Word Recognition III

Rastle, Kathleen

doi:10.1002/9781119705116.ch5

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another interesting avenue to pursue in future studies is morphological awareness, the ability to reflect on and manipulate morphemes (Carlisle, 2000) and its relation to syntactic awareness and word reading. Morphological awareness skills outside the context of the syntactic awareness task were not measured in our study, though significant relationships have been found between morphological awareness and word reading (e.g., Kirby and Bowers, 2018;Berthiaume, 2019;Levesque et al, 2021;Rastle, 2022). Future studies could consider adding a morphological awareness test that falls outside the context of sentence processing as a control when examining syntactic awareness in children with dyslexia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Do children with developmental dyslexia have syntactic awareness problems once phonological processing and memory are controlled?

Robertson,

Mimeau,

Deacon

2024

Front. Lang. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSyntactic awareness is the ability to monitor and manipulate word order within sentences. It is unclear whether children with dyslexia have syntactic awareness problems, as there are mixed results in the literature. Dyslexia is typically classified with very poor word and nonword reading and phonological processing problems are often observed in this population. It is conceivable that a phonological deficit could strain memory when performing oral syntactic awareness tasks. Here we examine if syntactic awareness problems are observed in children with dyslexia once phonological processing and memory skills are controlled.MethodsReal and nonword reading efficiency tests determined reading level. Children with dyslexia (n = 25) were compared to typically developing children (n = 24) matched for age (M = 8;8) and nonverbal abilities. Syntactic awareness was measured with an oral word order correction task (e.g., Is baking Lisa and her son in his room sleeps). Tests of phonological awareness, phonological memory, and verbal working memory were also administered and served as controls.ResultsThe dyslexic group performed worse than typically developing readers on syntactic awareness and this group difference persisted once phonological memory and verbal working memory were controlled. However, after controlling for phonological awareness skills, there were no group differences on the syntactic awareness test.Discussion:The results suggest that phonological awareness problems in particular might be responsible for syntactic awareness difficulties in dyslexia and future studies should control for this. The results are discussed within theoretical frameworks on the nature of oral language deficits in dyslexia.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Do children with developmental dyslexia have syntactic awareness problems once phonological processing and memory are controlled?

Robertson,

Mimeau,

Deacon

2024

Front. Lang. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To develop lexical-level literacy skills, it is of paramount importance to be able to establish correct phonological, orthographic, and morphological representations. In turn, these emergent literacy skills depend on the underlying components of phonological processing skills ( Melby-Lervåg et al, 2012 ) and morphological awareness ( Rastle, 2022 ). Developing discourse-level literacy skills, on the other hand, depends on underlying components such as higher-order cognition and regulation, including inference-making, monitoring, goal setting, self-assessment and self-reinforcement, as well as foundational language skills (vocabulary and grammar) and discourse-level oral language (connected language).…”

Section: Theoretical and Empirical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-efficacy for writing and written text quality of upper secondary students with and without reading difficulties

Sehlström,

Waldmann,

Levlin

2023

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSelf-efficacy for writing (SEW) and reading ability are some of several factors that may be related to the quality of written text that students produce. The aim of the current study was (1) to explore the variation in SEW and written text quality in L1-Swedish and L2-English among upper secondary students with different reading profiles in L1 (typical reading vs. reading difficulties) and with different study backgrounds (SB1year or SB2years = one or two years of studies of Swedish and English, respectively), and in the next step (2) to explore if individual variations in L1-reading and SEW may explain variation in written text quality.MethodsParticipants were 100 upper secondary students (aged 17–18) with different reading profiles operationalized as typical reading and reading difficulties. Data consisted of screening for word recognition and reading comprehension, text quality results from argumentative L1- and L2-writing tasks, school information on study background in Swedish/English, and students’ responses from an online survey about SEW.ResultsAs to SEW results, an ANOVA revealed significant main effects for reading profile and study background in L1, but in L2 there was only a significant main effect for reading profile. Written text quality results indicated that there was a significant interaction effect between reading profile and study background in L1, indicating that the significant main effect for reading profile on written text quality was influenced by the group of students with reading difficulties and SB1year. There was a significant main effect for reading profile and study background on written text quality in L2. Students with reading difficulties and SB1year were the most vulnerable group, and they had the lowest scores in L1/L2 SEW and written text quality in L1 and L2. Multiple regression results indicated that word recognition and SEW contributed significantly to L1-text quality, and word recognition, reading comprehension, and SEW contributed significantly to L2-text quality. Thus, this study sheds light on the under-researched area of L1/L2 SEW and text quality of students with reading difficulties at the level of upper secondary school.DiscussionPedagogical implications are discussed and highlight the need for writing instruction across subjects in upper secondary school and for extra writing support/scaffolding for students with reading difficulties and shorter study background in the language subjects L1 (Swedish) and L2 (English).

show abstract

“…One of the major challenges of visual word recognition research has been the investigation of complex words consisting of more than one morpheme. While much research has examined the processing of monomorphemic words (e.g., Grainger, 2008Grainger, , 2022Grainger et al, 2016;Norris, 2013;Rastle, 2007), fewer studies have addressed the essential role of morphological factors during reading (e.g., Rastle, 2022). As a result, reading theories capturing the complexity of orthographic and semantic processes are still underspecified with regard to morphologically complex words.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Positional encoding of morphemes in visual word recognition.

Spencer,

Kahraman,

Beyersmann

2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reading morphologically complex words requires analysis of their morphemic subunits (e.g., play + er); however, the positional constraints of morphemic processing are still little understood. The current study involved three unprimed lexical decision experiments to directly compare the positional encoding of stems and affixes during reading and to investigate the role of semantics during the position encoding of morphemes. Experiment 1 revealed that transposed compound words were harder to reject than their controls (e.g., dreamday vs. shadeday), whereas there was no difference between transposed suffixed words and their controls (e.g., fulpain vs. adepain). Experiment 2 replicated the results for transposed compound words of the first experiment and further showed that there was no difference between transposed prefixed words and their controls (e.g., qualifydis vs. qualifymis). Experiment 3 investigated the role of semantic transparency in morpheme transposition effects and revealed a larger morpheme transposition effect for semantically transparent transposed compound words (e.g., cuptea vs. taptea) than for semantically opaque transposed compound words (e.g., linedead vs. deskdead). These results bring to light important differences in the positional encoding of stems and affixes, suggesting that prefixes and suffixes are recognized in a position-dependent manner compared to the position-independent encoding of embedded stems and that morpheme transposition effects are guided by semantics. The current findings call for more clearly specified theoretical models of visual word recognition that reflect the distinct positional constraints of stems and affixes, as well as the influence of semantics on morphological processing.

show abstract

Word Recognition III

Cited by 4 publications

References 74 publications

Do children with developmental dyslexia have syntactic awareness problems once phonological processing and memory are controlled?

Do children with developmental dyslexia have syntactic awareness problems once phonological processing and memory are controlled?

Self-efficacy for writing and written text quality of upper secondary students with and without reading difficulties

Positional encoding of morphemes in visual word recognition.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About