Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lexical prosody as an aspect of oral reading fluency

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine whether the lexical compounding, suffixation, and part of speech aspects of lexical prosody rendered while reading text aloud are predictive of children’s developing oral reading fluency and reading comprehension skills. Ninety-four third grade children were recorded while reading aloud a grade-level passage targeting lexical prosody contrasts related to suffixation, compounding, and part of speech. Children also completed assessments on reading fluency, word reading efficiency, and reading comprehension skills. Prosodic measurements of pitch and amplitude for each syllable of the targeted words, and spoken head word length in ms for targeted compound words, were carried out. Spectrographic analyses indicated that children generally displayed appropriate prosody for each lexical prosody contrast examined. The extent to which children made these prosodic distinctions between syllables was related to their reading fluency and comprehension skills. The study finds that, in the oral reading of connected texts, children’s use of lexical prosody is an aspect of general reading prosody that is predictive of reading fluency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anastasiou, D., & Protopapas, A. (2015). Difficulties in lexical stress versus difficulties in segmental phonology among adolescents with dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arciuli, J., Monaghan, P., & Seva, N. (2010). Learning to assign lexical stress during reading aloud: Corpus, behavioral, and computational investigations. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 180–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEXlexical database (CD-ROM). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behrens, S. J. (1988). The role of the right hemisphere in the production of linguistic stress. Brain and Language, 33(1), 104–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, R. G., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2010). Text complexity and oral reading prosody in young readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(4), 388–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettagere, R. (2010). Differences in acoustic characteristics of stress patterns in American English. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(2), 339–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumstein, S., & Goodglass, H. (1972). The perception of stress as a semantic cue in aphasia. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 15(4), 800–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2015). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 5.4.21, http://www.praat.org/.

  • Bolaños, D., Cole, R. A., Ward, W. H., Tindal, G. A., Hasbrouck, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2013a). Human and automated assessment of oral reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 1142–1151.

  • Bolaños, D., Cole, R. A., Ward, W. H., Tindal, G. A., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2013b). Automatic assessment of expressive oral reading. Speech Communication, 55(2), 221–236.

  • Breen, M., & Clifton, C. (2011). Stress matters: Effects of anticipated lexical stress on silent reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 153–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calet, N., Defior, S., & Gutierrez-Palma, N. (2013). A cross-sectional study of fluency and reading comprehension in Spanish primary school children. Journal of Research in Reading. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clin, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Heggie, L. (2009). Prosodic sensitivity and morphological awareness in children’s reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(2), 197–213.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eimas, P. D., Tarter, V. C., & Miller, J. L. (1981). Dependency relations during the processing of speech (pp. 283–309). In P.D. Eimas, & J.L. Miller (Eds.), Perspectives on the study of speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Fry, D. (1958). Experiments in the perception of stress. Language and Speech, 1, 125–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez-Palma, N., & Palma-Reyes, A. P. (2007). Stress sensitivity and reading performance in Spanish: A study with children. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holliman, A. J., Williams, G. J., Mundy, I. R., Wood, C., Hart, L., & Waldron, S. (2014). Beginning to disentangle the prosody-literacy relationship: A multi-component measure of prosodic sensitivity. Reading and Writing, 27(2), 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarmulowicz, L. (2006). School-aged children’s phonological production of derived English words. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(2), 294–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarmulowicz, L., Taran, V. L., & Seek, J. (2012). Metalinguistics, stress accuracy, and word reading: Does dialect matter? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the schools, 43(4), 410–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Relationships of three components of reading fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational psychology, 100(2), 310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 232–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, S. A., Benjamin, R. G., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Kuhn, M. R. (2014). The longitudinal relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension skills in second grade children. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 30, 116–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative Reading Inventory–5. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, P. (1960). Some acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 32, 451–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, A., Hall, L., Breidegard, B., Balkenius, C., & Johansson, P. (2014). Speakers’ acceptance of real-time speech exchange indicates that we use auditory feedback to specify the meaning of what we say. Psychological Science, 25(6), 1198–1205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. L. (1978). Interactions in processing segmental and suprasegmental features of speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 24(2), 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 839–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2008). A longitudinal study of the development of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 336–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, J., & Jassem, W. (1965). Acoustic correlates of stress. Language and Speech, 8, 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, S. M., Fenwick, K. D., Saunders, K. S., Ouellette, R., O’Quinn, C., & Harvey, S. (2011). Comprehension after oral and silent reading: Does grade level matter? Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 183–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More than a concern for the primary grades? Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Benjamin, R. G. (2016). The development of reading prosody and its assessment. In J. Thomson & L. Jarmulowicz (Eds.), Linguistic rhythm and literacy (IASCL series 'Trends in Language Acquisition Research' (TiLAR) (pp. 187–213). Netherlands: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schwanenflugel, P. J., Westmoreland, M. R., & Benjamin, R. G. (2015). Reading fluency skill and the prosodic marking of linguistic focus. Reading & Writing, 28(1), 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seva, N., Monaghan, P., & Arciuli, J. (2009). Stressing what is important: Orthographic cues, and lexical stress assignment. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silbert, N. H. (2012). Syllable structure and integration of voicing and manner of articulation information in labial consonant identification. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 131(5), 4076–4086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, S. A. (1986). Nuclear accent F0 peak location: Effects of rate, vowel, and number of following syllables. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80(S1), S51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). TOWRE-2 test of word reading efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunley, A. (1999). Coarticulatory influences of liquids on vowels in English. Unpublished dissertation, University of Cambridge, England.

  • Valencia, S. W., Smith, A. T., Reece, A. M., Li, M., Wixson, K. K., & Newman, H. (2010). Oral reading fluency assessment: Issues of construct, criterion, and consequential validity. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(3), 270–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2014a). The role of speech prosody and text reading prosody in children’s reading comprehension. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenendaal, N. J., Groen, M. A., & Verhoeven, L. (2014b). What oral text reading can reveal about reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, I., & Raimy, E. (2002). The acquisition of compound vs. phrasal stress: The role of prosodic constituents. Journal of Child Language, 29(02), 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Woolley, (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children’s reading of long and short words. Reading and Writing, 29, 371–382. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whalley, K., & Hansen, J. (2006). The role of prosodic sensitivity in children’s reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(3), 288–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. (2006). Metrical stress sensitivity in young children and its relationship to phonological awareness and reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 29, 270–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, L. -C. (1998). Contextual effects on syllable duration. In Proceedings of the 3rd ESCA/COCOSDA workshop on speech synthesis (pp. 37-42). Jenolan Caves, Australia.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Psychology, Cognitive Science, and Linguistics, University of Georgia, 110 Carlton Street, Athens, GA, 30601, USA

    Paula J. Schwanenflugel

  2. Department of Psychology, Huntington University, 2303 College Avenue, Huntington, IN, 46750, USA

    Rebekah George Benjamin

Authors
  1. Paula J. Schwanenflugel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebekah George Benjamin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula J. Schwanenflugel.

Appendix: Frog and toad have a new friend

Appendix: Frog and toad have a new friend

Frog and Toad were good, happy funny friends. They did all kinds of activities [SS1-M] in the forest. They would like to walk slowly together at first and then have an increase in their speed. Then, Frog would run with Toad from the woods. They liked to recall [PS1-U] all the lovely times they had playing in the forest.

One day, Toad found two paths ahead and he was not clear where they went. They considered both. Pointing down hill, Frog said, “Let’s try that.” But Toad wasn’t sure whether to take this one. It was on this path that Frog who can get himself into trouble sometimes) set out anyway.

Toad asked him to come back. But Frog was gone. Toad repeated, “Please come back.”

Frog came upon a small green house [C1-U]. It looked empty. There were neat, pretty, colorful flowers growing along a fence. Maybe an artist [SS2-U] lived there.

Soon, Toad gave up and followed him. Toad said, “It doesn’t seem that there is anyone inside. Is anyone inside?”

Frog said it doesn’t seem that there is. Frog had an idea. Frog said, “We should go and look.” What an idea!

“We should go and look? I don’t know,” replied Toad. It looked like somebody might live there. “Let’s wait to see if anyone comes home.”

They waited and waited. They watched the animals. Bunnies were jumping. Cats were sleeping in the grass. Mice were making nests under old logs. A blackbird [C2-M] flew by. Frog said, “I almost missed that.” All the animals were active [SS1-U].

Then, a tall man walked over to them (and he took them by surprise).

“Hi, I am Toad and this is Frog. What’s your name?” asked Toad. He smiled a real big smile.

“I am Big John,” said the man. He saw them gazing at his garden. “Would you like to see my garden?”

Frog said, “We would like that very much.”

Big John decided which path to take. Big John decided against the path by the garden fence. He didn’t walk on this path. It was wet. In fact, a black bird [C2-U] was taking a bath by the garden fence. So, he chose the path that went through a small greenhouse [C1-M].

There weremany neat, pretty colorful flowers in the garden. It was very artistic [SS2-M]. Big John saw Toad looking at his flowers. “Would you like one?” he asked. Big John held up two, a blue one and a yellow one. He held out one flower that was in his garden and said, “Here, take this one.” He gave Toad the blue one. So, it was in his garden that they all became friends.

“I’m so glad to have new friends,” said Big John. Now, they all had an increase in good friends. Their recall [PS1-M] of that day always brought a real big smile! To this day, they are still good, happy, funny friends. Frog and Toad who can now find their way to Big John’s house will always visit their friend from the woods.

Note: SS = Syllable suffix shift; PS = Part of speech; C = Compound; M = Marked variant; U = Unmarked variant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schwanenflugel, P.J., Benjamin, R.G. Lexical prosody as an aspect of oral reading fluency. Read Writ 30, 143–162 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9667-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9667-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation