Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T14:35:55.632Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stem and derivational-suffix processing during reading by French second and third graders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

PASCALE COLÉ ,
SOPHIE BOUTON ,
CHRISTEL LEUWERS ,
SEVERINE CASALIS  and
LILIANE SPRENGER-CHAROLLES
PASCALE COLÉ*
Affiliation:
Université de Provence
SOPHIE BOUTON
Affiliation:
Université de Provence
CHRISTEL LEUWERS
Affiliation:
Université de Savoie
SEVERINE CASALIS
Affiliation:
Université de Lille
LILIANE SPRENGER-CHAROLLES
Affiliation:
Université de Paris V
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Pascale Colé, Université de Provence, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive (U.M.R. 6146), Pôle 3C, Bâtiment 9, Case D, 3 Place Victor Hugo, 13331 Marseille cedex 3, France. E-mail: pascale.cole@univ-provence.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morphological processing by French children was investigated in two experiments. The first showed that second and third graders read pseudowords such as chat-ure (cat-ish) composed of an illegally combined real stem and real derivational suffix faster and more accurately than they read matched pseudowords composed of a pseudostem and a real derivational suffix (e.g., chot-ure) or a pseudostem and a pseudosuffix (e.g., chot-ore). More, the chot-ure items were read faster and more accurately than the chot-ore items. These results suggest that beginning French readers are able to use morphological units (both stems and derivational suffixes) to decode new words. The second experiment compared the impact of display format on reading time. Suffixed words were presented in four segmentation formats: syllabic (ma lade), morphological (mal ade), morphological + 1 grapheme (mala de), or unsegmented (malade). For both groups of readers, the morphological + 1 condition generated the longest reading times but there was no difference between the other three conditions. It was concluded that syllables, morphemes, and whole word forms contribute to a similar extent to word reading for low-frequency words. Morphological processing may therefore be used early by French children to identify both new words and low-frequency words.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 97 - 120
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

Abu-Rabia, S. (2007). The role of morphology and short vowelization in reading Arabic among normal and dyslexic readers in grades 3, 6, 9, and 12. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, H., Dominguez, A., & De Vega, M. (2002). Human brain potentials indicate morphological decomposition in visual word recognition. Neuroscience Letters, 318, 149–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beard, R. (2007). Derivation. In Spencer, A. & Zwicky, A. M. (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 44–65). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2003). The length of a complex word modifies the role of morphological structure: Evidence from eye movements when reading short and long Finnish compounds. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. M. (2000). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: Get by with a little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 4, 2–15.Google Scholar
Burani, C., Marcolini, S., & Stella, G. (2002). How early does morpholexical reading develop in readers of a shallow orthography. Brain and Language, 81, 568–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28, 297–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In Feldman, L. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing, 19, 669–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Nomanbhoy, D. M. (1993). Phonological and morphological awareness in first graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2003). The effects of morphological structure on children's reading of derived words in English. In Assink, E. & Sandra, D. (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross-language studies. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Casalis, S., Dusautoir, M., Colé, P., & Ducrot, S. (2009). Morphological relationship to children word reading: A priming study in fourth graders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27, 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casalis, S., & Louis-Alexandre, M.-F. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and learning to read French: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 12, 303–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colé, P., Beauvillain, C., & Segui, J. (1989). On the representation and processing of prefixed and suffixed derived words: A differential frequency effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colé, P., Magnan, A., & Grainger, J. (1999). Syllable-sized units in visual word recognition: Evidence from skilled and beginning readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 507–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colé, P., Royer, C., Leuwers, C., & Casalis, S. (2004). Les connaissances dérivationnelles et l'apprentissage de la lecture chez l'apprenti-lecteur français du C.P. au C.E.2. L'Année Psychologique, 104, 701–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colé, P., Segui, J., & Taft, M. (1997). Words and morphemes as units for lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 312–330.CrossRefGoogle 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
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, L., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2009). Early metalinguistic awareness of derivational morphology: Observations from a comparison of English and French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 405–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Thiérault-Whalen, C. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1993). Echelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody. Adaptation française du Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Toronto: Psycan.Google Scholar
Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme–phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In Ehir, L. C. & Metsala, J. L. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Elbro, C., & Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, L. B., Rueckl, J., DiLiberto, K., Pastizzo, M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2002). Morphological analysis by child readers as revealed by the fragment completion task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 529–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, A. E., & Liberman, Y.-I. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. In Feldman, L. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 157–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In Patterson, K., Marshall, J., & Coltheart, M. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301–330). Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (1986). A developmental framework for developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grainger, J., Colé, P., & Segui, J. (1991). Masked morphological priming in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 370–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harm, M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Reading acquisition, phonology, and dyslexia: Insights from a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 106, 491–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffré, J.-P., & Fayol, M. (1997). Orthographes: Des systèmes aux usages. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Järvikivi, J., Bertram, R., & Niemi, J. (2006). Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 394–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudanna, A., & Burani, C. (1995). Distributional properties of derivational affixes: Implications for processing. In Feldman, L. B. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 345–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Laxon, V., Rickard, M., & Coltheart, V. (1992). Children read affixed words and non-words. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecoq, P. (1996). L’É.Co.S.Se: Une épreuve de compréhension syntaxico-sémantique. Lille: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Lefavrais, P. (1967). Test de l'Alouette: Manuel [Alouette: A standardized reading test]. Paris: Les Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.Google Scholar
Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 156–166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lima, S. D., & Pollatsek, A. (1983). Lexical access via an orthographic code? The basic orthographic syllable (BOSS) reconsidered. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longtin, C. M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing, 12, 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, V., & Singson, M. (2003). Linking morphological knowledge to English decoding ability: Large effects of little suffixes. In Assink, E. & Sandra, D. (Eds.), Reading complex words: Cross-language studies (pp. 1–24). New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Marec-Breton, N., Gombert, J. E., & Colé, P. (2005). Traitements morphologiques lors de la reconnaissance des mots écrits chez l'apprenti-lecteur. L'Année Psychologique, 105, 9–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Shu, H., Zhou, A., Wat, C. P., & Wagner, R. (2003). Morphological awareness uniquely predicts young children's Chinese character recognition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Wagner, R. K., Muse, A., Chow, B. W. Y., & Shu, H. U. A. (2005). The role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 415–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, 663–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in printed English schoolbooks? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinzmetal, W., & Millis-Wright, M. (1984). Cognitive and linguistic factors affect visual feature integration. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 305–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabin, J., & Deacon, H. (2008). The representation of morphologically complex words in the developing lexicon. Journal of Child Language, 35, 453–465.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raven, J. (1998). Les Progressive Matrices Couleurs (CPM ou PM47). Paris: Editions et Applications Psychologiques.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K. (1997). Les fondations du développement orthographique et morphographique. In Rieben, L., Fayol, M., & Perfetti, C. A. (Eds.), Les orthographes et leur acquisition (pp. 385–403). Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European Orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Katz, L., Fowler, C., Liberman, A. E., Brady, S., et al. (1995). Cognitive profiles of reading-disabled children: Comparisons of language skills in phonology, morphology, and syntax. Psychological Science, 6, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, H., McBride-Chang, C., Wu, S., & Liu, H. (2006). Understanding Chinese developmental dyslexia: Morphological awareness as a core cognitive construct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivation suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12, 219–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spoehr, K. T., & Smith, E. E. (1973). The role of syllables in perceptual processing. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Colé, P., & Serniclaes, W. (2006). Reading acquisition and developmental dyslexia. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L., Béchennec, D., & Serniclaes, W. (2003). Development of phonological and orthographic processing in reading aloud, in silent reading and in spelling: A four year longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 84, 194–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stump, G. T. (2007). Inflection. In Spencer, A. & Zwicky, A. M. (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 13–43). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taft, M. (1979). Lexical access via an orthographic code: The basic orthographic syllabic structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hove: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Taft, M. (2001). Processing of orthographic structure by adults of different reading ability. Language and Speech, 44, 351–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Units of analysis in reading Dutch bisyllabic pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L. T. W., Schreuder, R., & Haarman, V. W. (2006). Prefix identification in the reading of Dutch bisyllabic words. Reading and Writing, 19, 651–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed