We aimed to investigate the relationship between reading difficulties in native language (NL: Polish) and English as a foreign language in dyslexia in English and Polish students, respectively, and to develop a model of relations between NL phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, verbal short‐term memory, and reading in English. Thirteen English students with dyslexia (ED), 15 without (END) and 16 Polish students with dyslexia (PD) and 16 without (PND) participated. We found that dyslexic deficits and different phoneme‐to‐grapheme correspondence rules between Polish and English interfered with the accuracy and fluency of word and nonword decoding and word recognition. Whereas END scored higher than PD and PND in all reading measures, ED did not, despite a NL advantage. When compared with PND, ED performed equal in nonword decoding, which depends to a higher degree on phoneme‐to‐grapheme conversion rather than lexical access. When compared with PD, ED performed equally in nonword fluency, which is most likely a nonscript‐dependant skill. More variance in reading was explained by NL than FL factors, even if analogical NL/FL skills predicted a given variable. While in ED and END, these relationships agreed with the literature; in PD and PND, NL phonological awareness was not beneficial for English as a foreign language reading.

中文翻译：

---

有和没有阅读障碍的学生以英语作为母语和外语的解码和单词识别（英语与波兰语学生）

我们旨在调查英语和波兰语学生分别以母语（荷兰语：波兰语）和阅读障碍阅读障碍中英语的阅读困难之间的关系，并建立母语语音意识，快速自动命名，口头表达之间的关系模型。短期记忆，并用英语阅读。13名患有阅读障碍（ED）的英语学生，15名没有阅读障碍（END）的英语学生和16名波兰有阅读障碍（PD）的学生和16名没有阅读障碍的（PND）的学生参加了会议。我们发现波兰语和英语之间的阅读障碍和不同的音位到音素对应规则会干扰单词，非单词解码和单词识别的准确性和流畅性。尽管END在所有阅读指标中的得分均高于PD和PND，但ED却没有，尽管具有NL优势。与PND相比，ED在非字解码中的表现相同，这在很大程度上取决于音素到音素的转换，而不是词汇访问。与PD相比，ED在非单词流利性方面的表现均相同，这很可能是一种与脚本无关的技能。即使类似的NL / FL技能预测了给定的变量，NL所解释的阅读差异也比FL因子大。在ED和END中，这些关系与文献一致。在PD和PND中，NL的语音意识对于英语作为外语阅读没有好处。这些关系与文献一致；在PD和PND中，NL的语音意识对于英语作为外语阅读没有好处。这些关系与文献一致；在PD和PND中，NL的语音意识对于英语作为外语阅读没有好处。