How elementary-age children read polysyllabic polymorphemic words.

Abstract

Developing readers of English appear to favor phonograms over grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) to read unknown words. For polysyllabic polymorphemic (PSPM) words, the morphophonemic nature of English means elementary-age children may focus on roots and affixes. Does developing readers' PSPM word reading accuracy relate to the morphological units, the nonmorphological, or both? In this study, 3rd and 4th graders (N = 202) read PSPM words (N = 45). and models were constructed to answer this question. A nonmorphological polysyllabic model showed a main effect of phonological awareness; a Vocabulary Size X Word Frequency interaction, with larger vocabularies improving accuracy for low-frequency words; and a GPC Knowledge X Word Frequency interaction, with a slight negative GPC knowledge effect for all but low-frequency words. A polymorphemic model showed main effects of word-specific root word knowledge, general root word reading, vocabulary, and word frequency. A Morphological Awareness X Morphological Transparency interaction showed morpholog ical awareness affected accuracy for shift words more than transparent ones. In a combined model, effects were the same, except GPC knowledge positively affected accuracy for very low-frequency words, vocabulary and frequency had only main effects, and a bigram frequency effect was found. The polysyllabic model reduced child and item variance by 45% and 43%, respectively; the polymorphemic model by 62% and 67%; and the combined model by 69% and 69%. The results suggest that elementary-age developing readers rely on morphological information to read PSPM words. Implications for models of reading and reading intervention are discussed.

Multiple Pathways by Which Compounding Morphological Awareness Is Related to Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Chinese Second Graders

“…As for the explanation by text features, DIER explicitly hypothesizes potential differential relations of component skills to reading comprehension as a function of text factors (dynamic relations hypothesis; see Kim, ), as reading involves an interaction of student characteristics (e.g., morphological awareness, vocabulary knowledge, cognitive skills) and text characteristics (Goodwin et al., ; Kim, ; RAND Reading Study Group, ). Texts differ in multiple aspects, including the nature of word characteristics (e.g., morphological composition; Goodwin et al., ; Kearns, ), and demands on vocabulary, syntactic knowledge, cognition, and background knowledge (Kim, , ). For instance, some texts have a greater demand for vocabulary (e.g., academic vocabulary) or higher order cognitive skills (e.g., inference or perspective taking) than others do.…”

Why Children With Dyslexia Struggle With Writing and How to Help Them

“…For example, there are only 70 affixes with at least 100 occurrences in English words, versus 224 for sound-spellings. However, many words have more than one morpheme (Nagy & Anderson, 1984), and readers at all ability levels appear to use morphological information (Kearns, 2015). In short, there are good reasons for teaching students to spell using morphemes.…”

Language and Reading: the Role of Morpheme and Phoneme Awareness

“…In grades 3 and 5, reading accuracy for derived words was observed to be influenced by root word frequency even after controls for family size, family frequency, surface frequency, semantic relatedness and neighbourhood size [ 49 •]. Moreover, morpheme awareness and root word reading were predictive components in a model explaining the polysyllabic polymorphemic word reading ability of readers in grades 3 and 4, more so than non-morphological (syllabic- or phoneme-based) knowledge [ 50 ].…”