Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T10:34:38.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remembering sentences is not all about memory: Convergent and discriminant validity of syntactic knowledge and its relationship with reading comprehension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2021

Mads POULSEN Open the ORCID record for Mads POULSEN [Opens in a new window] ,
Jessie Leigh NIELSEN  and
Rikke VANG CHRISTENSEN
Mads POULSEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: m.poulsen@hum.ku.dk; mgk690@hum.ku.dk; rikkec@hum.ku.dk
Jessie Leigh NIELSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: m.poulsen@hum.ku.dk; mgk690@hum.ku.dk; rikkec@hum.ku.dk
Rikke VANG CHRISTENSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail: m.poulsen@hum.ku.dk; mgk690@hum.ku.dk; rikkec@hum.ku.dk
*
Address for correspondence: Mads POULSEN, Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, Mads Poulsen, Emil Holms Kanal 2, Copenhagen S. DK-2300, Denmark. E-mail: m.poulsen@hum.ku
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies have found correlations between sentence-level tests and reading comprehension. However, the task demands of sentence-level tests are not well understood. The present study investigated syntactic knowledge as a construct by examining the convergent and discriminant validity of two sentence-level tasks, sentence comprehension and sentence repetition, designed to test syntactic knowledge and their relation with reading comprehension. Results from 86 Grade 6 students showed that the syntax tests were more highly correlated with each other than with tests of working memory and vocabulary. This suggests that the syntax measures tap into a set of skills that are at least partially separate from these other cognitive constructs. Furthermore, syntactic knowledge explained unique variance in reading comprehension beyond controls. The syntax tasks were working memory dependent, but working memory was not the primary reason why syntax tasks are correlated with reading comprehension.

