Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 163–185 | Cite as

Exploring the derivative suffix frequency effect in Spanish speaking children

  • Miguel Lázaro
  • Joana Acha
  • Saray de la Rosa
  • Seila García
  • Javier Sainz
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the developmental course of the suffix frequency effect and its role in the development of automatic morpho-lexical access. In Spanish, a highly transparent language from an orthographic point of view, this effect has been shown to be facilitative in adults, but the evidence with children is still inconclusive. A total of 90 2nd, 4th and 6th grade children performed a go/no go lexical decision task, with words containing either high or low frequency suffixes. Results showed significant main effects for grade and for derivative suffix frequency, with no interaction between both. This finding suggests that the suffix frequency effect emerges very early in reading development and that its role is well established from the beginning of reading experience, suggesting that sensitivity to suffix frequency can be a good predictor of a child’s ability to internalize orthographic regularities at an early stage. These findings are interpreted in the light of previous evidence paying special attention to orthographic transparency and morpheme regularity in Spanish language.

Keywords

Morpho-lexical access Suffix frequency Reading development Transparent orthography 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport to the first and third authors. We would like to thank the children, parents, teachers and head of the Colegio del Santísimo Cristo de la Sangre for their help in making this study possible.

Supplementary material

11145_2016_9668_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (19 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 20 kb)

References

  1. Abu-Rabia, S., & Taha, H. (2006). Reading in Arabic orthography: Characteristics, research findings and assessment. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 328–331). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Álvarez, C. J., Carreiras, M., & Taft, M. (2001). Syllables and morphemes: Contrasting frequency effects in Spanish. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anshen, F., & Aronoff, M. (1997). Morphology in real time. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marie (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 9–13). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psicholinguistics, 24, 621–635.Google Scholar
  5. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 419–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-5. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4
  9. Berent, I., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English'. Psychological Review, 102, 146–184.Google Scholar
  10. Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. M. (2000a). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: Get by with little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000b). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beyersman, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1306–1326.Google Scholar
  13. Beyersman, E., Grainger, J., Casalis, S., & Ziegler, J. (2015a). Effects of reading proficiency on embedded stem priming in primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Beyersman, E., Ziegler, J., & Grainger, J. (2015b). Differences in the processing of prefixes and suffixes revealed by a letter-search task. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 1–14,Google Scholar
  15. Burani, C., Bimonte, D., Barca, L., & Vicari, S. (2006). Word morphology and lexical comprehension in Williams Syndrome. Brain and Language, 99, 208–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burani, C., Marcolini, S., & Stella, G. (2002). How early does morpho-lexical reading develop in readers of a shallow orthography? Brain and Language, 81, 568–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burani, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In H. R. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 157–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Carlisle, J., & Feling, J. (2009). Lexical processing of morphologicallly complex words in elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carreiras, M., Álvarez, C. J., & de Vega, M. (1993). Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 766–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Casalis, S., Quémart, P., & Duncan, L. (2015). How language affects children’s use of derivational morphological in visual word and pseudoword processing: Evidence from a cross-language study. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452.Google Scholar
  21. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading task. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151–216). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Corral, S., Ferrero, M., & Goikoetxea, E. (2009). LEXIN: A lexical database from Spanish kindergarten and first-grade readers. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1009–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2007). Prolec-R: Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores [Prolec-R. Evaluation battery of reading processes]. Madrid: TEA ediciones.Google Scholar
  24. Deacon, S. H., Conrad, N., & Pacton, S. (2008). A statistical learning perspective on children’s learning about graphotactic and morphological regularities in spelling. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(2), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Defior, S., Justicia, F., & Martos, F. J. (1996). The influence of lexical and sublexical variables in normal and poor Spanish readers. Reading and Writing, 8(6), 487–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duñabeitia, J. A., Cholin, J., Corral, J., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2010). SYLLABARIUM: An online application for deriving complete statistics for Basque and Spanish orthographic syllables. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L., & Arribas, D. (2011). Peabody: Test de vocabulario en imágenes. Madrid: TEA ediciones.Google Scholar
  28. Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frauenfelder, U. H., & Schreuder, R. (1991). Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marie (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 165–183). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Frost, A., Kluger, T., Deustch, A., & Forstser, K. (2005). Orthographic structures versus morphologic structure: Principles or lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1293–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421–444.Google Scholar
  32. Goikoetxea, E. (2005). Levels of phonological awareness in preliterate and literate Spanish-speaking children. Reading and Writing, 18(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6), 1041–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Järviki, 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
  36. Jiménez, J. E., García, E., O’Shanahan, I., & Rojas, E. (2010). Do Spanish children use the syllable in visual word recognition in learning to read? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). LmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-6. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lmerTest
  38. Laxon, V. J., Coltheart, V., & Keating, C. (1988). Children find friendly words friendly too: Words with many orthographic neighbours are easier to read and spell. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lázaro, M. (2012). A study of base frequency in Spanish skilled and reading disabled children: All children benefit from morphological processing in defining complex pseudowords. Dyslexia, 18(2), 130–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lázaro, M., Camacho, L., & Burani, C. (2013). Morphological processing in reading disabled and skilled Spanish children. Dyslexia, 19, 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lázaro, M., García, C., & Burani, C. (2015a). How orthographic transparency modulates morphological processing in young readers with and without reading disability. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12213.Google Scholar
  42. Lázaro, M., Illera, V., & Sainz, J. (2015b). The suffix priming effect in Spanish: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic parsing regardless of semantic content. Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1031146.Google Scholar
  43. Lázaro, M., Sainz, J., & Illera, V. (2015c). The role of derivative suffix productivity in the visual word recognition of complex words. Psicológica, 36, 165–184.Google Scholar
  44. Lázaro, M., Schreuder, R., & Aceituno, V. (2011). The processing of morphology in children with and without reading disabilities. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 1, 78–86.Google Scholar
  45. Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Luque, J. L., López-Zamora, M., Álvarez, C. J., & Bordoy, S. (2013). Beyond decoding deficit: Inhibitory effect of positional syllable frequency in dyslexic Spanish children. Annals of Dyslexia, 63(3–4), 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martínez, J., & García, M. (2009). ONESC: A data base for orthographic neighbors for Spanish read by children. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moret-Tatay, M., & Perea, M. (2011). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nicoladis, E., & Krott, A. (2007). Words family size and French-speaking children’s segmentation of existing compounds. Language Learning, 57, 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2009). Children’s reading and spelling: Beyond the first steps. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Duncan, L. (2012). Exploring of bases and suffixes when reading familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence from French young readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 424–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. RDevelopmentCoreTeam. (2008). R: A language and environment for statisticalcomputing. R package version 1.1–5. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4.
  56. Sainz, J. S. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Spanish. In R. Malatesha & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 151–171). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  57. Sainz, J. S., & García-Zurdo, R. (2007). Brain correlates of syllable and non-syllable-based word parsing. In S. Vosniadou., D. Kayser., & A. Protopapas (Eds.). Proceedings of EuroCogSci07. The European cognitive science conference (pp. 539–544). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  58. Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., & Castles, A. (2013). Phonological decoding or direct access? Regularity effects in lexical decisions of Grade 3 and 4 children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Suárez-Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2013). The role of morphology in reading in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.Google Scholar
  62. Traficante, D. (2012). From graphemes to morphemes: An alternative way to improve reading skills in children with dyslexia. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 2, 163–185.Google Scholar
  63. Traficante, D., Marcolini, S., Luci, A., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2011). How do roots and suffixes influence reading of pseudowords: A study of young Italian readers with and without dyslexia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 777–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Valera, S. (1990). Fundamentos de morfología [Fundamentals of morphology]. Madrid: Síntesis.Google Scholar
  65. Valera, S. (2005). Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras [Lexical morphology: Word formation]. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
  66. Venezky, R. L. (2006). Foundations for studying basic processes in reading. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 735–758). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(03), 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel Lázaro
    • 1
  • Joana Acha
    • 2
  • Saray de la Rosa
    • 3
  • Seila García
    • 3
  • Javier Sainz
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidad Complutense de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Universidad del País VascoSan SebastiánSpain
  3. 3.Universidad de Castilla la ManchaTalavera de la ReinaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options