Reading and Writing

, Volume 14, Issue 5–6, pp 395–421 | Cite as

Beginning readers' sensitivity to different linguistic levels – an error and correction analysis at the lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels

Article

Abstract

As the first step in a longitudinal investigation ofSwedish beginning readers' reading behaviour, thisstudy investigated the role of different linguisticlevels in beginning readers' oral reading. The 30participating beginning readers were all able to reada short running text without help. Recordings of theiroral readings of unfamiliar texts were video-recorded,transcribed and analysed as to linguistic consequencesof reading errors, and tendency to correct errors withdifferent linguistic consequences. The results revealthat the readers are sensitive to all of thelinguistic levels analysed: the majority of readingerrors lead to acceptable linguistic consequences,regardless of what linguistic level is analysed;moreover linguistically unacceptable errors weresignificantly more frequently corrected thanlinguistically acceptable errors, independent of thelinguistic level affected by the error.

Beginning readers Correction Behaviour Error analysis Linguistic sensitivity Oral reading Reading acquisition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read, Reading Research Quarterly 6: 75-96.Google Scholar
  2. Blachman, B. (1994). What we have learned from longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading, and some unanswered questions: A response to Torgesen, Wagner and Rashotte, Journal of Learning Disabilities 27: 287-291.Google Scholar
  3. Blachman, B. (1997). Early intervention and phonological awareness: A cautionary tale. In: B. Blachman (ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 409-430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  4. Butler, C. (1985). Statistics in linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Ehri, L.C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In: P.B. Gough, L.C. Ehri & R. Treiman (eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Ehri, L.C. & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy, Reading Research Quarterly 27: 12-26.Google Scholar
  7. Everitt, B.S. (1977). The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In: K.E. Patterson, J.C. Marshall & M. Coltheart (eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Frost, R. & Katz, L. (eds.) (1992). Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, Advances in Psychology 94. North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Garner, R. (1981). Monitoring of understanding among poor comprehenders: A preliminary test of the “piecemeal processing” explanation, Journal of Educational Research 74: 159-162.Google Scholar
  11. Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  12. Goodman, K.S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics, Reading Research Quarterly 5: 9-30.Google Scholar
  13. Goodman, K.S. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In: H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 259-271). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  14. Goodman, K.S. (1982 [1965]). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. In: F.V. Gollasch (ed.), Language and literacy: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman (pp. 115-121). Boston, MA: Routledge & Keagen Paul Ltd. (Original article published 1965)Google Scholar
  15. Goodman, K.S. (1982 [1976]). Miscue analysis: Theory and reality in reading. In: F.V. Gollasch (ed.), Language and literacy: The selected writings of Kenneth S. Goodman (pp. 103-113). Boston, MA: Routledge & Keagen Paul Ltd. (Original article published 1976)Google Scholar
  16. Goswami, U. & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Goswami, U., Gombert, J.E. & de Barrera, L.F. (1998). Children's orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English, French, and Spanish, Applied Psycholinguistics 19: 19-52.Google Scholar
  18. Greaney, K.T., Tunmer, W.E. & Chapman, J.W. (1997). The use of rime-based orthographic analogy training as an intervention strategy for reading-disabled children. In: B. Blachman (ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 327-345). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Gunnarsson, B-L. (1982). Lagtexters begriplighet: En språkfunktionell studie av medbestämmandelagen [The comprehensibility of law-text: A pragmatic study of the Act on the Joint Regulation of Working Life]. Lund, Sweden: Liber.Google Scholar
  20. Gunnarsson, B-L. (1985). Den varierande läsprocessen [The varying reading process]. In: L. Melin & S. Lange (eds.), Läsning [Reading] (pp. 7-21). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  21. Høien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K.E. & Bjaalid, I-K. (1995). Components of phonological awareness, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 7: 171-188.Google Scholar
  22. Katz, L. & Feldman, L.B. (1981). Linguistic coding in word recognition: Comparisons between a deep and a shallow orthography. In: A.M. Lesgold & C.A. Perfetti (eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 85-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, L. & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In: R. Frost & L. Katz (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, Advances in Psychology 94 (pp. 67-84). North Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Kolers, P.A. (1973). Some modes of representation. In: P. Pliner, L. Krames & T. Alloway (eds.), Communication and affect: Language and thought (pp. 21-44). New York & London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lange, S. (1987). Metod och modell för analys av läsning [Methods and models for reading analysis]. In: Läsproblem: Fem uppsatser om barns lässvårigheter [Reading problems: Five papers on children's reading problems], Meddelanden från Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Stockholms universitet [Reports from the Department of Scandinavian Languages, Stockholm University], MINS 23 (pp. 73-121). Stockholm: Stockholm University, Dept. of Scandinavian Languages.Google Scholar
  26. Lundberg, I., Frost, J. & Petersen, O-P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children, Reading Research Quarterly 23: 263-284.Google Scholar
  27. Magnusson, E. & Nauclér, K. (1987). Language disordered and normally speaking children's development of spoken and written language: Preliminary results from a longitudinal study. In: Papers from a Conference on the Subject Learning to Read and Write, held in Uppsala 1986-10-06, Reports from Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics, RUUL 16 (pp. 35-63). Uppsala: Uppsala University, Dept. of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  28. Magnusson, E. & Nauclér, K. (1990). Reading and spelling in language-disordered children — linguistic and metalinguistic prerequisites: Report on a longitudinal study, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 4: 49-61.Google Scholar
  29. Magnusson, E. & Nauclér, K. (1991). On the development of reading in good and poor readers, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 1: 174-185.Google Scholar
  30. Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V. & Desberg, P. (1981). A cognitive-developmental theory of reading acquisition. In: G.E. Mackinnon & T.G. Waller (eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practise, Vol. 3 (pp. 199-221). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. McClelland, J.L. (1987). The case for interactionism in language processing. In: M. Coltheart (ed.), The psychology of reading, Attention and Performance XII (pp. 3-36). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. McClelland, J.L. & Kawamoto, A.H. (1987). Mechanisms of sentence processing: Assigning roles to constituents of sentences. In: J.L. McClelland, D.E. Rumelhart & The PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 272-325). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Melin, L. & Delberger, M. (1996). Lisa lär läsa: Läsinlärning och lässtrategier [Lisa learns to read: Reading acquisition and reading strategies]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  34. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. & Taylor, S. (1997). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 65: 370-396.Google Scholar
  35. Nauclér, K. (1989). Hur utvecklas stavningsförmågan under skoltiden? [How does the ability to spell develop during the school years?] In: C. Sandqvist & U. Teleman (eds.), Språkutveckling under skoltiden [Language development during the school years] (pp. 197-216). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  36. Nauclér, K. & Magnusson, E. (1985). Language disordered children's reading and spelling: Preliminary results, Working Papers, Department of Linguistics, Lund University 28: 127-137.Google Scholar
  37. Nicholson, T. (1993). The case against context. In: G.B. Thompson, W.E. Tunmer & T. Nicholson (eds.), Reading acquisition processes, The Language and Education Library, Vol. 4 (pp. 91-104). Clevedon, etc: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  38. Nicholson, T., Lillas, C. & Rzoska, M.A. (1988). Have we been mislead by miscues? The Reading Teacher 42: 6-10.Google Scholar
  39. Oakhill, J. (1996). Mental models in children's text comprehension. In: J. Oakhill & A. Garnham (eds.), Mental models in cognitive science: Essays in honour of Phil Johnson-Laird (pp. 77-94). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Perfetti, C.A. & Roth, S.F. (1981). Some of the interactive processes in reading and their role in reading skill. In: A.M. Lesgold & C.A. Perfetti (eds.), Interactive processes in reading (pp. 269-297). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  41. Rayner, K., Carlson, M. & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 22: 358-374.Google Scholar
  42. Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency, Reading Research Quarterly 16: 32-71.Google Scholar
  43. Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy, Reading Research Quarterly 21: 360-406.Google Scholar
  44. Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E. & Feeman, D.J. (1984). Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first grade children, Journal of Educational Psychology 4: 668-677.Google Scholar
  45. Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K. & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Longitudinal studies of phonological processing and reading, Journal of Learning Disabilities 27: 276-286.Google Scholar
  46. Treiman, R. (1992). The role of intrasyllabic units in learning to read and spell. In: P.B. Gough, L.C. Ehri & R. Treiman (eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 65-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  47. Tunmer, W.E. (1991). Phonological awareness and literacy acquisition. In: L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 105-119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Tunmer, W.E. & Hoover, W.A. (1992). Cognitive and linguistic factors in learning to read. In: P.B. Gough, L.C. Ehri & R. Treiman (eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 175-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  49. Vandervelden, M.C. & Siegel, L.S. (1995). Phonological recoding and phoneme awareness in early literacy: A developmental approach, Reading Research Quarterly 30: 854-875.Google Scholar
  50. Walczyk, J.J. (1995). Testing a compensatory-encoding model, Reading Research Quarterly 30: 396-408.Google Scholar
  51. Weber, R-M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors, Reading Research Quarterly 5: 427-451.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Scandinavian LanguagesStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations