The Processing of Inflectional Morphology: A Comparison of Children with and without Dyslexia

Egan, Joanne; Pring, Linda

doi:10.1023/b:read.0000044433.30864.23

Cited by 40 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it may be fruitful to examine morphological effects on dyslexia in Turkish. Children with dyslexia are known to have more difficulties writing the regular (-ed) than the irregular past tense of verbs in English (Egan & Pring, 2004;Leong & Parkinson, 1995). Turkish is a highly inflected language with many morphologically complex words that do not have a single, addressable lexeme, but are assembled on the basis of inflections (Durguno~u, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquired dyslexia in a turkish-english speaker

Raman

Weekes

2005

Ann. of Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Turkish script is characterised by completely transparent bidirectional mappings between orthography and phonology. To date, there has been no reported evidence of acquired dyslexia in Turkish speakers leading to the naïve view that reading and writing problems in Turkish are probably rare. We examined the extent to which phonological impairment and orthographic transparency influence reading disorders in a native Turkish speaker. BRB is a bilingual Turkish-English speaker with deep dysphasia accompanied by acquired dyslexia in both languages. The main findings are an effect of imageability on reading in Turkish coincident with surface dyslexia in English and preserved nonword reading. BRB's acquired dyslexia suggests that damage to phonological representations might have a consequence for learning to read in Turkish. We argue that BRB's acquired dyslexia has a common locus in chronic underactivation of phonological representations in Turkish and English. Despite a common locus, reading problems manifest themselves differently according to properties of the script and the type of task.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acquired dyslexia in a turkish-english speaker

Raman

Weekes

2005

Ann. of Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Readers with RD have difficulties in reading morphologically complex words and make morphological errors in writing (Carlisle, 1987;Egan & Pring, 2004;Johnson & Grant, 1989;Moats, 1996;Schiff & Raveh, 2006;Worthy & Vise, 1996). Individuals with RD have low sensitivity to morphological elements such as the root and the pattern and show weaknesses in consciously extracting a morpheme and constructing another morphologically complex word.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of phonological and morphological awareness on reading comprehension in Hebrew-speaking adolescents with reading disabilities

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research explored phonological and morphological awareness among Hebrew-speaking adolescents with reading disabilities (RD) and its effect on reading comprehension beyond phonological and word-reading abilities. Participants included 39 seventh graders with RD and two matched control groups of normal readers: 40 seventh graders matched for chronological age (CA) and 38 third graders matched for reading age (RA). We assessed phonological awareness, word reading, morphological awareness, and reading comprehension. Findings indicated that the RD group performed similarly to the RA group on phonological awareness but lower on phonological decoding. On the decontextualized morphological task, RD functioned on par with RA, whereas in a contextualized task RD performed above RA but lower than CA. In reading comprehension, RD performed as well as RA. Finally, results indicated that for normal readers contextual morphological awareness uniquely contributed to reading comprehension beyond phonological and word-reading abilities, whereas no such unique contribution emerged for the RD group. The absence of an effect of morphological awareness in predicting reading comprehension was suggested to be related to a different recognition process employed by RD readers which hinder the ability of these readers to use morphosemantic structures. The lexical quality hypothesis was proposed as further support to the findings, suggesting that a low quality of lexical representation in RD students leads to ineffective reading skills and comprehension. Lexical representation is thus critical for both lexical as well as comprehension abilities.

show abstract

“…To examine whether children with dyslexia show atypical morphological processing given their level of literacy skills, a better comparison is against younger, reading-ability-matched peers. For the most part, children with dyslexia perform similarly to reading-ability-matched children on oral measures of morphological awareness (Casalis et al, 2004;Egan & Pring, 2004;Egan & Tainturier, 2011;Robertson, Joanisse, Desroches, & Terry, 2012;Tsesmeli & Seymour, 2006). However, the picture for morphological processing is less clear.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the picture for morphological processing is less clear. Some have found weaknesses in morphological spelling (Carlisle, 1987;Egan & Pring, 2004;Egan & Tainturier, 2011;Hauerwas & Walker, 2003;Tsesmeli & Seymour, 2006) whereas others have found no difference compared to ability matches (Bourassa, Treiman, & Kessler, 2006;. However, it is worth noting that very few studies have examined morphological processing in dyslexic children using a reading-ability-match design (Deacon et al, in press).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Children with dyslexia have been shown to perform below chronological-age-(CA-) matched peers on morphological awareness measures in many languages (Berthiaume & Daigle, 2014;Carlisle, 1987;Casalis et al, 2004;Duranovic, Tinjak, & Turbic-Hadzagic, 2014;Egan & Pring, 2004;Egan & Tainturier, 2011;Joanisse, Manis, Keating, & Seidenberg, 2000;Leong, 1999;McBride-Chang et al, 2008;McBride-Chang, Liu, Wong, Wong, & Shu, 2012;Shu, McBride-Chang, Wu, & Liu, 2006;Siegel, 2008;Tsesmeli & Seymour, 2006;Vogel, 1977). They have also been shown to use morphological processes (in reading and spelling) less than age-matched peers Carlisle, Stone, & Katz, 2001;Fisher, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1985;Hauerwas & Walker, 2003;Leong, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation