The role of pinyin in Chinese language instruction has attracted considerable attention. In his influential work Language Issues (1980), Zhao Yuanren argued that foreign language learning comprises three essential components—pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary—and that instruction should proceed sequentially through these stages (Zhao, 1980). This sequential approach is consistent with theories in second language acquisition that emphasize the importance of establishing a strong foundation in phonetic competence to support the later acquisition of grammatical structures and vocabulary (Ellis, 1999; Spada and Lightbown, 2006). Consequently, mastery of pinyin, as the cornerstone of phonetic instruction, is critical for learners of Chinese as a second language. Evidence indicates that proficiency in pinyin enhances pronunciation accuracy and overall language competence (Bassetti, 2007).

In adult language learning, Chinese pinyin is regarded as an auxiliary tool for developing phonetic skills (Lü, 2017). Adult learners are typically introduced to pinyin at the beginner level to establish a foundational understanding of Chinese phonetics and to build a support system that facilitates further language acquisition (Cai and Liu, 2011). Moreover, pinyin instruction assists in the teaching of Chinese tones and fosters autonomous study skills (Chang, 2018). However, the effects of pinyin instruction differ between adult and child learners. Adults, having developed a mature first language system, are generally better equipped to adapt to an additional phonetic framework. In contrast, for children who are native English speakers—their English phonological system still under development, the introduction of a second phonetic system raises several critical questions. Similar multicomponent patterns have been reported for Chinese reading fluency, where phonological awareness (PA) remains a strong concurrent predictor (Zhang et al., 2021), further underscoring the importance of examining how pinyin relates to children's phonological development. For example, does learning pinyin interfere with the acquisition of spoken English vocabulary? If interference occurs, what is its extent, and when might it diminish? Conversely, might the native English phonological system hinder the acquisition of pinyin? These questions are central to optimizing models of Chinese as a second language instruction in English-dominant contexts (Koda, 2005; Cummins, 2000).

A related issue concerns whether elementary school children should be taught Chinese pinyin and, if so, when and how this instruction should be delivered. Some educators advocate postponing pinyin instruction until after the second grade to prevent disruption of the early development of the native language's phonological and orthographic system (Wang, 2021). Others maintain that pinyin does not significantly interfere with native language skills; even if minor interference occurs, it is quickly overcome, suggesting that pinyin should be introduced from the beginning to leverage its pedagogical benefits (Lü, 2017). A third viewpoint argues against the use of pinyin entirely, positing that since Chinese characters form the authentic writing system of Chinese, introducing pinyin may confuse learners by conflating their native language with Chinese, and therefore Chinese instruction should begin directly with characters (Lin et al., 2020; Yan, 2005). This debate can be distilled into two primary issues: determining whether pinyin instruction is necessary for children learning Chinese as a second language, and examining whether pinyin instruction interferes with the acquisition of spoken English vocabulary, whether the native orthographic system hinders pinyin learning, and what benefits pinyin instruction might provide (Koda, 2005; Cummins, 2000; Bialystok, 2001).

From a theoretical perspective, the necessity of pinyin instruction for children acquiring Chinese as a second language can also be examined through developmental models of biliteracy. According to Cummins's (1992) common underlying proficiency hypothesis, developing biliteracy—defined as proficiency in both the native and second language writing systems—leads to changes in children's emergent literacy awareness at both foundational and surface levels. In practical terms, the impact of biliteracy is far-reaching, influencing literacy development in both the short and long term. Findings from bilingual cognitive development further suggest that exposure to multiple language systems can enhance cognitive control and executive functions (Bialystok, 2001), which may facilitate learners' ability to integrate diverse orthographic and phonetic systems. Early explanations for certain errors in biliteracy acquisition attributed them to interference from the native language. For instance, Spanish orthographic rules require the insertion of an e after an s when followed by the sounds [t], [p], or [k] (e.g., in estrella and español), which led Spanish-speaking children learning to write English to produce errors such as estop or esky. Such errors were once seen as evidence of native language interference in second language acquisition, leading to a preference for bilingual education over biliteracy programs in elementary foreign language instruction. More recent evidence, however, demonstrates that instruction supporting both written and oral language forms is essential; without written symbols, bilingual instruction is markedly less effective (Baker, 2011). Furthermore, occasional confusion during biliteracy learning reflects children's active use of native language knowledge in constructing second language competence, a productive application of first language skills (Valdés and Castellón, 2010; Uro and Lai, 2019). Typically, this influence manifests as the dominant language affecting the acquisition of the less dominant language, rather than the reverse (Bialystok and Craik, 2010).

Although previous research has examined bilingual phonological awareness and the role of alphabetic scripts in second language learning, relatively little is known about how limited and early exposure to pinyin affects the cognitive development of English-speaking elementary students, leaving a gap in understanding how pinyin functions as a scaffold in early bilingual literacy development. To anchor these questions, the present study employed several standardized and researcher-developed measures. In addition to the Nonverbal Ability test (NA), the Phonological Awareness test (PA), and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4), we introduced three additional tools. The Commonly Mispronounced English Words Test (CMET) and the Commonly Mispronounced Chinese Pinyin Test (CMCT) were designed to assess children's pronunciation when reading English words and Chinese pinyin, respectively—items that are prone to mispronunciation due to overgeneralization of grapheme–phoneme correspondences, partial overlap between English and Chinese phonological rules, or significant cross-linguistic differences. In addition, the Chinese Fluency Test (CFT) was administered to evaluate students' ability to process Chinese vocabulary and syntax through immediate translation tasks, thereby reflecting their overall oral proficiency in Chinese. In this study, CMET was used to examine potential transfer effects from pinyin to English, CMCT to investigate the influence of English phonology on early pinyin learning, and CFT to capture broader outcomes of Chinese language development. By employing a longitudinal cross-lagged design, the present study provides new evidence on the developmental dynamics of pinyin learning, particularly the shift from phonological to lexical correlates across grade levels. In doing so, it extends current theories of bilingual education by showing that even minimal exposure to a phonetic system outside the native language can produce measurable, stage-specific benefits without compromising first-language literacy. This highlight instead the importance of timing and developmental readiness in second language instruction.

In summary, the role of pinyin in Chinese language instruction is multifaceted. While pinyin serves as a vital tool for enhancing phonetic competence and supporting language development among adult learners, its introduction in early instruction for children, particularly those from English-speaking backgrounds, raises critical issues regarding potential interference effects and the optimal timing and method of instruction. This study aims to address these issues by examining the effects of pinyin instruction on Chinese language acquisition and exploring its interaction with native language literacy development.

Recent investigations of bilingual children across diverse language pairs, such as Spanish–English, French–English, and Chinese–English, indicate that bilingual experiences not only facilitate the simultaneous acquisition of both languages but also enhance overall linguistic and nonverbal cognitive abilities (Bialystok, 2007; Marian and Shook, 2012; Barac and Bialystok, 2012; Bice and Kroll, 2021). The process by which children overcome instances of “confusion” in a second language appears to promote the refinement of grapheme–phoneme correspondence, thereby strengthening literacy awareness. In addition, research exploring the underlying mechanisms of these cognitive benefits suggests that bilingual experience bolsters central executive functioning, yielding advantages in both language-specific and domain-general cognitive tasks as early as childhood (Barac and Bialystok, 2011).

Thomas and Collier (1997) posit that bilingual children who attain academic fluency exhibit cognitive advantages relative to their monolingual peers, ultimately achieving higher levels of academic performance (Ovando et al., 2003). Buckwalter and Lo (2002) further contend that during early language emergence, the simultaneous acquisition of two writing systems—exemplified by the concurrent development of Chinese and English—does not result in mutual interference; rather, the two systems may reinforce each other in reading and writing, thereby deepening overall linguistic understanding. Large-scale data on Chinese–English bilinguals demonstrate that early biliteracy experience boosts EF while causing only transient L1 lags (Yin et al., 2022).

