Morphological awareness and reading

in second and fifth grade: evidence

from Hebrew
 Vered Vaknin-Nusbaum, 
 Miri Sarid & 
 Joseph Shimron 

Reading and Writing volume 29, pages229–244 (2016)Cite this article

 883 Accesses
 19 Citations
 Metricsdetails

Abstract
Research suggests that morphological awareness facilitates word
decoding, improves lexical knowledge, and helps reading
comprehension (Carlisle, 2010; Nagy et al., 2014; Verhoeven &
Perfetti, 2011). The present study examined the relationship among
morphological awareness, word recognition and reading
comprehension in 153 second- and fifth-grade Hebrew speakers at an
elementary school in Israel. Students were given morphological
awareness tests and tests for word recognition and reading
comprehension. Three types of morphological awareness were
analyzed: inflection, derivation and construct formation. Overall,
students with low morphological awareness in derivation and
construct formation showed relatively poor achievement in word
recognition and comprehension. All three types were found to
correlate with reading comprehension in readers with high
morphological awareness. These readers also exhibited good reading
skills. The results are discussed with regard to the special
characteristics of Hebrew morphology and reading process, which aid
morphological decomposition.
Access provided by Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

Introduction
Students with high morphological awareness (hereinafter MA) can
distinguish simple from complex words. The latter are decomposable
into sub-word morphemic units (re-play), and their meaning is often
a simple combination of the meanings of their morphemes. Speakers
and readers with high MA can decompose complex words into
morphemes when trying to comprehend them (Meunier &
Longtin, 2007; Nagy, Carlisle & Goodwin, 2014; Taft, 2003), and they
also know how morphemes combine to create new words (Vaknin &
Shimron, 2011; Taft, 2003; Taft & Ardasinski, 2006). MA also helps
to broaden knowledge of words (Nagy, Berninger & Abbott, 2006;
Nagy et al., 2014). It involves semantic, phonological and syntactic
knowledge, as significant parts of lexical representation.

The development of MA
Morphological knowledge develops naturally through gradual
exposure to words and morphemes in different contexts
(Carlisle, 2007; Wolf, 2008; Sénéchal, Pagan & Lever, 2008). Two-
and three-year-old children gradually become aware of the sub-word
elements and the ways they are manipulated in speech, and begin to
experiment with combining morphemes to form words in English
(Carlisle, 2010) and Hebrew (Berman, 2002). In this way they come
to understand that morphemes are building blocks in the
construction of meaning. By using morphemes to compose new
words, children demonstrate their understanding of independent
morphemes, which gradually expands as they experiment with words
in speaking and reading (Berman, 2002). This experimentation
occurs naturally and without conscious effort (Carlisle, 2010).
Morpheme use and word-formation rules applied on the conscious
level is considered the essence of explicit MA (Carlisle, 2010; Kuo &
Anderson, 2006). It reflects the speaker’s ability to express different
meanings through morpheme analysis and manipulation.

MA develops gradually; it is first seen at a very rudimentary level in

preschool children and continues to develop through elementary
school as children extend their understanding of the relationship of
form to meaning. MA is evident by the upper elementary school
grades, when, children can use morphological analysis strategies to
understand unknown words (Carlisle, 2010; Nagy et al., 2014;
Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2011).

Children’s ability to analyze morphemic structures of single words in

the first years of elementary school is correlated with reading ability
(Carlisle, 2003), and it increases during those years in parallel with
reading accuracy (Deacon, Benere & Pasquarella, 2013), fluency and
comprehension (Carlisle, 2003; Carlisle & Stone, 2005; Kieffer; 2013;
Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy et al., 2014; Rispens, McBride-Chang &
Reitsma, 2008). Researchers also suggested that the contribution of
MA to reading fluency and comprehension increases significantly in
the upper elementary grades (fourth through sixth), when the
students encounter a larger number of complex words in texts
(Rispens et al., 2008). This emerging awareness improves reading,
can streamline the speed and accuracy of reading known and new
words, and improve comprehension (Carlisle, 2003; Carlisle &
Fleming, 2003; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010; Gilbert, Goodwin, Compton &
Kearns, 2013; Gonter-Gaustad & Kelly, 2004; Nagy et al., 2014; Kuo
& Anderson, 2006; Ravid & Malenky, 2001). Deacon and Kirby
(2004) showed that a developed ability in morphological inflectional
tasks in second grade contributed uniquely to word decoding in
grades three through five and to reading comprehension (hereinafter
RC) in grades four and five. Similar findings were reported on the
contribution of MA to comprehension of inflection and of derivation
to RC in students in grades four through nine (Nagy et al., 2006).

The data suggest the possibility that as children gain more experience
in language use and reading they become more skilled in morphemic
analysis, which is likely to prove essential for achieving RC (Nagy et
al., 2014). A higher percentage of unknown words in a text can now
be decomposed and understood through morphological analysis
(Carlisle, 2007; Nagy et al., 2006, 2014). Thus, from elementary
grades and up, students with developed MA have an advantage in
successful decomposition of unknown words (Verhoeven &
Perfetti, 2011).

It is also suggested that practice in morphological awareness, such as

the use of derivations and inflections, as well as the identification of
prefixes and suffixes, may help readers to extract meaning from
unknown words. In some studies, such linguistic abilities were found
to improve reading and spelling of students with reading difficulties,
in grades three through six (Katz & Carlisle, 2009; Kirk &
Gillon, 2009), as well as RC of second (Wolter & Dilworth, 2014) and
fourth graders (Carlisle, 2007). Similar findings emerged from an
intervention study with 7- and 8-year-olds. A group that participated
in the intervention showed improvement in spelling as a result of
exercising morphological rules (Nunes, Bryant & Olsson, 2003).
Students with reading or language deficits also benefited from
explicit instruction in MA (Carlisle, 2003; Goodwin & Ahn, 2010;
Marcolini, Traficante, Zoccolotti, & Burani, 2011; Nagy et al., 2014),
mainly in elementary school (Bowers, Kirby & Deacon, 2010;
Goodwin & Ahn, 2013).

MA in Hebrew
The relationship between MA and reading must be researched in
consideration of the nature and the complexity of the morphology of
the language and the writing system in use (e.g., Verhoeven &
Perfetti, 2011). Hebrew is characterized by high morphological
density in its inflectional and derivational word formation, allowing
inflection and conjugation through both linear and nonlinear
concatenation. Nouns mark pluralization and gender through
suffixation, and verbs mark time, person and number by prefixes and
suffixes. Several prefixes and suffixes can be attached to verbs, nouns,
adjectives and adverbs, and serve to construct prepositions, such
as in and to (cf. Ravid, 2006; Shimron, 2006; Vaknin &
Shimron, 2011).

Hebrew linear word formation relies on concatenation of

morphemes in word formation. For example, kadur (ball) + the
plural suffix − im forms kadurim (balls); shulxan (table) + possessive
suffix i forms shulxani (my table). Hebrew nonlinear formation,
which ordinarily characterizes verb formation, is created by the
combination of consonantal roots with a pattern of morphemes
known as binyan or mishkal. The pattern is composed of vowels and
sometimes also consonants. For example, the
word maxshev (computer) is formed by the root X.SH.V. and the
pattern MaCCeC (where the Cs stand for the root letters). This is a
nonlinear composition because the root morpheme is interwoven into
a pattern, instead of being linearly attached, as is common in Indo-
European languages. Thus to understand complex words in Hebrew,
implicit awareness of both linear and nonlinear morphological
structures is required.

Hebrew is also known for its morphological density, that is, its
tendency to use long clusters of bound morphemes. Compare the
Hebrew single word k’sh’erehu with the English equivalent of four
separate words when I [will] see him. The information represented in
just one Hebrew word is represented in English by a four-word
phrase. This feature of Hebrew can potentially slow down word
recognition (hereinafter WR) and RC. Research indeed shows that
Hebrew speakers read slower than English speakers
(Shimron, 2006). It may therefore be suggested that knowledge of
morphological structures in morphologically rich languages such as
Hebrew serves as a necessary anchor for the reader in word decoding
(Vaknin-Nusbaum & Miller, 2011) and RC (Schiff & Raveh, 2011).

Findings elicited from research on the ability of Hebrew-speaking

children to identify and manipulate morphemic units in Hebrew
words suggest that MA begins to develop in preschool
(Berman, 2000; Ravid, 2002) and progresses in elementary school
(Levin, Ravid & Rapaport, 2001; Ravid & Schiff, 2006). Thus MA of
the root, which appears in kindergarten, allows children to derive
simple words (denominal adjectives) orally, whereas the ability to
place a root in a new word develops only in elementary school (Levin
et al., 2001). Ravid and Schiff (2006) found that Hebrew-speaking
children in grades two through six are aware of root and pattern
morphemes. In one study, when given the common
noun kefel ‘multiplication’ and its derivation maxpela ‘product’, they
were expected to form masreta ‘movie camera’ when
given seret ‘movie’. The authors found that morphological knowledge
develops gradually, and that there is an accelerated developmental
change in this skill in the transition from grades two to five.