Keywords

syntaxsentence comprehensionreading comprehension
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , March 2022 , pp. 349 - 365
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2015). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. & O'Grady, W. (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence (pp. 478–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Balthazar, C. H., Ebbels, S., & Zwitserlood, R. (2020). Explicit grammatical intervention for developmental language disorder: Three approaches. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 51, 226–246. doi:10.1044/2019_lshss-19-00046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, D. (2003). Test for Reception of Grammar-2. San Antonia, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Brimo, D., Apel, K., & Fountain, T. (2017). Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 57–74. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.12050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brimo, D., Lund, E., & Sapp, A. (2018). Syntax and reading comprehension: A meta-analysis of different spoken-syntax assessments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 53, 431–445. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12362CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catts, H. W. (2018). The simple view of reading: Advancements and false impressions. 39, 317–323. doi:10.1177/0741932518767563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1988). Syntactic complexity and reading acquisition. In Davison, A. & Green, G. M. (Eds.), Critical approaches to readability: Theoretical bases of linguistic complexity (pp. 199–221). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E., & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28, 604–615. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, S. H., & Kieffer, M. (2018). Understanding how syntactic awareness contributes to reading comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 72–86. doi:10.1037/edu0000198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbro, C. (1990). Differences in Dyslexia. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frizelle, P., O'Neill, C., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2017). Assessing understanding of relative clauses: A comparison of multiple-choice comprehension versus sentence repetition. Journal of Child Language, 1–23. doi:10.1017/S0305000916000635Google Scholar
Frizelle, P., Thompson, P., Duta, M., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2019). Assessing children's understanding of complex syntax: A comparison of two methods. Language Learning, 69, 255–291. doi:10.1111/lang.12332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellert, A., & Vang Christensen, R. (2012). Produktivt ordforråd [Productive vocabulary]. Department of Nordic Studies and Linguistics, University of Copenhagen. Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. doi:10.1177/074193258600700104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjetland, H., Lervag, A., Lyster, S.-A., Hagtvet, B., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervag, M. (2019). Pathways to reading comprehension: A longitudinal study from 4 to 9 years of age. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111, 751–763. doi:10.1037/edu0000321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. doi:10.1007/bf00401799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 860–897. doi:10.1080/01690960601155284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Rawson, K. (2005). Comprehension. In Snowling, M. J. & Hulme, C. (Eds.), The Science of Reading: A Handbook (pp. 209–226). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Klem, M., Melby-Lervåg, M., Hagtvet, B., Lyster, S.-A. H., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Hulme, C. (2015). Sentence repetition is a measure of children's language skills rather than working memory limitations. Developmental Science, 18, 146–154. doi:10.1111/desc.12202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, L. B., Engberg-Pedersen, E., & Poulsen, M. (2014). Context improves comprehension of fronted objects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 125–140. doi:10.1007/ s10936-013-9241-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Language and Reading Research Consortium, Jiang, H., Logan, J., & Jia, R. (2018). Modeling the nature of grammar and vocabulary trajectories from prekindergarten to third grade. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 910–923. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0090Google Scholar
Language and Reading Research Consortium, & Logan, J. (2017). Pressure points in reading comprehension: A quantile multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 451–464. doi:10.1037/edu0000150Google Scholar
Lervåg, A., Hulme, C., & Melby-Lervåg, M. (2018). Unpicking the developmental relationship between oral language skills and reading comprehension: It's simple, but complex. Child Development, 89, 1821–1838. doi:10.1111/cdev.12861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lombardi, L., & Potter, M. C. (1992). The regeneration of syntax in short term memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 713–733. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90036-WCrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing working memory: Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Water and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Møller, L. (2013). Tekstlæseprøve 7 [Text reading test 7]. Frederiksberg, Denmark: Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A. (2017). Reading comprehension deficits in adolescents: Addressing underlying language abilities. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 125–131. doi:10.1044/2016_LSHSS-16-0048CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, A., & Leonard, L. (2006). The production of finite and nonfinite complement clauses by children with specific language impairment and their typically developing peers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 548–571. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/040)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perfetti, C., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension. In Snowling, M. J. & Hulme, C. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polišenská, K., Chiat, S., & Roy, P. (2015). Sentence repetition: What does the task measure? International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 50, 106–118. doi:doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12126CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poll, G. H., Betz, S. K., & Miller, C. A. (2010). Identification of clinical markers of specific language impairment in adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 414–429. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0016)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulsen, M., & Gravgaard, A. K. D. (2016). Who did what to whom? The relationship between syntactic aspects of sentence comprehension and text comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 325–338. doi:10.1080/10888438.2016.1180695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riches, N. G. (2012). Sentence repetition in children with specific language impairment: an investigation of underlying mechanisms: Sentence repetition in children with SLI. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47, 499–10. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00158.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riches, N. G., Loucas, T., Baird, G., Charman, T., & Simonoff, E. (2010). Sentence repetition in adolescents with specific language impairments and autism: An investigation of complex syntax. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 45, 47–60. doi:10.3109/13682820802647676CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwering, S. C., & MacDonald, M. C. (2020). Verbal working memory as emergent from language comprehension and production. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 14, 68–68. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00068CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2006). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Fourth edition. London: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Silva, M., & Cain, K. (2015). The Relations Between Lower And Higher Level Comprehension Skills and Their Role in Prediction of Early Reading Comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 321–331. doi:10.1037/a0037769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites of the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Smith, S. T., Macaruso, P., Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1989). Syntactic comprehension in young poor readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 429–454. doi:10.1017/S0142716400009012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorenson Duncan, T., Mimeau, C., Crowel, N., & Deacon, S. H, . (2021). Not all sentences are created equal: evaluating the relation between children's understanding of basic and difficult sentences and their reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113, 268–278. doi:10.1037/edu0000545Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 37, 245-251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, D. B., & Poulsen, M. (2015). Cue conflicts in context: interplay between morphosyntax and discourse context in Danish preschoolers’ semantic role assignment. Journal of Child Language, 42, 1237–1266. doi:10.1017/S0305000914000786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: a case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, X., & McBride, C. (2017). A reciprocal relationship between syntactic awareness and reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 57, 33–44. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traxler, M. J. (2014). Trends in syntactic parsing: anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 605–611. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. (2017). WISC V. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition. Danish version. Stockholm, Sweden: Pearson.Google Scholar