Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Is the deficit in phonological awareness better explained in terms of task differences or effects of syllable structure?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 May 2005


JUAN E. JIMÉNEZ
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
EDUARDO GARCÍA
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
ROSARIO ORTIZ
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
ISABEL HERNÁNDEZ–VALLE
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
REMEDIOS GUZMÁN
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
MERCEDES RODRIGO
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
ADELINA ESTÉVEZ
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
ALICIA DÍAZ
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna
SERGIO HERNÁNDEZ
Affiliation:
Universidad de La Laguna

Abstract

The primary purpose of the study reported here was to explore the effects of the complexity of syllable structure and the effects of task differences in the explanation of deficit in phonological awareness (PA). A sample of 97 subjects was selected and organized into three different groups: 29 reading-disabled (RD) children, 41 normal readers matched in age with the former, and 27 younger normal readers at the same reading level as those with reading disabilities. We administered PA tasks which included items with different complexity of syllable structure. The results showed that the complexity of syllable structure had no particularly marked effect on the dyslexic children. Rather, the isolation task revealed the phonological deficit across all syllable structures.


Type
Articles
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Adams M. 1990. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arnqvist A. 1992. The impact of consonant clusters on preschool children's phonemic awareness: A comparison between readers and nonreaders. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33, 2935.Google Scholar
Bryant P. 2002. It doesn't matter whether onset and rime predicts reading better than phoneme awareness does or vice versa. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 4146.Google Scholar
Carrillo M. S. 1994. Development of phonological awareness and reading acquisition. A study in Spanish language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 279298.Google Scholar
Cattell R. B., & Cattell A. K. S. 1989. Test de Factor “g.” Escala 1 and 2 A. Cordero, M. V. de la Cruz, & N. Seisdedos, Trans.). Madrid: T.E.A. Ediciones. (Original work published 1950).
Chafouleas S., VanAuken T., & Dunham K. 2001. Not all phonemes are created equal: The effects of linguistic manipulations on phonological awareness tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 19, 216226.Google Scholar
Cuetos F., Rodríguez B., & Ruano E. 1996. Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores de los niños de educación primaria (PROLEC). [Assessment test of reading skills for children]. Madrid: T.E.A. Ediciones.
Daneman M., & Carpenter P. A. 1980. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450466.Google Scholar
de Jong P. F., & van der Leij A. 2003. Developmental changes in the manifestation of a phonological deficit in dyslexic children learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 2240.Google Scholar
de Vega M., Carreiras M., Gutiérrez M., & Alonso–Quecuty M. L. 1990. Lectura y comprensión. Una perspectiva cognitiva [Reading and comprehension. A cognitive approach]. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Escribano J. L. 1991. Programa UNICEN [UNICEN software]. Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain: Author.
Goswami U. 2002. In the beginning was the rhyme? A reflection on Hulme, Hatcher, Nation, Brown, Adams, and Stuart (2002). Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 4757.Google Scholar
Goswami U., & Bryant P. E. 1990. Phonological skills and learning to read. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guzmán R., & Jiménez J. E. 2001. Estudio normativo sobre parámetros psicolingísticos en niños de 6 a 8 años: La familiaridad subjetiva [Statistical study about psycholinguistic parameters in children from 6 to 8 years old: Word familiarity]. Cognitiva, 13, 153191.Google Scholar
Høien T., Lundberg I., Stanovich K. E., & Bjaalid I. K. 1995. Components of phonological awareness. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 171188.Google Scholar
Hulme C., Hatcher P., Nation K., Brown A., Adams J., & Stuart G. 2002. Phoneme awareness is a better predictor of early reading skill than onset-rime awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 82, 228.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E. 1995. Evaluación de la conciencia fonológica [Test of phonemic awareness]. In J. E. Jiménez & M. R. Ortiz (Eds.), Conciencia fonológica y aprendizaje de la lectura [Phonological awareness and learning to read] (pp. 7478). Madrid: Síntesis.
Jiménez J. E. 1997. A reading-level match study of phonemic processes underlying reading disabilities in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 2340.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E., Alvarez C., Estévez A., & Hernández–Valle I. 2000. Onset-rimes units in visual word recognition in Spanish normal readers and reading disabled children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 135141.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E., Díaz A., Ortiz M. R., Rodrigo M., García E., Guzmán R., Hernández–Valle I., Estévez A., & Hernández S. G. 2002. SICOLE: Un sistema de evaluación de procesos cognitivos en la dislexia mediante ayuda asistida a través de ordenador [SICOLE: A system in assessing cognitive processes in dyslexia in the Spanish language] [Computer software]. Universidad La Laguna: Authors.