It has also been suggested that MA becomes gradually more

accessible in processing written words while reading and writing
Hebrew (Ravid & Malenky, 2001; Berman, 2002; Schiff &
Raveh, 2011). This is because Hebrew, as a Semitic writing system,
represents morphemes of the spoken language in a clear, concrete
and distinguishable manner (Ravid & Schiff, 2006; Shimron, 2006).
This may be explained in that the consonantal root appears in writing
as a fixed letter cluster while the vowels, when expressed by
diacritics, are generally placed above and below the root letters, in
contrast to being inserted in between the root’s consonants
(Ravid, 2001, 2002; Ravid & Bar-On, 2001; Ravid & Malenky, 2001;
Ravid & Schiff, 2006, Shimron, 2006). So the Hebrew writing system,
while having complicated and rich morphological structures, is from
another perspective morphologically more transparent than it is in
other languages. Nevertheless, poor readers of Hebrew, like those in
many other languages, are low in MA (Cohen, Schiff, & Gillis-
Carlebach, 1996; Ben-Dror, Bentin & Frost, 1995; Schiff &
Ravid, 2007).

Another factor that indicates the importance of MA in Hebrew

concerns the orthographic characteristics of the Hebrew writing
system. Around third grade, Hebrew readers shift from reading a
shallow orthography, characterized by comprehensive presentation of
diacritics (points) that mark consonants and vowels, to a deep
orthography where diacritics are omitted entirely. Reading in deep
orthography might compel the Hebrew reader to rely more on
morphological awareness to achieve compensation (Vaknin-
Nusbaum & Miller, 2011).
This study
In line with the evidence that MA is linked to word recognition
(hereinafter WR) and RC, and this link becomes stronger with age
(Carlisle, 2007, 2010; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Verhoeven &
Perfetti, 2011), we investigated the relationship between MA and WR
and RC among elementary school students in the second and the fifth
grades. The following questions were asked: (1) Do grades two and
five show different patterns in the relationship of MA to RC? That is,
are different types of MA (e.g., to inflections and derivations) relate
differently to WR and RC? (2) If different patterns are found, how do
students with low MA differ from students with high MA in their
ability to decode single words and to accomplish RC?

We distinguished MA of three types of Hebrew word

structures: inflection which require linear suffixation); derivation,
which is usually manifested by the ability to comprehend and
compose a legitimate word in different word structures;
and construct formation, which is manifested by the ability to derive
a nominal phrase by compounding two nouns. We asked how each
type of MA affects WR and RC at different ages.

Our underlying hypothesis is that in Hebrew, as in other languages,

MA contributes to or at least go along the recognition of written
words and RC (Carlisle, 2003; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Kuo &
Anderson, 2006), and this relationship becomes more significant
with older age (Carlisle, 2003; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003; Gonter-
Gaustad & Kelly, 2004; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Rispens et al., 2008).
Likewise, as found in Hebrew (Ben-Dror et al., 1995; Cohen et
al., 1996; Schiff & Ravid, 2004, 2007) and in other languages
(Carlisle, 2007; Katz & Carlisle, 2009; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Nunes et
al., 2003), children with reading difficulties who have low MA display
lower reading achievement than those with high MA. We
hypothesized that focusing on the three types of MA would enable us
to characterize the development of MA and its relationship to
reading. It may also qualify potential differences in the relationships
of derivational morphology and inflectional morphology to reading
(Nagy et al., 2014), and address the question of whether complex
forms, including derivations and construct formation, positively
correlated to reading in the higher grades (cf. Verhoeven &
Perfetti, 2011).

Method

Participants
The participants were 153 students from two elementary schools: 67 s
graders (35 girls and 33 boys) 7–8 years of age from two classes and
86 fifth graders (45 boys and 41 girls) 10–11 years of age from three
classes; all were native Hebrew speakers. The schools were located in
mid-level socioeconomic neighborhoods in the north of Israel.
According to information obtained from the home room teachers,
there was no specific language, attention or developmental
deficits among the children who participated in the study.

Research tools
Morphological awareness tests
Morphological awareness was evaluated by a three-part test
(inflections, derivations, construct formation) constructed for this
research for second and fifth graders and adjusted to age level. The
participants were provided first with an example, which was followed
by a test question. All stimuli and examples were presented in print
form. The examinees were asked to circle the correct answer in each
part, with no time limit, as follows.

Part 1 (18 items)—inflections: Identify plural inflection (e.g., perax

exad ‘one flower’, harbe praxim/* praxot ‘many flowers’) and
possessive inflection (sheli ‘my’, shelo ‘his’, shelahem ‘their’,
e.g., Hatik shelahem hu … tikam/tiko “The backpack belonging to
them is… their backpack/his backpack”). The inflection score was
calculated as the percentage of accuracy. The reliability (Cronbach
alpha) among second grade students inflection test was α = 0.81 and
for fifth grade α = 0.62.