In overseas contexts, the process of Chinese language acquisition among children diverges markedly from that of native Chinese-speaking children. Typically, native learners acquire a phonological–semantic mapping through immersion in the target language before gradually learning the orthographic system in a sequential manner. In contrast, children learning Chinese as a foreign language must simultaneously acquire character form, pronunciation, and meaning, which imposes a considerably heavier cognitive load. Even when instructional emphasis is primarily placed on oral communication rather than literacy, the lack of an immersive phonological environment accentuates the importance of pinyin as a supportive tool. Pinyin accuracy can serve as an early behavioral marker of subsequent reading success (Ma et al., 2020). Given the inherent complexity of Chinese characters, direct instruction using characters without the intermediary support of pinyin would compel learners to master form, sound, and meaning concurrently—a challenge of substantial magnitude. Thus, the pinyin system plays an indispensable role in facilitating Chinese language acquisition in non-native settings, arguably even more so than for adult learners. Without the support of pinyin, the efficiency of Chinese language learning is significantly reduced. Consequently, in overseas environments, the incorporation of pinyin instruction is essential for establishing a robust phonological framework that underpins effective oral language development (Chai and Bao, 2023; Lü, 2017; Zhang S.-Z. et al., 2020; Liu, 2023).

In summary, the acquisition of Chinese pinyin is crucial for foreign children learning Chinese. During the learning process, even if bilingual children exhibit superficial con- fusion between two language systems, such confusion does not necessarily impede the development of their native language (Zhao, 2022; Chen et al., 2019; Mok et al., 2018). Rather, this phenomenon may reflect the productive application of native language knowledge to second language acquisition. Furthermore, simultaneous exposure to two languages and writing systems may enhance children's sensitivity to linguistic structures and bolster their fundamental language abilities (Zhao, 2022; Xie et al., 2022). A recent meta-analysis estimates PA to explain 20% of the variance in L2 Chinese reading across 31 samples (Chen and Zhao, 2022), underscoring its centrality.

Given the critical role of pinyin instruction, several issues merit further investigation: (1) Does the acquisition of Chinese pinyin interfere with the development of the native language's phonological or orthographic system, and if so, what is the extent and duration of such interference (Zhang and MacWhinney, 2023; Cui, 2014; Pan et al., 2023)? (2) In cases where interference is minimal or absent, does the native phonological system affect the acquisition of pinyin (Bassetti, 2006; Zhang J. et al., 2020; Hayes-Harb and Barrios, 2021; Xiao et al., 2020; Chang, 2018)? (3) What specific benefits does pinyin instruction confer in terms of overall language proficiency, particularly with respect to oral language development (Lü, 2017; Zhang et al., 2019; Harvey and Brooks, 2022; Shi, 2019)?

Collectively, these considerations underscore the necessity of continued research into the role of pinyin instruction in optimizing Chinese language learning outcomes for foreign children. Beyond PA, morphological awareness also differentially supports Chinese word reading (Liu et al., 2022), an avenue for future work.

At School G, six tests were administered twice with a 4-month interval between cycles. In each cycle, students first completed the CMET, PA, PPVT-4, and NA tests in order, with about a 2-min break between each test (Dunn and Dunn, 2007; North and Schneider, 1998). Then, after an interval of more than two days, they took the remaining CMCT and CFT tests. In contrast, School N did not administered in the two tests directly related to Chinese proficiency, instead, only administered the first four tests once, following the same procedure as School G's initial session. Each child was assessed individually in a one-on-one session at their respective school (Mackey and Gass, 2015). Prior to participation, written informed consent was obtained from the children's legal guardians, and age-appropriate assent was also obtained from the children themselves. Researchers explained the study procedures in simple language and emphasized that participation was voluntary and could be discontinued at any time.

Scoring was done by two experienced Chinese language teachers. For the NA and PPVT-4 tests, scores were assigned based on the test manuals (Dunn and Dunn, 2007; Mackey and Gass, 2015): NA's maximum score was 28 for Grade 1 and 32 for Grade 4, while PPVT-4 had a maximum of 160 for both grades. In the PA test, each correct answer earned 1 point, while incorrect responses received 0 points. For the CMET, each word was scored from 0 to 3 points (0 for no response or more than two errors, 1 for two errors, 2 for one vowel or consonant error, and 3 for a fully correct pronunciation). Similarly, each pinyin syllable in the CMCT was scored on a 0-to-3 scale: 0 for no response or both components incorrect, 1 for only one component being correct, 2 when one component was correct and the other approximated the target, and 3 for complete accuracy. In the CFT, points were allocated as 2 per word, 3 per phrase, and 4 per sentence, with final scores reflecting overall performance (Dunn and Dunn, 2007; North and Schneider, 1998). It should be noted that the CMET, CMCT, and CFT were specifically developed for this study. Item selection followed two main criteria: (i) high frequency in children's vocabulary, and (ii) prior inclusion in the instructional content already covered by the participating students. This ensured that the tests reflected learned material rather than unfamiliar items. In addition, item selection for the CMET and CMCT also considered susceptibility to mispronunciation due to overlap or conflict between English and Chinese phonological rules. To ensure content validity, all items were reviewed by two experienced Chinese language teachers. Inter-rater reliability for scoring was high (Cohen's κ>0.85 across both tests). A pilot administration with 12 non-participant students confirmed that the test instructions were easily understood and that the scoring rubric produced consistent results. Taken together, these steps provide preliminary evidence that the CMET and CMCT are reliable tools for capturing cross-linguistic pronunciation challenges in early bilingual contexts, as well as for assessing students' capacity to process Chinese vocabulary and syntactic structures as indicators of overall language proficiency.

In conclusion, the findings of this study indicate that the limited amount of Chinese instruction provided in American elementary schools—specifically, five 30-min classes per three weeks, results in only a modest level of pinyin instruction that does not significantly interfere with students' ability to read English words acquisition, as evidenced by comparable performance on PPVT-4 and CMET across groups. While the native English phonological system does exert a measurable degree of interference on the acquisition of Chinese pinyin, this phenomenon reflects a typical pattern of native language dominance over a less-established foreign language. The experimental results are consistent with similar studies (Kenner et al., 2004), indicating that the phenomenon of strong native language dominance and weak foreign language proficiency is somewhat universal in children's foreign language learning. Such substitution errors mirror documented cross-lexical interference patterns in bilingual phonetic production (Amengual, 2016).

Moreover, the study reveals that Chinese pinyin instruction confers notable benefits on language development. For first-grade students, pinyin learning enhances phonological awareness, whereas for fourth-grade students, it supports the acquisition of Chinese vocabulary. In both cases, improved pinyin proficiency appears to bolster students' overall self-confidence when encountering new linguistic material, enabling them to leverage existing language knowledge in problem-solving.

Overall, these results suggest that, within the constraints of the current instructional schedule, pinyin learning in American elementary schools is beneficial and does not compromise English literacy. Importantly, with the rise of digital pinyin input as a literacy scaffold (Luo et al., 2023), future studies should further investigate how digital tools can be systematically integrated into bilingual education. For instance, keyboard-based input tasks, gamified learning apps, or interactive online platforms may not only consolidate grapheme–phoneme mappings in authentic digital environments but also increase learner engagement and sustainability. Such digital scaffolds are playing an increasingly important role in bilingual learning contexts, and their effective integration with traditional classroom instruction warrants further empirical exploration. That said, the relatively small sample size (N = 64) and narrow geographic scope of this study inevitably limit the generalizability of its findings. Future research should therefore replicate this work on a larger scale and across more diverse educational settings to validate the observed patterns and to further refine bilingual education practices. In addition, future research should examine the long-term effects of these digital interventions and explore strategies to mitigate negative transfer from native language phonology, with the ultimate goal of optimizing bilingual education curricula.

This study investigated how learning Chinese pinyin influences American elementary school children who are native English speakers. Two groups of students were compared: one received Chinese instruction with pinyin, while the other had no Chinese exposure. The study contributes to the field in three key ways. First, it examines the effects of limited, school-based exposure to pinyin—a “low-dose” context typical of U.S. elementary programs—rather than immersion or adult learning, thereby testing whether stage-specific benefits can emerge without intensive instruction. Second, it theorizes and empirically tests a developmental shift from phonological to lexical correlates, refining accounts of cross-linguistic transfer by highlighting the roles of timing and developmental readiness. Third, by integrating group comparisons with stability and cross-lagged analyses, it demonstrates that pinyin can foster early phonological skills without undermining English literacy, thus extending bilingual education theories to minimal-exposure contexts.