Jiménez J. E., & Haro C. 1995. Effects of word linguistic properties on phonological awareness in Spanish children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 193201.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E., & Hernández–Valle I. 2000. Word identification and reading disorders in the Spanish language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 267275.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E. & Ortiz M. R. 1993. Phonological awareness in learning literacy. Cognitiva, 5, 153170.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E., & Ortiz M. R. 2000. Metalinguistic awareness and reading acquisition in the Spanish language. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3, 3746.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E., & Ramírez G. 2002. Identifying subtypes of reading disabilities in the Spanish language. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5, 319.Google Scholar
Jiménez J. E., & Venegas E. 2004. Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to reading skills in low literacy adults. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 798810.Google Scholar
Kail R. 1991. Developmental changes in speed of processing during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 490501.Google Scholar
Landerl K., & Wimmer H. 2000. Deficits in phoneme segmentation are not the core problem of dyslexia: Evidence from German and English children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 243262.Google Scholar
Landerl K., Wimmer H., & Frith U. 1997. The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German–English comparison. Cognition, 63, 315334.Google Scholar
Liberman I., & Shankweiler D. 1977. Speech, the alphabet and teaching to read. In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (pp. 105129). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liberman I., Shankweiler D., Fischer F., & Carter B. 1974. Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201212.Google Scholar
Lundberg I., Frost J., & Petersen O. P. 1988. Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263284.Google Scholar
McBride–Chang C. 1995. What is phonological awareness? Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 179192.Google Scholar
McMillan B. M. 2002. Rhyme and reading: A critical review of the research methodology. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 442.Google Scholar
Morais J. 1991. Phonological awareness: A bridge between language and literacy. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness in reading. The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 3171). New York: Springer–Verlag.
Olson R. K. 1994. Language deficits in specific reading disability. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 895916). New York: Academic Press.
Rack J. P., Snowling M. J., & Olson R. 1992. The nonword reading deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 2953.Google Scholar
Schreuder R., & van Bon W. 1989. Phonemic analysis: Effects of word properties. Journal of Research in Reading, 12, 5978.Google Scholar
Siegel L., & Ryan E. B. 1989. The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Development, 60, 973980.Google Scholar
Stahl S. A., & Murray B. A. 1994. Defining phonological awareness and its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 221234.Google Scholar
Treiman R. 1991. Phonological awareness and its roles in learning to read and spell. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness in reading. The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 159189). New York: Springer–Verlag.
Treiman R. 1992. The role of intrasyllabic units in learning to read and spell. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman, Reading acquisition (pp. 65106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Treiman R., & Weatherston S. 1992. Effects of linguistic structure on children's ability to isolate initial consonants. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 174181.Google Scholar
Treiman R., & Zukowsky A. 1991. Levels of phonological awareness. In S. A. Brady & D. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy. A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 6783). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tunmer W. E., & Herriman M. 1984. The development of metalinguistic awareness: A conceptual overview. In W. E. Tunmer, C. Pratt, & M. L. Herriman (Eds.), Metalinguistic awareness in children (pp. 1235). Berlin: Springer–Verlag.
Tunmer W. E., & Rohl M. 1991. Phonological awareness and reading acquisition. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness in reading. The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 130). New York: Springer–Verlag.
Wimmer H., Mayringer H., & Landerl K. 2000. The double-deficit hypothesis and difficulties in learning to read a regular orthography. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 668680.Google Scholar
Yopp H. K. 1988. The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 159177.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 77 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 3rd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-6c64649b67-g65g7 Total loading time: 0.305 Render date: 2020-12-03T11:16:54.916Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Thu Dec 03 2020 11:15:11 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Is the deficit in phonological awareness better explained in terms of task differences or effects of syllable structure?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Is the deficit in phonological awareness better explained in terms of task differences or effects of syllable structure?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Is the deficit in phonological awareness better explained in terms of task differences or effects of syllable structure?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *