Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:09:37.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

LUDO VERHOEVEN  and
CHARLES A. PERFETTI
LUDO VERHOEVEN*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
CHARLES A. PERFETTI
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Ludo Verhoeven, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Word identification, which is the retrieval of the linguistic constituents (phonological, semantic) of a word, plays a central role in children's reading development. This development includes the automatization of word decoding and the attainment of fluent reading levels, both essential for skilled reading with comprehension (Perfetti, 1992; Stanovich, 2000; Verhoeven & van Leeuwe, 2009). In learning to read, children first acquire elementary decoding skills, and then gradually apply these skills with greater accuracy and speed, leading to an increasingly automated process of that recognizes multiletter units (consonant clusters, syllables, and morphemes) and whole words (Ehri, 2005). Automatic word recognition enables the devotion of mental resources to the meaning of a text and thus allows readers to use reading as a tool for the acquisition of new information and knowledge (Perfetti, 1998; Stanovich, 2000).

Type
Introduction
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 457 - 466
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10, Serial No. 238), 1–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balota, D., & Chumbley, J. I. (1985). The locus of the frequency effect in the pronunciation task: Lexical access and/or production? Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332.Google Scholar
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Pnini, T., & Frost, R. (1995). Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes. Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 947–960.Google ScholarPubMed
Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104–115.Google ScholarPubMed
Goswami, U., Gombert, J. E., & de Barrera, L. F. (1998). Children's orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English, French and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U., Porpodas, C., & Wheelwright, S. (1997). Children's orthographic representations in English and Greek. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 648–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, G. E., McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1986). Distributed representations. In Rumelhart, D. E., McClelland, J. L., & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition: Vol. 1. Foundations (pp. 77–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hyönä, J., & Pollatsek, A. (1998). Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1612–1627.Google ScholarPubMed
Kemp, N. (2006). Children's spelling of base, inflected, and derived words: Links with morphological awareness. Reading and Writing, 19, 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leong, C. K. (2000). Rapid processing of base and derived forms of words and grades 4, 5 and 6 children's spelling. Reading and Writing, 12, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, V. (2000). Introduction to the special issue on morphology and the acquisition of alphabetic writing systems. Reading and Writing, 12, 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to literacy skills in at-risk second grade readers and at-risk fourth grade writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742.Google Scholar
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (1990). Word schemas: Expectations about the form and meaning of new words. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 105–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J., & de Jong, P. (2004). A cross-linguistic comparison of children learning to read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 785–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In Gough, P. B., Ehri, L. C., & Treiman, R. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1998). Learning to read. In Reitsma, P. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.), Literacy problems and interventions (pp. 15–48). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C., & Gonnerman, L.M. (2000). Are nonsemantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processing, 15, 445–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 103, 56–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (1997) How complex simplex word scan be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morpological skills. Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12, 219–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A., & Zwicky, A. (2001). The handbook of morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (2000). Spelling. In Kamil, M. L., Rosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 525–543). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vannest, J., Bertram, R., Järvikivi, J., & Niemi, J. (2002). Counterintuitive cross-linguistic differences: More morphological computation in English than in Finnish. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 83–106.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., & Carlisle, J. (2006). Morphology in word identification and word spelling. Reading and Writing, 19, 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 209–217.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. (2003). Units of analysis in reading Dutch bisyllabic pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 255–271.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., & Haarman, V. (2006). Prefix identification in the reading of Dutch bisyllabic words. Reading and Writing, 19, 651–668.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2009). Modeling the growth of word decoding skills: Evidence from Dutch. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar