Easy-to-read German put to the test: Do adults with intellectual disability or functional illiteracy benefit from compound segmentation?

Abstract

Easy-to-read (ETR) German is the subject of public debate. Even though it is heavily promoted by officials, its status is controversial. Moreover, the comprehensibility of ETR German texts awaits systematic testing. The aim of the present study was to test a controversial rule concerning word segmentation. Hypotheses derived from psycholinguistic studies with skilled readers predict an interaction of segmentation and semantic transparency. A sample of individuals, some with intellectual disability and others functionally illiterate, performed a timed lexical decision task on unsegmented and segmented noun compounds that were either semantically transparent or semantically opaque. The results show an advantage of segmentation that was not modulated by semantic transparency. At the same time, a main effect of semantic transparency indicates that the meaning of the compounds was accessed. Two potential loci of the segmentation advantage are discussed: a prelexical one referring to phonological recoding and a lexical one related to access to phonological word forms. The outcome of the experiment approves the practice of segmenting noun compounds in ETR German. The study further attests the feasibility and potential fruitfulness of experimental research with target groups of ETR.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abbeduto, L., Warren, S. F., & Conners, F. A. (2007). Language development in Down syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews,13, 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Champlin, T. M. (2010). Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools,47, 445–466.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology,3, 232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language,68, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,67, 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bock, B. M. (2018). Was ist für wen leicht verständlich? Befunde zu Wortschatz, Grammatik und leserseitigem Wissen [What is understandable to whom? Results on vocabulary, grammar and knowledge of readers]. Der Deutschunterricht,5, 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bock, B. M. (2019). “Leichte Sprache” - Kein Regelwerk. [“Easy-to-read” - No rulebook]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bock, B. M., & Lange, D. (2017). Empirische Untersuchungen zu Satz- und Textverstehen bei Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung und funktionalen Analphabeten [Empirical investigations on the understanding of sentences and text by individuals with intellectual individuals and functional illiterates]. In B. M. Bock, U. Fix, & D. Lange (Eds.), “Leichte Sprache” im Spiegel theoretischer und angewandter Forschung [“Easy-to-read” mirrored in theoretical and applied science] (pp. 253–274). Berlin: Frank & Timme.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bredel, U., Lang, K., & Maaß, C. (2016). Zur empirischen Überprüfbarkeit von Leichte-Sprache-Regeln am Beispiel der Negation [On the empirical verifiability of easy-to-read rules by the example of negation]. In N. Mälzer (Ed.), Barrierefreie Kommunikation [Accessible communication] (pp. 95–116). Berlin: Frank & Timme.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bredel, U., & Maaß, C. (2016). Leichte Sprache [Easy-to-read]. Berlin: Bibliographisches Institut.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bredel, U., & Maaß, C. (2017). Wortverstehen durch Wortgliederung: Bindestrich und Mediopunkt in Leichter Sprache [Word comprehension through word segmentation: Hyphen and interpunct in easy-to-read German]. In B. M. Bock, U. Fix, & D. Lange (Eds.), “Leichte Sprache“im Spiegel theoretischer und angewandter Forschung [“Easy-to-read“mirrored in theoretical and applied science] (pp. 211–228). Berlin: Frank & Timme.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. (BMAS). (2014). Leichte Sprache: Ein Ratgeber [Easy-to-read. Guidebook]. http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen/a752-ratgeber-leichte-sprache.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Accessed January 01, 2019.

  14. Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (Vol. 2, pp. 257–294)., Development, writing and other language processes London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chinn, D., & Homeyard, C. (2017). Easy read and accessible information for people with intellectual disabilities: Is it worth it? A meta-narrative literature review. Health Expectations,20, 1189–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. C. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review,108, 204–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Di Blasi, F. D., Buono, S., Città, S., Costanzo, A. A., & Zoccolotti, P. (2018). Reading deficits in intellectual disability are still an open question: A narrative review. Brain Sciences,8, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ellis, A., & Young, A. (1996). Human cognitive neuropsychology: A textbook with readings. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fajardo, I., Ávila, V., Ferrer, A., Tavares, G., Gómez, M., & Hernández, A. (2014). Easy-to-read texts for students with intellectual disability: Linguistic factors affecting comprehension. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities,27(3), 212–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,35, 116–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Grotlüschen, A., Buddeberg, K., Dutz, G., Heilmann, L., & Stammer, C. (2019). LEO 2018Leben mit geringer Literalität [Living with low literacy]. Press materials, Hamburg. http://blogs.epb.uni-hamburg.de/leo. Accessed July 15, 2019.

  22. Häikiö, T., Bertram, R., & Hyönä, J. (2011). The development of whole-word representations in compound word processing: Evidence from eye fixation patterns of elementary school children. Applied Psycholinguistics,32, 533–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hasenäcker, J., & Schroeder, S. (2019). Compound reading in German: Effects of constituent frequency and whole-word frequency in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,45, 920–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., & Heller, D. (2000). Complex compounds in German: Interword spaces facilitate segmentation but hinder assignment of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language,42, 23–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ji, H., Gagné, C. L., & Spalding, T. L. (2011). Benefits and costs of lexical decomposition and semantic integration during the processing of transparent and opaque English compounds. Journal of Memory and Language,65, 406–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Koester, D., Gunther, T. C., & Wagner, S. (2007). The morphosyntactic decomposition and semantic composition of German compound words investigated by ERPs. Brain and Language,102, 64–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kretschmann, R., & Wieken, P. (2010). Lesen: Alpha-Levels [Reading: Alpha-levels]. In A. Grotlüschen (Ed.), lea.-Diagnose [lea.-diagnosis] (pp. 226–346). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kuperman, V., Schreuder, R., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Reading polymorphemic Dutch compounds: Toward a multiple route model of lexical processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,35, 876–895.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lange, D. (2019). Der Genitiv in der “Leichten Sprache“– das Für und Wider aus theoretischer und empirischer Sicht. [The genitive in Easy-to-read – the pros and cons from a theoretical and an empirical point of view]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik,70, 37–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lasch, A. (2017). Zum Verständnis morphosyntaktischer Merkmale in der funktionalen Varietät “Leichte Sprache“[On the comprehension of morpho-syntactic features in the functional variety “easy-to-read“]. In B. M. Bock, U. Fix, & D. Lange (Eds.), “Leichte Sprache”im Spiegel theoretischer und angewandter Forschung [“Easy-to-read“mirrored in theoretical and applied science] (pp. 275–300). Berlin: Frank & Timme.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Leipzig Corpora Collection. (2011). German newspaper corpus, crawled in 2011. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Leipzig, Germany. https://corpora.uni-leipzig.de?corpusId=deu_newscrawl_2011. Accessed January 19, 2019.

  33. Lemhöfer, K., Koester, D., & Schreuder, R. (2011). When bicycle pump is harder to read than bicycle bell: Effects of parsing cues in first and second language compound reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,18(2), 364–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lorenz, A., & Zwitserlood, P. (2014). Processing of nominal compounds and gender-marked determiners in aphasia: Evidence from German. Cognitive Neuropsychology,31, 40–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Maaß, C. (2015). Leichte Sprache: Das Regelbuch [Easy-to-read: The rulebook]. Berlin: Lit Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review,101, 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language,94, 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (2016). Adults with poor reading skills: How lexical knowledge interacts with scores on standardized reading comprehension tests. Cognition,146, 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Netzwerk Leichte Sprache. (2013). Die Regeln für Leichte Sprache [The rules of easy-to-read]. Bremen, Germany. https://www.leichte-sprache.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Regeln_Leichte_Sprache.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.

  40. Rat für deutsche Rechtschreibung (2018). Deutsche Rechtschreibung: Regeln und Wörterverzeichnis [German orthography: Rules and list of words]. Mannheim, Germany. http://www.rechtschreibrat.com/DOX/rfdr_Regeln_2016_redigiert_2018.pdf. Accessed January 19, 2019.

  41. Ratz, C., & Lenhard, W. (2013). Reading skills among students with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities,34(5), 1740–1748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42, 529–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schmachthagen, P. (2017). Wenn die Leichte Sprache zur Satire wird [When easy-to-read German becomes satire]. Hamburger Abendblatt. https://www.abendblatt.de/meinung/article210225087/Wenn-die-Leichte-Sprache-zur-Satire-wird.html. Accessed July 20, 2019.

  44. Smolka, E., & Libben, G. (2017). ‘Can you wash up the hogwash?’ Semantic transparency of first and second constituents in the processing of German compounds. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience,32, 514–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Sutherland, R. J., & Isherwood, T. (2016). The evidence for Easy-Read for people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic literature review. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities,13, 297–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Taft, M., & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,4, 638–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed January 19, 2019.

  48. Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Visual word recognition. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 26–43). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zwitserlood, P. (1994). The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes,9, 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study reported here was conducted within the LeiSA project (http://research.uni-leipzig.de/leisa/de/) funded by the German Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs to Saskia Schuppener (Grant No. 01KM141109). The authors wish to thank Daisy Lange for contributing to the preparation of materials and to data collection. The authors further wish to thank Antje Lorenz for sharing semantic transparency ratings as well as Thomas Pechmann and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Pappert.

Ethics declarations

Ethics statement

The ethics committee of the Medical Faculty at the University of Leipzig ruled out ethical and scientific concerns for the study design (Note No. 229-14-14072014).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 9 and 10.

Table 9 Individual participant information: socio-demographic features, reading level and reading performance in the experiment
Table 10 Details on experimental items

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pappert, S., Bock, B.M. Easy-to-read German put to the test: Do adults with intellectual disability or functional illiteracy benefit from compound segmentation?. Read Writ 33, 1105–1131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09995-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Compounds
  • Easy-to-read
  • Functional illiteracy
  • Intellectual disability
  • Reading
  • Semantic transparency