Annals of Dyslexia

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 94–115 | Cite as

Productive knowledge of derivational rules in poor readers

  • Che Kan Leong
Part II The Research Front

Abstract

The present report with two complementary experiments examined the productive knowledge of derivational morphology in 75 grade 4, 5, and 6 “poor” readers further divided into those performing better, or worse, inboth reading and spelling ((R + S +) or R − S −)), or better in the one or the other (mixed) subgroups. Experiment 1 required individual subjects to vocalize rapidly the derived forms of words when primed with 40 target base words in four derivational conditions or levels embedded in sentence frames shown on the computer screen. Experiment 2 required the reverse process of vocalizing the base forms of words when primed with 40, complex derived forms in the same four morphology conditions embedded in sentence frames shown on the computer screen. Results of the analysis of the reaction times show a developmental trend and that the subgroups of poor readers used different mechanisms in producing derived or base forms of words according to the complexity of the orthographic and/or phonological changes needed in the derivational process. The important role of morphemic structure and origin of words in instruction is emphasized.

Keywords

Target Word Poor Reader Discriminant Function Analysis Dyslexia Base Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronoff, M. 1976.Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, L. 1983.English Word Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berko, J. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology.Word 14:150–177.Google Scholar
  4. Caramazza, A. 1988. Some aspects of language processing revealed through the analysis of acquired aphasia: The lexical system.Annual Review of Neurosciences 11:395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., and Romani, C. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology.Cognition 28:297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlisle, J. F. 1985.The Relationship Between Knowledge of Derivational Morphology and Spelling Ability in Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Graders. Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-82/83 (pp. 151–174). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.Google Scholar
  7. Carlisle, J. F. 1987. The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning disabled and normal students.Annals of Dyslexia 37:90–108.Google Scholar
  8. Carlisle, J. F., and Liberman, I. Y. 1987.Does the Study of Latin Affect Spelling Proficiency? Haskins Laboratories Status Report on Speech Research SR-92 (pp. 127–136). New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories.Google Scholar
  9. Carroll, J. B., Davies, P. and Richman, B. 1971.The American Heritage Word Frequency Book. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968.The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Cutler, A. 1983. Lexical complexity and sentence processing. In G. B. Flores D’Arcais and R. J. Jarvella (eds.).The Process of Language Understanding (pp. 43–79). New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Derwing, B. L. 1976. Morpheme recognition and the learning of rules for derivational morphology.Canadian Journal of Linguistics 21:38–66.Google Scholar
  13. Fowler, C. A., Napps, S. E., and Feldman, L. B. 1985. Relations among regular and irregular, morphologically-related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming.Memory and Cognition 13:241–255.Google Scholar
  14. Freyd, P. and Baron, J. 1982. Individual differences in acquisition of derivational morphology.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 21:282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation.Linguistic Inquiry 4:3–16.Google Scholar
  16. Hanson, V. L. and Wilkenfeld, D. 1985. Morphophonology and lexical organization in deaf readers.Language and Speech 28:269–280.Google Scholar
  17. Henderson, L. 1985. Toward a psychology of morphemes.In A. W. Ellis (ed.).Progress in the Psychology of Language, Volume I (pp. 15–72). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Henry, M. K. 1988. Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and structure.Annals of Dyslexia 38:258–275.Google Scholar
  19. Jarvella, R. J. and Snodgrass, J. G. 1974. Seeing ring in rang and retain in retention: On recognizing stem morphemes in printed words.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13:590–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jastak, S. and Wilkinson, G. S. 1984.Wide Range Achievement Test (rev. ed.). Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Google Scholar
  21. King, E. M. (ed.). 1982.Canadian Tests of Basic Skills: Multilevel edition/Levels 9-12/Forms 5 & 6. Toronto: Nelson.Google Scholar
  22. Leong, C. K. 1987.Children with Specific Reading Disabilities. Lisse. The Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  23. Leong, C. K. 1988. A componential approach to understanding reading and its difficulties in preadolescent readers.Annals of Dyslexia 38:95–119.Google Scholar
  24. Mackay, D. G. 1978. Derivational rules and the internal lexicon.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 17:61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthews, P. H. 1974.Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. McClelland, J. and Rumelhart, D. M. 1981. An interactive-activation model of context effects in letter perception, Part I: An account of basic findings.Psychological Review 88:275–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perfetti, C. A. 1985.Reading Ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rayner, K. 1978. Eye movements in reading, and information processing.Psychological Bulletin 85:618–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Seidenberg, M. S. 1985. The time course of information activation and utilization in visual word recognition.In D. Besner, T. G. Waller, and G. E. Mackinnon (eds.).Reading Research: Advances in theory and practice Vol. 5 (pp. 192–252), New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Shoben, E. J. 1982. Semantic and lexical decisions.In C. R. Puff (ed.).Handbook of Research Methods in Human Memory and Cognition (pp. 287–314) New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sterling, C. M. 1982. The psychological productivity of inflectional and derivational morphemes.In D. Rogers and J. A. Sloboda (eds.).The Acquisition of Symbolic Skills (pp. 179–185). New York: Plenum Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Tyler, A. and Nagy, W. 1987.The Acquisition of English Derivational Morphology. (Tech. Rep. No. 407). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, E. 1981. On the notions of “lexically related” and “head of a word”.Linguistic Inquiry 12:245–274.Google Scholar
  34. Wysocki, K. and Jenkins, J. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization.Reading Research Quarterly 22:66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Orton Dyslexia Society 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Che Kan Leong
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations