Differences in how writing systems represent language raise important questions about the extent to which the role of linguistic skills such as phonological awareness (PA) and morphological awareness (MA) in reading is universal. In this meta-analysis, the authors examined the relationship between PA, MA, and reading (accuracy, fluency, and comprehension) in 2 languages (English and Chinese) representing different writing systems (alphabetic and logographic). A random-effects model analysis of data from 64 studies with native speakers of each language revealed significant correlations between PA, MA, and all reading outcomes in both languages. The correlations remained significant even after controlling for each other's effect on reading. However, PA was a stronger correlate of reading in English than in Chinese. MA was as good a correlate of reading in English as in Chinese (except for comprehension, where it was better). In addition, complex PA tasks in English and production/compounding MA tasks in Chinese produced significantly larger correlations with reading accuracy. Taken together, the findings of this meta-analysis suggest that PA and MA are significant correlates of reading, but their role is influenced by the writing system, the type of reading outcome, and the type of task used to operationalize PA and MA. The implications of these findings are discussed. Educational Impact and Implications StatementThe authors examined the role of writing system in the relationship between phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and reading. The results of the meta-analysis revealed significant relationships between these linguistic skills and reading in each language, but the strength of the relationships was influenced by the writing system, the type of reading outcome, and the type of task used to operationalize phonological awareness and morphological awareness. These findings help us better understand the linguistic skills that are most important for reading acquisition in different writing systems.

No abstract

Purpose: Measuring language input, especially for infants growing up in bilingual environments, is challenging. Although the ways to measure input have expanded rapidly in recent years, there are many unresolved issues. In this study, we compared different measurement units and sampling methods used to estimate bilingual input in naturalistic daylong recordings. Method: We used the Language Environment Analysis system to obtain and process naturalistic daylong recordings from 21 French–English bilingual families with an infant at 10 and 18 months of age. We examined global and context-specific input estimates and their relation with infant vocal activeness (i.e., volubility) when input was indexed by different units (adult word counts, speech duration, 30-s segment counts) and using different sampling methods (every-other-segment, top-segment). Results: Input measures indexed by different units were strongly and positively correlated with each other and yielded similar results regarding their relation with infant volubility. As for sampling methods, sampling every other 30-s segment was representative of the entire corpus. However, sampling the top segments with the densest input was less representative and yielded different results regarding their relation with infant volubility. Conclusions: How well the input that a child receives throughout a day is portrayed by a selected sample and correlates with the child's vocal activeness depends on the choice of input units and sampling methods. Different input units appear to generate consistent results, while caution should be taken when choosing sampling methods. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22335688