Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T02:36:57.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Introduction

Operating Principles in Learning to Read

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

By
Ludo Verhoeven  and
Charles Perfetti
Edited by
Ludo Verhoeven  and
Charles Perfetti
Ludo Verhoeven
Affiliation:
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Charles Perfetti
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Learning to Read across Languages and Writing Systems , pp. xiv
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

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

Adams, B. C., Bell, L. C. & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children’s text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 307–323.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C. & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In Guthrie, J. (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Aro, M. & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 621–635.Google Scholar
Bast, J. & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual differences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373–1399.Google Scholar
Carver, R. P. (1993). Merging the simple view of reading with rauding theory. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 439–455.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R. & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.Google Scholar
Daniels, P. T. & Bright, W. (1996). The world’s writing systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
De Graaff, S., Bosman, A., Hasselman, F. & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Benefits of systematic phonics instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(4), 318–333.Google Scholar
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–189.Google Scholar
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, A. W. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2000). Age of acquisition effects in adult lexical processing reflect loss of plasticity in maturing systems: Insights from connectionist networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1103–1123.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Hooper, A. M. (2001). Why learning to read is easier in Welsh than in English: Orthographic transparency effects evinced with frequency-matched tests. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(4), 571–599.Google Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Pnini, T. & Frost, R. (1995). Decomposing words into their constituent morphemes: Evidence from English and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 947–960.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frith, U., Wimmer, H. & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279.Google Scholar
Frost, R., Katz, L. & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104–115.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. (1952). A study of writing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67–86.Google Scholar
Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In Kamil, M. L., Rosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D. & Barr, R. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 251–268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goswami, U., Gombert, J. E. & de Barrera, L. F. (1998). Children’s orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English, French and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 19–52.Google Scholar
Goswami, U., Porpodas, C. & Wheelwright, S. (1997). Children’s orthographic representations in English and Greek. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 648–664.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. A. & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyönä, J. & Pollatsek, A. (1998). Reading Finnish compound words: Eye fixations are affected by component morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1612–1627.Google Scholar
Jorm, A. F. & Share, D. L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1988). The use of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., Stolyarova, E. I., Sundberg, U. & Lacerda, F. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277, 684–686.Google Scholar
Leinenger, M. (2014). Phonological coding during reading. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1534–1555.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. Y. & Shankweiler, D. (1985). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Topical Issue (Liberman, I. Y., Guest Editor), Remedial and Special Education, 6(6), 8–17.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 123–146.Google Scholar
Lorch, R. F. & Lorch, E. P. (1996). Effects of headings on text recall and summarization. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(3), 261–278.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Perlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K. K. Y. & Li, Y. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89(2), 93–111.Google Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Tardif, T., Cho, J.-R., Shu, Hua, Fletcher, P., Stokes, S. F., Wong, A. M.-Y. & Leung, K. W. (2008). What’s in a word? Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in three languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(3), 413–436.Google Scholar
McQueen, J. M. & Cutler, A. (1997). Cognitive processes in spoken-word recognition. In Hardcastle, W. J. & Laver, J. D. M. H. (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 566–585). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., Streiftau, S., Lyytinen, H., Leppänen, P. H. T, Lohvansuu, K., et al. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies: Is English an outlier orthography? Learning and Instruction, 29, 65–77.Google Scholar
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1977). Oral and written language and the cognitive processes of children. Journal of Communication, 27, 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J. & de Jong, P. (2004). A cross-linguistic comparison of children learning to read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 785–797.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In Gough, P. B., Ehri, L. C. & Treiman, R. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In Perfetti, C. A., Rieben, L. & Fayol, M. (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 21–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (1999). Comprehending written language: A blueprint of the reader. In Brown, C. M. & Hagoort, P. (Eds.), The neurocognition of language processing (pp. 167–208). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. & Harris, L. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9(4), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A. & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In Verhoeven, L., Elbro, C. & Reitsma, P. (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189–214). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 22–37.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Cao, F. & Booth, J. (2013). Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: How Chinese research informs a universal science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y. & Tan, L. H. (2005). The Lexical Constituency Model: Some implications of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. Psychological Review, 12(11), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., Zhang, S. & Berent, I. (1992). Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence for a “universal” phonological principle. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C. & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Are nonsemantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing? Language and Cognitive Processing, 15, 445–485.Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S. & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Protopapas, A., Simos, P. G., Sideridis, G. D., Mouzaki, A. (2012). The components of the simple view of reading: A confirmatory factor analysis. Reading Psychology, 33(3), 217–240.Google Scholar
Reichle, E. D. & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Morphology in word identification. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L. & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye-movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems: A linguistic introduction. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schilling, H. E. H., Rayner, K. & Chumbley, J. I. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270–1281.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H. (1995). Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, L. (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 131–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R. & Baayen, R. H. (1997). How complex simplex word scan be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (2012). Writing systems: Not optimal but good enough. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 305–307.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H., Aro, M. & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.Google Scholar
Shankweiler, D. & Liberman, I. (1989). Phonology and reading disability. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.Google Scholar
Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.Google Scholar
Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 584–615.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. II. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snowling, M. J. (2000). Language and literacy skills: Who is at risk and why? In Bishop, D. V. M. and Leonard, L. B. (Eds.), Speech and language impairment in children: Causes, characteristics, interventions and outcome (pp. 245–260). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Torgeson, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S. & Hecht, S. (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second-to fifth-grade children. Scientific Study of Reading, 1, 161–195.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. (1998). Why spelling?: The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning reading instruction. In Metsala, J. & Ehri, L. (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 289–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Treiman, R. & Zukowski, A. (1996). Children’s sensitivity to syllables, onsets, rimes, and phonemes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61, 193–215.Google Scholar
Tunmer, W. & Hoover, W. (1993). Components of variance models of language-related factors in reading disability: A conceptual overview. In Joshi, R. J. & Leong, C. K. (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis and component processes (pp. 135–173). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
United Nations (2014). Human development report. Geneva: UN Office.Google Scholar
van den Broek, P. W., Risden, K., Fletcher, C. R. & Thurlow, R. (1996). A “landscape” view of reading: Fluctuating patterns of activation and the construction of a stable memory representation. In Britton, B. K. & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 165–187). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313–330.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 209–217.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Advances in text comprehension: Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 293–301.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. & Perfetti, C. A. (2011a). Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 457–466.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. & Perfetti, C. A. (2011b). Vocabulary growth and reading skill. Scientific Studies of Reading 15, 1–7.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. & van Leeuwe, J. (2009). Modeling the growth of word decoding skills: Evidence from Dutch. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 205–223.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J. & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8–25.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. & Rayner, K. (2000). Effects of titles on the processing of text and lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye movements. Memory and Cognition, 28(6), 1011–1021.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. T. & Anderson, R. C. (1986). What they don’t know will hurt them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In Orasanu, J. (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 31–48). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
Yaden, D., Rowe, D. & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A matter (polyphony) of perspectives. In Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D. & Barr, R. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 425–454). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Yang, J., Zevin, J. D., Shu, H., McCandliss, B. D. & Li, P. (2006) A triangle model of Chinese reading: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 912–918). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C. & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×