MORPHOLOGY MATTERS IN LEARNING TO READ: A COMMENTARY

By J. Carlisle. 2003

388 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0fc7612296b3c7ee49961be923a5e730078ef9ed

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability (2012, background): “…of contribution to each reading outcome measure with each year (e.g., Singson et al., 2000), (c) contribute to a broad range of reading measures (e.g., Deacon & Kirby, 2004; Roth et al., 2006), and (d) make a unique contribution to reading comprehension (e.g., Carlisle, 2003; Kuo & Anderson, 2006).”
Longitudinal Predictors of Word Reading Development (2008, background): “Morphologically complex words are words that contain more than one morpheme, which can be reduced to smaller units, providing cues for pronunciation, spelling, and meaning (Carlisle, 2003).”
The Relation of Morphological Awareness and Syntactic Awareness to Adults’ Reading Comprehension (2011, background): “Therefore the predictive role of morphological awareness might decrease when there are other metalinguistic skills available to the reader (Carlisle, 2003; Nagy et al., 2006).”
The role of derivational morphology in the reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners (2008, neutral): “skills into a model of word reading and spelling ( Carlisle, 2003; Verhoeven & Carlisle, 2006;”
Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. (2006, background): “…previous research on the contributions of morphological skills to literacy achievement in elementary students (e.g., Bryant, Nunes, & Bindman, 2000; Carlisle, 2003; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003; Carlisle & Stone, 2004; Mahony, Singson, & Mann, 2000; Singson et al., 2000) or in at-risk populations…”
Continuity in children’s literacy achievements: A longitudinal perspective from kindergarten to school (2005, background): “, Bus & van IJzendoorn, 1999; Ehri, Nunes, Willows, Yaghoub-Zadeh, & Shanahan, 2001), researchers have almost neglected the role of morphological awareness in literacy development (Carlisle, 2003).”
On the relationship between morphological and phonological awareness: Effects of training in kindergarten and in first-grade reading (2009, background): “Phonological awareness would help the understanding of the alphabetical principle – particularly in handling letter-to-sound correspondences – while morphological awareness would help with the reading of complex words, after readers have acquired the main decoding abilities (Carlisle, 2003).”
Morphological awareness in Spanish-speaking English language learners: within and cross-language effects on word reading (2010, background): “In comparison, morphological awareness is a multi-faceted construct characterized by a number of intersecting subcomponents including phonological, semantic, syntactic, and orthographic processing ( Carlisle, 1988, 2003; Kuo & Anderson, 2006).”
Effectiveness of spelling interventions for learners with dyslexia: A meta-analysis and systematic review (2020, background): “Morphological knowledge refers to the awareness of the smallest meaningful language units (Carlisle, 2003; Nagy, Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003).”
Morphological Awareness: A Key to Understanding Poor Reading Comprehension in English. (2011, background): “Certainly, knowledge of derivational morphology increases rapidly during the latter half of the elementary school years (e.g., Anglin, 1993; Carlisle, 2003).”
A Meta-Analysis of Morphological Interventions in English: Effects on Literacy Outcomes for School-Age Children (2013, background): “264 GOODWIN AND AHN Studies criteria included the following: • Study has a control/comparison group compared to a morphological intervention group. • Intervention includes a morphological component with an emphasis on morphemes as units of meaning. • Participants are school-aged (e.g., preschool–12t”
Contribution of morphological awareness and lexical inferencing ability to L2 vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension among advanced EFL learners: testing direct and indirect effects (2011, background): “Morphological awareness is the ability to reflect upon and manipulate morphemes and morphological structure of words ( Carlisle, 2003; Kuo & Anderson, 2006).”
Effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary acquisition (2010, background): “Carlisle (2003b) commented, ‘‘Leaving morphological analysis to be discovered by students on their own means that those who are not inherently linguistically savvy are likely to be left behind their peers in the development of vocabulary, word reading and comprehension, and spelling’’ (p. 312).”
Morphological Awareness and Word Reading in English Language Learners: Evidence from Spanish- and Chinese-Speaking Children. (2011, background): “These three aspects have different developmental trajectories and play somewhat different roles in word reading (Carlisle, 2000, 2003; Kuo & Anderson, 2006).”
Morphological Awareness and Learning to Read: A Cross-Language Perspective (2006, background): “Because morphemes are meaningful, morphological awareness is likely to “enhance the memorability of . . . orthographic patterns” (Carlisle, 2003, p. 313).”