionally and explicitly: when we show learners how sounds connect to symbols, how meaning is constructed in text, and how written language works differently from speech. In bilingual contexts, the cost of assuming literacy will ‘just happen’ is even higher. Exposure is not instruction, and goodwill is not pedagogy.

One of the most damaging consequences of this misunderstanding is how narrowly literacy is sometimes planned for. Teachers may focus heavily on a single strand of language — phonics without meaning, vocabulary without decoding, comprehension without fluency — and assume the rest will develop on its own. Scarborough’s Reading Rope reminds us that skilled reading is not built from one strong thread, but from many strands developing together over time. When instruction privileges one aspect of language and neglects others, the rope frays. In bilingual contexts, this imbalance is even more visible: learners may sound fluent but struggle to comprehend, or decode accurately without truly understanding. Literacy fails not because children lack ability, but because instruction lacks balance.

This shows up in very familiar classroom practices: endless comprehension worksheets with little language instruction, phonics programmes delivered in isolation from meaningful text, vocabulary lists taught without context, or writing tasks assigned without explicit modelling. In bilingual settings, it can also look like simplifying texts instead of teaching language, or relying on oral discussion while written language is left underdeveloped. Best practice looks very different. It means planning literacy through multiple strands at once: explicit phonics and decoding alongside rich oral language, deliberate vocabulary instruction embedded in texts, guided reading that attends to meaning and structure, and writing that is modelled, scaffolded, and revisited. Scarborough’s Rope is not a metaphor for variety; it’s a warning that literacy only becomes strong when all strands are intentionally taught and deliberately woven together.

This may sound theoretical, but the best lessons are almost always the result of research-based planning, whether we name it or not. Many everyday classroom decisions are still guided by persistent myths rather than evidence: that strong oral language will automatically lead to strong literacy, that literacy in one language guarantees literacy in another, or that mixing languages somehow confuses children. Research tells us otherwise. Oral language is necessary, but it is not sufficient for literacy; decoding, comprehension, and writing require explicit instruction. Literacy skills do not simply transfer wholesale across languages. They transfer selectively and only when instruction supports that process. And far from causing confusion, strategic use of multiple languages can support understanding when it is intentional and pedagogically sound. When teachers plan with these realities in mind, literacy instruction becomes clearer, more equitable, and far more effective.

So, what is happening in your classrooms? If you are a parent of young learners and they are starting to read and write, how do you feel when they come home and read a whole text to you like this: Th-uh c-a-t cat is o-n on th-uh m-a-t mat.

What else would you like to know about literacy or anything related to bilingual/multilingual education?

Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. Viking Penguin.

Francis, D. J., Lesaux, N. K., & August, D. (2006). Teaching for biliteracy: Strengthening bridges between languages. Caslon Publishing.

Cummins, J., & Early, M. (2011). Biliteracy from the start: Literacy squared in action (2nd ed.). Heinemann.