Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 669–693 | Cite as

Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words

  • Joanne F. CarlisleEmail author
  • Lauren A. Katz
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine factors that influence students’ reading of derived words. Recent research suggests that the lexical quality of a derived word depends on the familiarity of the word, its morphemic constituents (i.e., base word and affixes), and the frequency with which the base word appears in other words (i.e., members of the same word family or family frequency). On the premise that better and more experienced readers have higher quality lexical representations, we explore the extent to which accuracy of reading derived words by 4th and 6th graders is related to measures of familiarity, including derived and base word frequencies, family size, average family frequency, and word length. The results of an exploratory factor analysis indicated that these measures formed two factors, one representing morphemic constitution and the second representing exposure to the word family; both factors accounted for significant variance in the students’ derived word reading. Comparisons of sets of derived words contrasted on familiarity properties showed that performance on derived words, overall, is better for 6th than 4th graders and for good than poor readers. On the measures of family frequency and family size, there were significant discrepancies between grade level and reading ability and frequency characteristics. These add support to the view that morphemic analysis and wide reading experience contribute to derived word reading.

Keywords

Derived word reading Family frequency Lexical representations Word frequency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berninger V. B., Nagy W. E., Carlisle J. F., Thomson J., Hoffer D., Abbott S., Abbott R., Richards T. and Aylward E. (2003). Effective treatment for children with dyslexia in grades 4–6: Behavioral and brain evidence. In: Foorman, B. (eds) Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale, pp 381–347. York Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  2. Bertram R., Baayen R. H. and Schreuder R. (2000). Effects of family size for complex. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 390–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlisle J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 12: 169–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlisle J. F. and Stone C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly 40: 428–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlisle J. F., Stone C. A. and Katz L. A. (2001). The effects of phonological transparency on reading derived words. Annals of Dyslexia 51: 249–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll J. B., Davies P. and Richman B. (1971). Word frequency book. American Heritage Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehri L. C. (1998). Grapheme–phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In: Metsala, J. L. and Ehri, L. C. (eds) Word recognition in beginning literacy, pp 3–40. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Fowler A. E. and Liberman I. Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. In: Feldman, L. B. (eds) Morphological aspects of language processing, pp 157–188. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. Frederiksen J. R. and Kroll J. F. (1976). Spelling and sound: Approaches to the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology 2: 361–379Google Scholar
  10. Gorsuch R. L. (1983). Factor analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  11. Leong C. K. (1989). Productive knowledge of derivational rules in poor readers. Annals of Dyslexia 39: 94–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mann V. and Singson M. (2003). Linking morphological knowledge to English decoding ability: Large effects of little suffixes. In: Assink, E. M. H. and Sandra, D. (eds) Reading complex words: Cross-linguistic studies, pp 1–25. Kluwer Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Nagy W. E. and Anderson R. (1984). How many words in printed school English?. Reading Research Quarterly 19: 304–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nagy W. E., Anderson R., Schommer M., Scott J. A. and Stallman A. C. (1989). Morphological families and word recognition. Reading Research Quarterly 24: 262–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perfetti C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In: Gough, P., Ehri, L. and Treiman, R. (eds) Reading acquisition, pp 107–143. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Perfetti C. A. and Hart L. (2001). The lexical bases of comprehension skill. In: Gorfien, D. S. (eds) On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity, pp 67–86. American Psychological Association, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reichle E. D. and Perfetti C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification: A word experience model that accounts for morpheme frequency effects. Scientific Studies of Reading 7: 219–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schreuder R. and Baayen R. H. (1997). How complex simple words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 36: 118–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schreuder R., Burani C. and Baayen H. (2003). Parsing and semantic opacity. In: Assink, E. M. H. and Sandra, D. (eds) Reading complex words: Cross-language studies, pp 159–189. Kluwer Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Singson M., Mahoney D. and Mann V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 12: 219–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stanovich K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taft M. (1979). Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition 7: 263–272Google Scholar
  23. Taft M. (2003). Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In: Assink, E. G. H. and Sandra, D. (eds) Reading complex words: Cross language studies, pp 113–137. Kluwer Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Taft M. and Zhu X. (1995). The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinese study. In: Feldman, L. B. (eds) Morphological aspects of language processing, pp 293–316. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  25. Verhoeven L., Baayen H. and Schreuder R. (2004). Orthographic constraints and frequency effects in complex word identification. Written language and literacy 7: 49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Woodcock R. W. and Mather N. (2000). Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery-III. Riverside, Itasca, ILGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations