The Role of Morphology and Sentence Context in Word Processing for Adults With Low Literacy

Abstract

Both vocabulary skill and morphological complexity, or whether words can be broken down into root words and affixes, have a significant impact on word processing for adults with low literacy. We investigated the influence of word-level variables of morphological complexity and root word frequency, and the sentence-level variable of context strength, on word processing in adults with low literacy, who differed on levels of vocabulary depth skills, which was a participant-level variable. Our findings demonstrate that morphological complexity, root word frequency, and context strength are all related to how adult learners process words while reading, but their effects are dependent on participants’ vocabulary depth. Participants with higher levels of vocabulary depth were able to more quickly process morphologically complex words and make better use of supportive sentence context as compared to individuals with lower levels of vocabulary depth. These findings suggest that both morphological complexity and vocabulary depth are important for word processing and reading comprehension in adults with low literacy.

Keywords

morphology root word frequency sentence context vocabulary depth adults with low literacy word processing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005

Bates

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

R. H.

(2018). Parsimonious mixed models. ArXiv preprint.

Baumann

J. F.

Carr Edwards

Font

Tereshinski

C. A.

Kame’enui

E. J.

Olejnik

(2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 150–176. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.37.2.3

Bellso

(2016, November 7). Adult education helps break the cycle of poverty. Proliteracy. https://www.proliteracy.org/news/from-the-desk-of-the-ceo-changing-the-systems-that-perpetuate-poverty-and-low-literacy/

Binder

K. S.

Gilbert Cote

Lee

Bessette

(2017). Beyond breadth: The contributions of vocabulary depth to reading comprehension among skilled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(3), 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12069

Binder

K. S.

Morris

R. K.

(1995). Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1186–1196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1186

Binder

K. S.

Tremblay

K. A.

Joseph

(2020). Vocabulary accessibility and acquisition: Do you get more from a financestor or a sociophite? Journal of Research in Reading, 43(4), 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12314

Brusnighan

S. M.

Folk

J. R.

(2012). Combining contextual and morphemic cues is beneficial during incidental vocabulary acquisition: Semantic transparency in novel compound word processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.015

Carlisle

J. F.

(2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604

10.

Carlisle

J. F.

Stone

C. A.

(2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428–449. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.4.3

11.

Foster

T. E.

Ardoin

S. P.

Binder

K. S.

(2017). Reliability and validity of eye movement measures of children’s reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 53, 71–89. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/rrq.182

12.

Francis

Kučera

(1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Houghton Mifflin.

13.

Goodwin

A. P.

Gilbert

J. K.

Cho

S.-J.

Kearns

D. M.

(2014). Probing lexical representations: Simultaneous modeling of word and reader contributions to multidimensional lexical representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(2), 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034754

14.

Grotlüschen

Mallows

Reder

Sabatini

(2016). Adults with low proficiency in literacy or numeracy (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 131). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm0v44bnmnx-en

15.

Guo

Roehrig

A. D.

Williams

R. S.

(2011). The relation of morphological awareness and syntactic awareness to adults’ reading comprehension: Is vocabulary knowledge a mediating variable? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X11403086

16.

Hall

Greenberg

Gore

J. L.

Pae

H. K.

(2014). The relationship between expressive vocabulary knowledge and reading skills for adult struggling readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2012.01537.x

17.

Kirby

J. R.

Deacon

S. H.

Bowers

P. N.

Izenberg

Wade-Woolley

Parrila

(2012). Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9276-5

18.

Levesque

K. C.

Kieffer

M. J.

Deacon

S. H.

(2017). Morphological awareness and reading comprehension: Examining mediating factors. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.015

19.

Lowell

Morris

R. K.

(2014). Word length effects on novel words: Evidence from eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 179–189. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0556-4

20.

Mahony

D. L.

(1994). Using sensitivity to word structure to explain variance in high school and college level reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027276

21.

McCutchen

Logan

(2011). Inside incidental word learning: Children’s strategic use of morphological information to infer word meanings. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(4), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.003

22.

Metsala

J. L.

Parrila

Conrad

N. J.

Deacon

S. H.

(2019). Morphological awareness and reading achievement in university students. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(3), 743–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000826

23.

Nagy

W. E.

Anderson

R. C.

(1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304–330. https://doi.org/10.2307/747823

24.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2017). Percentage distribution of U.S. adults age 16 to 65 at selected levels of proficiency on PIAAC literacy, numeracy, and digital problem solving: 2012/14 and 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/current_results.asp

25.

Ouellette

G. P.

(2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554

26.

Pae

H. K.

Greenberg

Williams

R. S.

(2012). An analysis of differential response patterns on the Peabody picture vocabulary test-IIIB in struggling adult readers and third-grade children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25(6), 1239–1258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9315-x

27.

Proctor

C. P.

Silverman

R. D.

Harring

J. R.

Montecillo

(2012). The role of vocabulary depth in predicting reading comprehension among English monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in elementary school. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 1635–1664. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9336-5

28.

Qian

(1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 282–308. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.2.282

29.

Qian

(2005). Demystifying lexical inferencing: The role of aspects of vocabulary knowledge. TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 34–54. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v22i2.86

30.

Quinn

J. M.

Wagner

R. K.

Petscher

Lopez

(2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12292

31.

Radach

Kennedy

(2004). Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current issues, and an agenda for future research. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000295

32.

Radach

Kennedy

(2013). Eye movements in reading: Some theoretical context. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(3), 429–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.750676

33.

Rayner

(1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372

34.

Rayner

Chace

K. H.

Slattery

T. J.

Ashby

(2009). Eye movements as reflections of comprehension processes in reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1003_3

35.

Rayner

Duffy

S. A.

(1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory & Cognition, 14, 191–201. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197692

36.

Richard

J.-P. J.

(2011). Does size matter? The relationship between vocabulary breadth and depth. Sophia International Review, 33, 107–119.

37.

Rodd

J. M.

(2020). Settling into semantic space: An ambiguity-focused account of word-meaning access. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619885860

38.

Schmitt

(2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64, 913–951. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/lang.12077

39.

Shore

W. J.

Kempe

(1999). The role of sentence context in accessing partial knowledge of word meanings. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023258224980

40.

Singson

Mahony

Mann

(2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008196330239

41.

SR Research EyeLink 1000 [Apparatus and software]. (2005). SR Research Ltd.

42.

Tighe

E. L.

Binder

K. S.

(2015). An investigation of morphological awareness and processing in adults with low literacy. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(2), 245–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716413000222

43.

Tighe

E. L.

Schatschneider

(2016). Examining the relationships of component reading skills to reading comprehension in struggling adult readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(4), 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219414555415

44.

Tran

A. H.

Tremblay

K. A.

Binder

K. S.

(2020). The factor structure of vocabulary: An investigation of breadth and depth of adults with low literacy skills. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09694-8

45.

Tyler

Nagy

(1989). The acquisition of English derivational morphology. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(6), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(89)90002-8

46.

Tyler

Nagy

(1990). Use of derivational morphology during reading. Cognition, 36(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90052-L

47.

University of Oregon, Center on Teaching and Learning. (2019-2020). DIBELS 8th Edition Technical Manual Supplement, 1440340000196.

48.

Williams

Morris

(2004). Eye movements, word familiarity, and vocabulary acquisition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1–2), 312–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000196

49.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). The Woodcock-Johnson test of achievement (3rd ed.) [Assessment instrument]. Riverside Publishing.