Part 2 (6 items) dealt with derivations: The instructions read:

“Identify the root morpheme by choosing the word that does not
belong to this word family (e.g., kfica ‘a jump’, kofcim ‘they
jump’, kofec ‘he jumps’, kofecet ‘she jumps’, mitlabshim ‘they get
dressed’); and identify the correct infinitive transformation,
(e.g., litpor—matpera ‘to sew—sewing workshop’ is like lishtol—
mashtelal/Shatil ‘to plant—nursery/seedling’). The derivation
score was calculated as the percentage score of accuracy. The
reliability for derivation test among second grade readers was
α = 0.80 and among fifth graders α = 0.56.

Part 3 (6 items). The test instruction read: “Identify the correct

formation of the construct (e.g., buba mi-niyar [‘a doll made of
paper’]: bubat niyar /bet bubot [‘a paper doll/a doll’s house’]. The
construct formation was calculated as a percentage score of accuracy.
The morphological test was presented to all readers in a pointed (with
diacritics) form. The reliability for construct formation among second
graders was α = 0.95 and among fifth graders α = 0.64.

Word recognition and reading comprehension tests (‘Elul’ test,

Breznitz, Nevo & Shatil, 2004)
The Hebrew assessment of reading measures, Elul, includes tests for
measuring reading skills. It was developed and validated on 495 s
grade students and 448 fifth graders.

Reading ability, in the sense of familiarity with words, was evaluated

by a two-part test (WR and RC) as follows.

Part 1—WR: Within a limited time frame examinees were asked to

circle words that named animals. The test for second graders had 80
words, 25 (maximal score) of which represented animals; after a time
limit of 2:32 min the students were asked to stop working on the
assignment. The test for fifth graders had 149 words, of which 43
(maximal score) represented animals; after a time limit of 1:15 min
the students were asked to stop working on the assignment. Word
identification scores were calculated as the percentage correct of the
total number of words for each grade level. None of the target words
were inflections. The test had a Cronbach α = 0.94 among second and
fifth graders.

Part 2—RC: The examinees were asked to read two passages in the
allotted time, and answer true/false questions about their content.
Second graders read two texts: the first (“Udi and Roy”) had 44 words
and test time was 3:02 min; the second (“Sweet and Sour Popsicle”)
had 67 words and test time was 3:32 min. Students were asked to
answer eight right/wrong questions on each text. Fifth graders read
two texts: the first (“Volcanoes”) had 85 words and the test time was
3:03 min; the second (“The Pyramids”) had 99 words and the test
time was 3:01 min. Students were asked to answer ten right/wrong
questions on each text. After the time limit was over the students
were asked to stop working on the assignment. Comprehension
scores were calculated as the percentage of correct and accurate
answers of the expression. The test had a Cronbach α = 0.88 among
second graders a Cronbach α = 0.80 among fifth graders.

According to the Elul buttery of reading tests instructions, all reading

tests for second grade students were presented in the pointed form
(with diacritics). For fifth grade they were presented in the un-
pointed (without the diacritics) form.

Procedure
The reading and MA tests were administered by the researchers in
groups in the students’ homerooms. The order of the tests was WR,
RC, MA. The instructions appeared as part of each test sheet and
were read out loud by the researcher. Written examples were
presented to each class before the test began. The number of correct
answers was calculated for each test separately. Administering the
tests took about 30 min.

Results

Correlations between study measures

To examine the main research question on the association between
MA and reading measures, Pearson correlation coefficients were
performed between MA measures, RC and WR (Table 1).

Table 1 Pearson correlation coefficients between MA and

reading measures for all participants
Full size table

The correlations in the whole sample (grades two and five)

demonstrate a linear positive association between WR and the three
types of MA (r = 0.18 for inflection, r = 0.34 for derivation, r = 0.34
for construct formation). A positive correlation was found between
WR and RC (r = 0.40), and between all three measures of MA and RC
(r = 0.35 for derivation and for construct formation, and r = 0.29 for
inflection).

Analysis of morphological measures according to grade level

The developmental aspects of the three types of MA, and the
differences in difficulty associated with each, were examined by
repeated measures ANOVA, with the three morphological measures
as dependent variables and grade level as independent variable
(Table 3). Second-grade readers did not differ from fifth-grade
readers on any of the morphological measures
(F(1,151) = 0.75, p = NS), and no interaction of grade level and
morphological type was found (F(2,150) = 1.67, p = NS). However, a
significant main effect of morphological type was found
(F(2,150) = 69.32, p < 0.001). Orthogonal within-subjects contrast
showed that inflectional morphology was significantly easier than
derivational morphology (F(1,151) = 128.80, p < 0.001), and
construct formation morphology was easier than derivational
morphology (F(1,151) = 117.03, p < 0.001). Based on these findings, it
can be inferred that performance success in inflectional morphology
did not differ from performance success at construct formation
morphology.

Reading clusters
To identify homogeneous clusters of readers, a quick cluster analysis
was conducted by the squared Euclidian distance method between
clusters that maximizes the difference between them. As part of the
cluster analysis, ANOVA was conducted, measuring the difference
between the clusters on the MA measures. The results showed that
the clusters differed in measures of derivation
(F(1,151) = 461.60, p < 0.001) and construct formation
(F(1,151) = 37.68, p < 0.001) but not in inflection
(F(1,151) = 0.54, p = ns) (for means see Table 1). There were 48
readers in the cluster of lower MA readers and 105 in the cluster of
high MA readers (means and F values shown in Table 2).

Table 2 Means and (SDs) of clusters of morphological

awareness
Full size table

Further cross tabulations of grade level and MA cluster (Table 4)

showed a similar proportion of low MA readers in the second (33 %)
and fifth (30 %) graders (χ2 = 0.12, p = NS).

Differences according to MA cluster and age

In order to examine morphological awareness abilities, differences
between age groups and MA clusters were examined by MANOVA
(2X2X2), with WR and RC as dependent measures and grade level X
morphological cluster as independent measures. This analysis
enabled us to examine whether the differences between MA clusters
were also evident in each age group.

The results show a main effect of MA cluster (Multivariate

F(2,147) = 16.05, p < 0.001), no interaction of grade level X
morphological cluster (Multivariate F(2,147) = 0.32, p = NS) and no
main effect of age (Multivariate F(2,147) = 0.1.39, p = NS). The
results regarding cluster main effect, univariate tests showed that the
low MA group attained lower scores in WR and RC compared with
the high MA group [F(1,148) = 30.40, p < 0.001 vs.
F(1,148) = 9.56, p < 0.01, respectively].

Prediction of reading measures

WR
Regression analyses conducted to determine the effect of MA and age
measures on WR showed that none of the measures predicted WR in
low MA readers. The inflection scores did predict WR in high MA
readers (β = 0.21, p = 0.05, R2 = 0.10); the better the inflection, the
better the WR.

RC
The relationship between MA and RC in low and high MA readers
was evaluated by a forced steps linear regression. WR and grade level
were included in the regression equation in the first step in order to
control for possible effect of age and WR. Since no differences were
found between grades two and five, they were included in the
regression as a main effect variable only. In the second step, the
morphological measures were included in the model.

Among low MA readers, the only variable that predicted RC among

low MA readers was WR (β = 0.32, p < 0.03), accounting for 10 % of
RC variance. In the second step, when morphological measures were
added to the equation, none of the variables proved significant.

Among high MA readers, fifth graders achieved higher than second

graders RC scores; and the better the achievement at WR, the better
the achievement of RC.

All three morphological measures were found to predict RC: the

better the MA achievement, the better the RC achievement. MA
accounted for 28 % of the variance of RC, in addition to age and WR.

Discussion
The study examined the relationship between MA and WR and RC in
second- and fifth-grade Hebrew speakers in an elementary school. It
also examined the possibility of different patterns of relationship
between MA on the one hand and WR and RC on the other. We
assumed that generally speaking, the experimental results would be
similar to those found in studies conducted with other languages.
That is, MA would be related to reading skills in Hebrew as well. We
found that the three types of MA examined through tests in
processing inflections, derivations and construct formation were
related to WR and RC (Table 1). However, the correlation with RC
appeared only in readers with high MA (Table 4).

We also predicted that the correlation between MA and reading

would increase with age, as found in other languages (Carlisle, 2003;
Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Carlisle &
Fleming, 2003; Gonter-Gaustad & Kelly, 2004; Kuo &
Anderson, 2006; Nagy et al., 2014; Rispens et al., 2008). Our
findings on this issue must be read with a great caution because we
used different tests for the second grade and the fifth. Therefore, we
tried to reach a similar level of test difficulty in the two grades: the
reading texts and the morphological tests were matched to the
abilities of each grade level.

Bearing this in mind, note that we found no significant differences

between second and fifth graders in their morphological skills as
measured by our tests. Furthermore, second- and fifth-grade
students had a similar morphological profile: the best morphological
skill in both grades was inflection and the worst was derivation.

One possible explanation for the absence of differences in this regard

may be associated with the morphological transparency of the
Hebrew writing system, which, perhaps, facilitates morphological
decoding even for very young readers. In this system, vowels, if
indicated, are usually represented by diacritics above and/or below
the written word, leaving the consonantal letter sequence of the root
morpheme as a fixed cluster of letters, standing in the same order.
Occasionally, a letter-vowel is also inserted into the root. But the
order of the root letters in most cases is kept steady, as can be seen in
the table below (compare Ravid, 2001, 2002; Ravid & Schiff, 2006;
Shimron, 2006). A result of this morphological transparency is that if
the reader has developed MA, in the sense of familiarity with Hebrew
roots, word patterns, and affixes, he or she is probably able to use this
familiarity while reading, thereby improving his/her proficiency at
WR and RC (Carlisle, 2007; Nagy et al., 2014; Rispens et al., 2008). It
may be that the advantage derived from morphological transparency
is already influential in second grade. As reading fluency improves,
this transparency makes it possible to use morphological units as a
bridge between the written word and their meanings in the mental
lexicon (Frost, 2011).

He thought xashav ‫חָׁשַ ב‬

 She thought xashva ‫חָׁשְ בָה‬

He thinks xoshev ‫חֹוׁשֵ ב‬

She thinks xoshevet ‫חֹוׁשֶ בֶת‬

They think xoshvim ‫חֹוׁשְ בִים‬

A thought maxshava ‫מַ חְׁשָ בָה‬

Thoughts maxshavot ‫מַ חְׁשָ בֹות‬

1. Hebrew words with the root X-SH-V, in bold letters

2. Vowels are marked with diacritics and two vowel-letters (‫ו‬ = o; ‫ה‬ =  a)

Indeed, after creating two clusters of readers according to their MA

(low and high), and examining their reading abilities separately, we
found that those with low MA were also found to be poor readers;
their WR and RC were significantly lower than those of readers with
high MA. The proportion of these readers with low MA and poor
reading skills was found to be nearly the same in both second and
fifth grade: 30 and 33 % respectively.

Morphological awareness and reading clusters

Another finding that becomes conspicuous on examination of the two
clusters of MA—one with high scores in derivations and construct
formation, the other with low scores in these two types of MA, but not
in inflectional morphology (Table 3)—is that students with low MA
scored significantly lower in WR and RC than students with high MA.

Table 3 Means and (SDs) of reading measures according to

MA group and grade level
Full size table

In readers with low MA, all three types of MA were not significantly
correlated with WR and RC. It may be suggested that readers with
low MA may struggle to cope with reading, and they have difficulties
to manage the more complicated MA aspects—construct formation
and derivation.

In view of the findings that poor reading abilities correlate with low
MA, it may be suggested that the poor Hebrew readers find it difficult
to resort to the kind of morphological processing that they could
employ to improve WR and RC (Carlisle, 2003; Gilbert et al., 2013;
Marcolini et al., 2011; Nagy et al., 2014). Possibly these readers rely
more on grapheme-to-phoneme translation and less on
morphological processing. This possibility accords with results of
research in other languages (Fowler & Liberman, 1995; Kieffer, 2013;
Nagy et al., 2014; Tong, Deacon & Cain, 2013) and Hebrew (Ben-Dror
et al., 1995; Cohen et al., 1996; Share, 2005; Schiff &
Ravid, 2004; 2007), indicating that poor readers are less sensitive to
morphological units and have difficulty in identifying and
manipulating morphemes, especially with complex forms such as
derivations (Tong, Deacon, Kirby, Cain, & Parrila, 2011).

Recall that WR was not found to be correlated with RC when

morphological measures were taken into account (Table 4). These
finding raise the possibility that MA is perhaps related to reading by
facilitating WR, provided it is developed enough. The same pattern
was seen on both second- and fifth-grade levels.

Table 4 Linear stepwise regression results predicting

reading comprehension by morphological awareness, word
recognition and grade level among low and high MA
readers
Full size table

Conclusions
In contrast to readers with low MA, readers with high MA appear to
enjoy a developed morphological knowledge, which may facilitate WR
and RC on both grade levels examined in this study. While only
inflectional morphology was found to correlate with WR, all three
morphological measures correlated with RC and accounted for 28 %
of its variance after controlling for WR. Put another way, readers high
on RC take advantage of the form and meaning relations expressed
by morphological units shared by different words
(Carlisle, 2003, 2007, 2010; Carlisle & Fleming, 2003; Gonter-
Gaustad & Kelly, 2004; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Nagy et
al., 2006, 2014; Ravid & Malenky, 2001), irrespective of the kind of
morphology—linear or nonlinear, inflectional or derivational—of
which they are formed (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2011). The kind of MA,
which includes the complicated forms of derivation and construct
formation, proved significantly harder to compose. Yet Hebrew
readers were able to analyze a linear chain of bound morphemes that
was presented in words, and to decompose derivations built by a non-
concatenated morphology, where word roots are inserted into a word
pattern (Ravid, 2006; Vaknin & Shimron, 2011).

Whereas in other languages a contribution of MA to reading linguistic

forms, such as derivation, usually appears in the upper grades of
elementary school or in middle school (Verhoeven & Perfetti, 2011),
our results suggest the possibility that Hebrew readers with high MA
can benefit from, and rely on, their developed linguistic ability
already in second grade. This is especially so for RC.

These results are in agreement with Ravid and Schiff (2006), who
showed the robust ability of Hebrew-speaking children to perform
morphological analogies of derivations consisting of roots and
patterns already in second grade. As mentioned above, in our study
too only readers with developed MA and good reading skills mastered
the decoding of morphologically nonlinear words, a necessary
element for reading Hebrew.

References
1. Ben-Dror, I., Bentin, S., & Frost, R. (1995). Semantic,
phonologic and morphologic skills in reading disabled and
normal children: Evidence from perception and production of
spoken Hebrew. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 876–893.

Article Google Scholar 

2. Berman, R. A. (2000). Children’s innovative verbs vs. nouns:

Structured elicitations and spontaneous coinages. In L. Menn &
N. Bernstein-Ratner (Eds.), Methods for studying language
production (pp. 69–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3. Berman, R. A. (2002). Children’s lexical innovations:
Developmental perspectives on Hebrew verb structure. In J.
Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in
languages of Semitic, root-based morphology (pp. 243–291).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Google Scholar 

4. Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects

of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic
review of the literature. Review of Educational
Research, 80(2), 144–179.
5. Breznitz, Z., Nevo, B., & Shatil, E. (2004). ELUL: Learning
disabilities diagnostic test in Hebrew and Arabic languages
for grades 1 to 10. Haifa: Haifa Press.

Google Scholar 

6. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read:

A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291–322.

Article Google Scholar 

7. Carlisle, J. F. (2007). Fostering morphological processing,

vocabulary development and reading comprehension. In R.
Wagner, A. Muse, & K. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary
acquisition (pp. 78–104). New York: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar 

8. Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological

awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative
review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.

Article Google Scholar 

9. Carlisle, J. F., & Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of

morphologically complex words in the elementary
years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(3), 239–253.

Article Google Scholar 

10.Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of

morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40,
428–449.

Article Google Scholar 

11. Cohen, A., Schiff, R., & Gillis-Carlebach, M. (1996). Hashva’at

haosher hamorfologi, taxbiri, v’narativi ben yeladim
hamitkashim b’kria l’ven yeladim yodei-kro. [Complexity of
morphological, syntactic and narrative characteristics: A
comparison of children with reading difficulties and children
who know how to read.]. Megamot, 37(3), 273–291.
 Google Scholar 

12.Deacon, S. H., Benere, J., & Pasquarella, A. (2013). Reciprocal

relationship: Children’s morphological awareness and their
reading accuracy across grades 2 to 3. Developmental
Psychology, 49(6), 1113.

Article Google Scholar 

13.Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness:

Just “more phonological”? The roles of morphological and
phonological awareness in reading development. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 223–238.
14.Fowler, A. E., & Liberman, I. (1995). The role of phonology and
orthography in morphological awareness. In L. B. Feldman
(Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 157–
188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar 

15. Frost, R. (2011). Looking across orthographies. In P. McCardle,

J. R. Lee, O. J. L. Tzeng, & B. Miller (Eds.), Dyslexia across
languages: Orthography, and the brain-gene-behavior link.
Baltimore, MD: Brooks Publishing.

Google Scholar 

16.Gilbert, J. K., Goodwin, A. P., Compton, D. L., & Kearns, D. M.

(2013). Multisyllabic word reading as a moderator of
morphological awareness and reading comprehension. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 0022219413509966.
17. Gonter-Gaustad, M., & Kelly, 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.

Article Google Scholar 

18.Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of

morphological interventions: Effects on literacy achievement of
children with literacy difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 60(2),
183–208.
19.Katz, L. A., & Carlisle, J. F. (2009). Teaching students with
reading difficulties to be close readers: A feasibility
study. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in School, 40,
325–340.

Article Google Scholar 

20. Kieffer, M. J. (2013). Morphological awareness and

reading difficulties in adolescent Spanish-speaking language
minority learners and their classmates. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 0022219413509968.
21.Kirk, C., & Gillon, T. G. (2009). Integrated morphological
awareness intervention as a tool for improving
literacy. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 40,
341–351.

Google Scholar 

22. Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological

awareness and learning to read: A cross-language
perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 161–180.

Article Google Scholar 

23. Levin, I., Ravid, D., & Rapaport, S. (2001). Morphology

and spelling among Hebrew-speaking children: From
kindergarten to first grade. Journal of Child Language, 28,
741–772.

Article Google Scholar 

24. Marcolini, S., Traficante, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C.

(2011). Word frequency modulates morpheme-based reading in
poor and skilled Italian readers. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 513–532.
25. Meunier, F., & Longtin, C. M. (2007). Morphological
decomposition and semantic integration in word
processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 457–471.

Article Google Scholar 

26. Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. C. (2006).

Contribution of morphology beyond phonology to literacy
 outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134–147.

Article Google Scholar 

27.Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014).

Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3–12.
28. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Olsson, J. (2003). Learning
morphological and phonological spelling rules: An intervention
study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 289–307.

Article Google Scholar 

29. Ravid, D. (2001). Learning to spell in Hebrew:

Phonological and morphological factors. Reading and Writing:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 459–485.

Article Google Scholar 

30. Ravid, D. (2002). A developmental perspective on root

perception in Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic. In J. Shimron
(Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of
Semitic, root-based morphology (pp. 293–319). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.

Google Scholar 

31.Ravid, D. (2006). Word-level morphology: A psycholinguistic

perspective on linear formation in Hebrew
nominals. Morphology, 16, 127–148.

Article Google Scholar 

32. Ravid, D., & Bar-On, A. (2001). The Semitic root in

language acquisition. GALA, 2001 Proceedings. University of
Lisbon, Cidade universitaria—Faculdade de letras, Portugal.
33. Ravid, D., & Malenky, A. (2001). Awareness of linear and
nonlinear morphology in Hebrew: A development study. First
Language, 21, 25–26.

Article Google Scholar 
34. Ravid, D., & Schiff, R. (2006). Roots and patterns in
Hebrew language development: Evidence from written
morphology analogies. Reading and Writing, 19, 789–818.

Article Google Scholar 

35. Rispens, J. E., McBride-Chang, C., & Reitsma, P. (2008).

Morphological awareness and early and advanced word
recognition and spelling in Dutch. Reading and Writing, 21(6),
587–607.
36. Schiff, R., & Raveh, M. (2011). Maafianei haibud
hamorfologi bmahalax zihui hamila bkerev korim im disleksia
hitpatxutit. [Characteristics of morphlogical processing during
word recognition among readers with developmental dyslexia.]
In D. Aram & O. Korat (Eds.), Literacy and language:
Relationship, bilingualism, and difficulties (pp. 399–413).
Jerusalem: Magnes.
37.Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2004). Vowel representation in written
Hebrew: Phonological, orthographic and morphological
contexts. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 17, 245–265.

Article Google Scholar 

38. Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2007). Morphological analogies in

Hebrew-speaking university students with dyslexia compared
with typically developing gradeschoolers. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 237–253.

Article Google Scholar 

39. Sénéchal, M., Pagan, S., & Lever, R. (2008). Relations

among the frequency of shared reading and 4-year-old
children’s vocabulary, morphological and syntax
comprehension, and narrative skills. Early Education and
Development, 19, 27–44.

Article Google Scholar 

40. Share, D. (2005). Disleksia b’ivrit: hamorfologia

vehaortografia haivriot. [Dyslexia in Hebrew: Hebrew
morphology and orthography.] Script-Literacy: Research,
Study, and Practice, 9, 9–39. Haifa: University of Haifa.
41.Shimron, J. (2006). Reading Hebrew: The language and the
psychology of reading it. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar 

42. Taft, M. (2003). Morphological representation as a

correlation between form and meaning. In E. Assink & D.
Sandra (Eds.), Reading complex words (pp. 113–137).
Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Chapter Google Scholar 

43. Taft, M., & Ardasinski, S. (2006). Obligatory

decomposition in reading prefixed words. The Mental
Lexicon, 1, 183–199.

Article Google Scholar 

44. Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., & Cain, K. (2013). Morphological

and syntactic awareness in poor comprehenders: Another piece
of the puzzle. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 22–33.

Article Google Scholar 

45. Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., Kirby, J. R., Cain, K., & Parrila,
R. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding
poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 103(3), 523.
46. Vaknin, V., & Shimron, J. (2011). Hebrew plural
inflection: Linear processing in a semitic language. The Mental
Lexicon, 6, 197–244.

Article Google Scholar 

47. Vaknin-Nusbaum, V., & Miller, P. (2011). The importance

of vowel diacritics for the temporary retention of high and low
frequency Hebrew words of varying syllabic length. Memory &
Cognition, 39(3), 516–526.
48. Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Morphological
processing in reading acquisition: A cross-linguistic
perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 457–466.

Article Google Scholar 
 49. Wolf, M. (2008). Proust and the squid: The story and
science of the reading brain. Cambridge: Icon.

Google Scholar 

50. Wolter, J. A., & Dilworth, V. (2014). The effects of a

multilinguistic morphological awareness approach for
improving language and literacy. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 47(1), 76–85.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations
1. Department of E