Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:26:57.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological sensitivity in deaf readers of Dutch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2011

ANNE H. VAN HOOGMOED ,
LUDO VERHOEVEN ,
ROBERT SCHREUDER  and
HARRY KNOORS
ANNE H. VAN HOOGMOED*
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
LUDO VERHOEVEN
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
ROBERT SCHREUDER
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
HARRY KNOORS
Affiliation:
Radboud University Nijmegen
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Anne H. van Hoogmoed, Faculty of Social Sciences, Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen 6500 HE, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deaf children experience difficulties with reading comprehension. These difficulties are not completely explained by their difficulties with the reading of single short words. Whether deaf children and adults lag behind in the morphological processing of longer words is therefore examined in two experiments in which the processing of prefixes by deaf versus hearing children and deaf versus hearing adults is compared. The results show that the deaf children use morphological processing but to a lesser extent than hearing children. No differences appeared between the deaf and hearing adults. Differences between deaf children with and without a cochlear implant were examined, but no firm conclusions could be drawn. The implications of the results for the reading instruction of deaf children are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 619 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baayen, H. R., Dijkstra, A. F. J., & Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. R., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database [CD]. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). 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, 419–511.Google ScholarPubMed
Booij, G. (2002). The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burden, V., & Campbell, R. (1994). The development of word-coding skills in the born deaf: An experimental study of deaf school-leavers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C.A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casalis, S., & Louis-Alexandre, M.-F. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and learning to read French: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 12, 303–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. L. (1967). The ability of deaf and hearing children to apply morphological rules. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaustad, M. G. (2000). Morphographic analysis as a word identification strategy for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaustad, M. G., & Kelly, R. R. (2004). The relationship between reading achievement and morphological word analysis in deaf and hearing students matched for reading level. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 9, 269–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaustad, M. G., Kelly, R. R., Payne, J. A., & Lylak, E. (2002). Deaf and hearing students’ morphological knowledge applied to printed English. American Annals of the Deaf, 144, 320–324.Google Scholar
Geers, A. E. (2003). Predictors of reading skill development in children with early cochlear implantation. Ear & Hearing, 24, 59S–68S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanson, V. L. (1993). Productive use of derivational morphology by deaf college students. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 63–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, R., Wurm, L., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H. (2005). Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing, 12, 191–218.Google Scholar
Meyer, T. A., Svirsky, M. A., Kirk, K. I., & Miyamoto, R. T. (1998). Improvement in speech perception by children with profound prelingual hearing loss: Effects of device, communication mode, and chronological age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 846–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 32–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, A., Koch, D., Osberger, M., Zimmerman-Phillips, S., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (2004). Effect of age at cochlear implantation on auditory skill development in infants and toddlers. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, 130, 570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12, 219–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test, 9th ed.: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., & Haarman, V. (2006). Prefix identification in the reading of Dutch bisyllabic words. Reading and Writing, 19, 651–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeulen, A. M., van Bon, W., Schreuder, R., Knoors, H., & Snik, A. (2007). Reading comprehension of deaf children with cochlear implants. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12, 283–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wauters, L. N., van Bon, W. H. J., & Tellings, A. E. J. M. (2006). Reading comprehension of Dutch deaf children. Reading and Writing, 19, 49–76.Google Scholar