The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning-disabled and normal students

Abstract

Currently popular systems for classification of spelling words or errors emphasize the learning of phoneme-grapheme correspondences and memorization of irregular words, but do not take into account the morphophonemic nature of the English language. This study is based on the premise that knowledge of the morphological rules of derivational morphology is acquired developmentally and is related to the spelling abilities of both normal and learning-disabled (LD) students. It addresses three issues: 1) how the learning of derivational morphology and the spelling of derived words by LD students compares to that of normal students; 2) whether LD students learn derived forms rulefully; and 3) the extent to which LD and normal students use knowledge of relationships between base and derived forms to spell derived words (e.g. "magic" and "magician"). The results showed that LD ninth graders' knowledge of derivational morphology was equivalent to that of normal sixth graders, following similar patterns of mastery of orthographic and phonological rules, but that their spelling of derived forms was equivalent to that of the fourth graders. Thus, they know more about derivational morphology than they use in spelling. In addition, they were significantly more apt to spell derived words as whole words, without regard for morphemic structure, than even the fourth graders. Nonetheless, most of the LD spelling errors were phonetically acceptable, suggesting that their misspellings cannot be attributed primarily to poor knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences.

Longitudinal Data on the Relations of Morphological and Phonological Training to Reading Acquisition in First Grade: The Case of Arabic Language

“…A number of studies reported a positive correlation between good reading, spelling and the use of morphological connections in tasks concerning spoken and written language (Carlisle, 1987;Fischer et al, 1985;Wolter, Wood, & D'zatko, 2009). Based on these studies, it appears that morphological analysis in reading is important to developing skills in reading and spelling.…”

“…In contrast, little research has been conducted on the correlation between morphological abilities and reading. Nonetheless, a number of studies suggest that a causal connection between reading and morphology does exist (Arnbak & Elbro, 2000;Brittain, 1970;Carlisle, 1987Carlisle, , 1995Casalis, Colé, & Sopo, 2004;Clin, Wade-Wooly, & Heggie, 2009;Elbro & Arnbak, 1996;Fischer, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1985;Fowler & Liberman, 1995;Lyster, 2002;Nunes, Bryant, & Bindman, 1997;Rubin, 1991;Torneus, 1987). Additionally, it has been argued that as the Arabic language, as well as Semitic languages in general, is "morphologically dense", reading necessitates a strong background of morphological awareness even for the simplest of texts (Abu-Rabia, Share, & Mansour, 2003;Berent & Shimron, 1997;Deutsch, Frost, & Forster, 1998;Geva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1997;Ibrahim, 2006).…”

Efectos de la intervención en conciencia morfológica sobre la lectura, escritura y comprensión: Meta-análisis

“…Cada vez son más abundantes los estudios que refieren que la conciencia morfológica favorece el desarrollo de estas competencias lecto-escritoras (Ramírez, Chen, Geva y Kiefer, 2010) y, la falta de conciencia morfológica puede provocar dificultades en el lenguaje escrito (Carlisle, 1987). Dificultades que pueden persistir más allá de la educación primaria (Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, y Vermeulen, 2003).…”

Effects of Orthographic, Morphological and Semantic Overlap on Short-Term Memory for Words in Typical and Atypical Development

“…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).…”

“…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).…”