2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A componential model of reading in Chinese

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
45
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
7
45
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When we examined the contributions of word reading and listening comprehension to reading comprehension (the simple view of reading), the model described the data very well and explained a large amount of variance in reading comprehension (80%). Although this is in line with previous studies in languages other than Chinese (Adlof et al., ; Foorman, Koon, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, ; Kim, , ), it is discrepant, in terms of amount of variance, with previous studies of the simple view of reading with Chinese‐speaking students, which explained relatively small amounts of variance in reading comprehension, ranging from 37% (Yeung et al., ) to 42% (Joshi et al., ). The reason for the discrepancy is not clear but may include the fact that the previous studies were conducted in Hong Kong with students whose oral language (e.g., Cantonese) is different from the written language (Mandarin), whereas students in the present study spoke Mandarin and were learning to read in Mandarin.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…When we examined the contributions of word reading and listening comprehension to reading comprehension (the simple view of reading), the model described the data very well and explained a large amount of variance in reading comprehension (80%). Although this is in line with previous studies in languages other than Chinese (Adlof et al., ; Foorman, Koon, Petscher, Mitchell, & Truckenmiller, ; Kim, , ), it is discrepant, in terms of amount of variance, with previous studies of the simple view of reading with Chinese‐speaking students, which explained relatively small amounts of variance in reading comprehension, ranging from 37% (Yeung et al., ) to 42% (Joshi et al., ). The reason for the discrepancy is not clear but may include the fact that the previous studies were conducted in Hong Kong with students whose oral language (e.g., Cantonese) is different from the written language (Mandarin), whereas students in the present study spoke Mandarin and were learning to read in Mandarin.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…If morphological awareness is indirectly related to reading comprehension via vocabulary, then its indirect relation would also be shared with listening comprehension because listening comprehension, or discourse-level language comprehension, is a key skill to reading comprehension across languages (see the simple view of reading and DIER; Adlof, Catts, & Little, 2006;Hoover & Gough, 1990;Joshi, Tao, Aaron, & Quiroz, 2012;Kim, 2015Kim, , 2017see Florit & Cain, 2011), including Chinese (Yeung, Ho, Chan, & Chung, 2016), and because vocabulary contributes to listening comprehension (see DIER; Kim, 2017; see also Florit, Roch, & Levorato, 2014;Fong & Ho, 2017;Kendeou, Bohn-Gettler, White, & van den Broek, 2008;Kim, 2015Kim, , 2016Tompkins, Guo, & Justice, 2013). In other words, morphological awareness would have cascading indirect effects on reading comprehension via multiple indirect pathways (morphological awareness → vocabulary → listening comprehension → reading comprehension).…”
Section: Pathways By Which Morphological Awareness Is Related To Readmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is evidence that the cognitive processes underlying text‐level processing in English are very similar to those in Chinese and that the models of text‐level processing developed for English can be generalised to text‐level processing in Chinese (Yeung et al, ; Yeung, Ho, Chan & Chung, ). The results from the present study further support the proposition that the development of composing from a cognitive perspective is highly similar across orthographies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For testing the SVR in Chinese with a longitudinal study of 392 Chinese children aged from 7 to 9 years, Yeung et al (2016) reported that decoding (measured by word recognition accuracy and fluency) and language comprehension (measured by syntactic skills and oral narrative skills) explained 64% of variance in Chinese reading comprehension across time. Findings so far appear to support that decoding and language comprehension are also core components of reading comprehension in Chinese.…”
Section: Features Of Chinese and Studies Of Reading Comprehension In mentioning
confidence: 99%