CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Reading and Literacy DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and LearningLanguage Development and Disorders

Use of morphological and contextual cues in children’s lexical inferencing in L1 and L2

Open access
Raudszus, Henriette, Segers, Eliane, Verhoeven, Ludo·2021·Reading and Writing
DOI 10.1007/s11145-021-10122-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In an experimental design, we investigated how fifth-grade readers use morphological and contextual information to infer the meaning of unknown words, and to what extent this is related to their cognitive and linguistic skills. A group of 166 fifth-grade Dutch children (59 L1, 107 L2) performed a lexical inferencing task in which the availability of morphological and contextual information was manipulated. Readers used both morphological and contextual information in lexical inferencing. Good decoding skill was related to more use of morphological information. Reading comprehension skill was associated with the use of morphological and contextual cues. L1 and L2 readers did not differ with respect to the use of morphological information. L2 readers used contextual information less in their inferences than L1 readers did. This difference was driven by L2 readers with weak vocabulary. The use of contextual information was especially high in L1 readers with good reading comprehension skills, and especially low in L2 readers with low vocabulary. Results indicate that to access morphological information, decoding is crucial, whereas for contextual inferencing, a minimum of linguistic competence is needed, which makes it more challenging for L2 readers.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In an experimental study with 166 fifth-grade Dutch children (59 L1, 107 L2), readers used both morphological and contextual cues to infer pseudoword meanings, alone and in combination. L1 and L2 readers did not differ in morphological cue use, but L2 readers used contextual information less, especially those with weak vocabulary.

Key findings

  • Children used morphological information when inferring meanings: the morphologically correct option was chosen more often with a morphological cue than without, t(165) = −8.81, p < 0.001, d = 0.97. They also used contextual information for words in isolation, t(165) = −26.04, p < 0.001, d = 2.89, and adding morphological information on top of context further increased morphologically correct choices, t(165) = −4.93, p < 0.001, d = 0.47.
  • L1 and L2 readers did not differ in morphological cue use, but L2 readers used contextual information less than L1 readers (contextual cue × language status: OR = −0.13, SE = 0.05, p = 0.014). This was driven by L2 readers with low vocabulary: contextual cue × language status × vocabulary, OR = 0.15, SE = 0.06, p = 0.012; L2 low-vocabulary readers had lower odds of choosing the contextually correct answer than L2 high-vocabulary readers (OR = −0.62, SE = 0.21, p = 0.018) and L1 low-vocabulary readers (OR = 0.88, SE = 0.33, p = 0.035).
  • Better pseudoword decoding was associated with more morphological cue use (morphological cue × decoding: OR = −0.10, SE = 0.03, p = 0.002), and better reading comprehension was associated with more morphological cue use (OR = −0.11, SE = 0.04, p = 0.007) and larger contextual cue effects (OR = −0.27, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001).
  • In the presence of context, higher vocabulary was associated with greater use of morphological cues (OR = 0.11, SE = 0.04, p = 0.002), while higher grammar was associated with less use of morphological cues (OR = −0.10, SE = 0.03, p = 0.003).

Methods

  • Experimental design with 166 fifth-grade children in urban Netherlands schools: 59 L1 Dutch readers and 107 L2 readers. The lexical inferencing task used 48 pseudoword items, each with two variants (existing Dutch morpheme present or absent) and a semantically constraining sentence frame, yielding four conditions: no clue, morphological information only, contextual information only, and both.
  • Outcome variables were binary: morphological correctness of the chosen answer and contextual correctness of the chosen answer. Predictors included language status, working memory, pseudoword decoding, vocabulary, grammar, and reading comprehension.
  • Data were analyzed with mixed logit models with crossed random effects for subjects and items in R, using lme4 and afex, with a 2 × 2 factorial manipulation of morphological and contextual cue presence.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: children were explicitly prompted to infer meaning for every item, so the study does not show whether readers notice the need to infer during realistic reading; morphological and contextual cue conditions differed in base rate for guessing, preventing direct comparison of effect sizes; cues never conflicted, so relative contribution cannot be fully distinguished; L2 readers’ L1 skills were not assessed; and no individual socio-economic status data were available.
  • Also stated: the working memory task had low reported reliability, and the sample size was limited for exploratory three-way interactions.
  • Evident from the text: the reading comprehension measure was a cloze task, which overlaps conceptually with inferring word meanings from context, though the authors argue prior research makes this unlikely to fully explain the association.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11145-021-10122-z

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

10 of 45 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Study design and conductcitation

    All pseudoword items were checked against the Dutch CELEX corpus using WordGen and were found to be nonexisting words.

    “All pseudoword items were checked against the Dutch CELEX corpus using WordGen (Duyck, Desmet, Verbeke, & Brysbaert, 2004) and were found to be nonexisting words.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Duyck, Desmet, Verbeke, & Brysbaert, 2004 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    Conceptual overlap between the cloze reading comprehension task and lexical inferencing is unlikely to fully explain the association between reading comprehension and contextual inferencing.

    “However, as previous research has found an association between open-ended reading comprehension questions and lexical inferencing (Cain et al., 2003;Ricketts et al., 2011), conceptual overlap between the tasks is unlikely to fully explain the association.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cain et al., 2003 source
    • cites Ricketts et al., 2011 source

      The Background Measures section says children answered questions about passages they had read, and Predicting Orthographic and Semantic Aspects of Word Learning reports a significant positive correlation between reading comprehension and learning new-word meanings from context. Our copy does not specify that the comprehension questions were open-ended; it assessed semantic learning with a nonword–picture matching task rather than a direct lexical-inferencing response. The claim about task overlap is the citing authors’ inference, not a finding attributed to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premiseown data

    Young readers can use context and morphology in their word meaning inferences.

    “Our research confirms findings from the literature that young readers can use context and morphology in their word meaning inferences (e.g., Cain et al., 2003;Joseph & Nation, 2018;McCutchen & Logan, 2011;Ricketts et al., 2011;Zhang & Shulley, 2017)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cain et al., 2003 source
    • cites Joseph & Nation, 2018 source

      The Discussion reports that children inferred word meanings from reading exposures, supporting the context part of the claim. The Method says the -ed ending offered a clue that a target word was a verb, but it does not establish that children used morphology to infer the word’s meaning; the number of morphemes was recorded as a word characteristic, not tested as an inference cue. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites McCutchen & Logan, 2011 source
  • Findingown data

    L2 readers used contextual information less in their inferences than L1 readers did.

    “L2 readers used contextual information less in their inferences than L1 readers did.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “We found that L2 readers used contextual information less in their inferences than L1 readers did”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The difference between L1 and L2 readers in contextual information use was driven by L2 readers with weak vocabulary.

    “This difference was driven by L2 readers with weak vocabulary.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 42
  • May combine two claims. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    One of the key ways in which morphological awareness impacts reading comprehension outcomes is through lexical inferencing on the basis of morphological cues, also referred to as morphological analysis.

    “One of the key ways in which morphological awareness impacts reading comprehension outcomes is through lexical inferencing on the basis of morphological cues, also referred to as morphological analysis (Levesque, Breadmore, & Deacon, 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Levesque, Breadmore, & Deacon, 2020 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research on adult foreign language learners has shown L2 lexical inferencing to be dependent on L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading comprehension skills.

    “Previous research on adult foreign language learners has shown L2 lexical inferencing to be dependent on L2 vocabulary knowledge and L2 reading comprehension skills (Elgort, Perfetti, Rickles, & Stafura, 2015;Elgort & Warren, 2014;Nassaji, 2006;Pulido, 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Elgort, Perfetti, Rickles, & Stafura, 2015 source

      In “Effects of second language proficiency” (page unavailable), the paper reports better contextual word learning among L2 learners with larger vocabularies, and its abstract links learning to lexical-semantic knowledge. It says the advantage *may* be related to better text comprehension; it does not establish that lexical inferencing depends on reading-comprehension skills. The general discussion also says sentence comprehension was comparable between the study’s proficiency groups. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Elgort & Warren, 2014 source

      In “Factors Affecting Incidental Word Learning From Reading” (page unavailable), the paper reports that L2 vocabulary knowledge and text comprehension are associated with contextual vocabulary learning. It distinguishes inferring a word’s meaning for text understanding from learning that word, however, and does not establish that lexical inferencing itself depends on both skills. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Nassaji, 2006 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The lack of difference between L2 and L1 readers in morphological inferencing can be attributed to good decoding skills.

    “Possibly, this can be attributed to the recruitment of L1 vocabulary (Ramirez et al., 2010) as well as enhanced metalinguistic awareness (Adesope et al., 2010) and good decoding skills (Raudszus et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raudszus et al., 2018 source

      The Results (Differences between L1 and L2 readers; page unavailable) report that L2 readers decoded words and pseudowords more efficiently than L1 readers, supporting the reference to good decoding skills. The paper examines reading comprehension, not morphological inferencing, and does not establish that decoding explains a lack of difference in morphological inferencing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Earlier research has shown an association between contextual inferencing and reading comprehension.

    “This is in line with earlier research showing an association between contextual inferencing and reading comprehension (e.g., Cain et al., 2003;Ricketts et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cain et al., 2003 source
    • cites Ricketts et al., 2011 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The finding that lower contextual inferencing in L2 readers is due to lower linguistic ability confirms findings on other reading skills and is in line with findings on adult L2 learners.

    “This confirms findings on other reading skills (Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010;Raudszus et al., 2019;van den Bosch, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2018), and is in line with findings on adult L2 learners (Hamada, 2014;Mori & Nagy, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Lervåg & Aukrust, 2010 source
    • cites Raudszus et al., 2019 source
    • cites van den Bosch, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2018 source
    • Rests on an assumption: L1 and L2 participants did not differ in background knowledge in a way that explains the difference in contextual inferencing.
    • Rests on an assumption: Vocabulary scores are a valid measure of linguistic ability in the target language.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The use of contextual information was especially high in L1 readers with good reading comprehension skills, and especially low in L2 readers with low vocabulary.

    “The use of contextual information was especially high in L1 readers with good reading comprehension skills, and especially low in L2 readers with low vocabulary.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although numerically, pseudoword item versions without morphological information had somewhat lower bigram frequencies, this difference was not statistically significant.

    “Although numerically, pseudoword item versions without morphological information had somewhat lower bigram frequencies, this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.075; d = 0.37).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When the target word contained morphological information, the effect of contextual information was smaller, but still significant.

    “When the target word contained morphological information, the effect of contextual information was smaller, but still significant (OR = -0.19,SE = 0.05, p < 0.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Differences between L1 and L2 readers on vocabulary were large, whereas differences on grammar and reading comprehension were moderate.

    “Differences between L1 and L2 readers on vocabulary were large, whereas differences on grammar and reading comprehension were moderate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    There was no difference between L1 readers with high and low vocabulary knowledge in odds of choosing the contextually correct answer when contextual information was present (OR = 0.46, SE = 0.37, p = 0.598).

    “There was no difference between L1 readers with high and low vocabulary knowledge (OR = 0.46, SE = 0.37, p = 0.598).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fifth-grade readers made use of morphological and contextual cues, both in isolation and combined.

    “Results showed that fifth-grade readers made use of morphological and contextual cues, both in isolation and combined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were no interactions between bilingualism and morphological cue condition, nor between bilingualism, morphological cue condition and any of the background variables.

    “There were also no interactions between bilingualism and morphological cue condition, nor between bilingualism, morphological cue condition and any of the background variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Working memory was correlated with grammar in both L1 and L2 readers.

    “Working memory was correlated with grammar in both L1 and L2 readers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Both high- and low-vocabulary participants showed an effect of morphological information in the absence of contextual information (high vocabulary: OR = 0.52, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001; low vocabulary: OR = 0.43, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001), but only high-vocabulary participants also showed an effect of morphological information in the presence of contextual information (high vocabulary: OR = 0.45, SE = 0.07

    “Post-hoc tests showed that both high-and low-vocabulary participants showed an effect of morphological information in the absence of contextual information (high vocabulary: OR = 0.52, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001; low vocabulary: OR = 0.43, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001), but only high-vocabulary participants also showed an effect of morphological information in the presence of contextual information (high”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The effect of morphological information was smaller for poorer decoders (OR = -0.10, SE = 0.03, p = 0.002), as well as for participants with lower reading comprehension skills (OR = -0.11, SE = 0.04, p = 0.007).

    “The effect of morphological information was smaller for poorer decoders (OR = -0.10,SE = 0.03, p = 0.002), as well as for participants with lower reading comprehension skills (OR = -0.11,SE = 0.04, p = 0.007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Stimuli were pseudo-randomized such that each participant saw each item in one condition only.

    “Stimuli were pseudo-randomized such that each participant saw each item in one condition only.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Reading comprehension theory suggests that lexical inferencing is supported by the same precursors as skilled reading comprehension in general.

    “Reading comprehension theory thus suggests that lexical inferencing is supported by the same precursors as skilled reading comprehension in general.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Morphological and contextual inferencing have both been found to be related to decoding, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills.

    “Morphological and contextual inferencing have largely been investigated separately in the literature on reading development, and both have been found to be related to decoding, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills (e.g., Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003;McCutchen & Logan, 2011;Zhang & Shulley, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cain, Oakhill, & Elbro, 2003 source
    • cites McCutchen & Logan, 2011 source
    • cites Zhang & Shulley, 2017 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The fit of the final models was checked by inspecting normality and heteroscedasticity of residuals visually using the DHARMa package, and all checks showed satisfactory results.

    “The fit of the final models was checked by inspecting normality and heteroscedasticity of residuals visually using the DHARMa package version 0.2.0 (Hartig, 2018).All checks showed satisfactory results for the models presented below.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hartig, 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For successful lexical inferencing, readers can rely on the morphological structure of words, as well as on cues provided by the surrounding context.

    “For successful lexical inferencing, readers can rely on the morphological structure of words, as well as on cues provided by the surrounding context (Haastrup, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Haastrup, 1991

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Contextual inferencing is likely challenging if a small vocabulary limits what can be gathered from context.

    “In particular, contextual inferencing is likely challenging if a small vocabulary limits what can be gathered from context.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Semantic (im)plausibility was checked with several adult native speakers of Dutch.

    “Semantic (im)plausibility was checked with several adult native speakers of Dutch.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Bilingualism status was assessed by an oral questionnaire asking what languages children spoke with their mother, father, siblings, friends, and extended family.

    “Bilingualism status was assessed by means of an oral questionnaire in which children were asked what languages they spoke with their mother, father, siblings, friends, and extended family.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In order to make sure none of the children knew the target words' meaning, pseudowords were used as targets.

    “In order to make sure none of the children knew the target words' meaning, we used pseudowords as targets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    For contextual inferencing, a minimum of linguistic competence is needed, which makes it more challenging for L2 readers.

    “Results indicate that to access morphological information, decoding is crucial, whereas for contextual inferencing, a minimum of linguistic competence is needed, which makes it more challenging for L2 readers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Radboud University.

    “After the study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Radboud University, the first author contacted schools with a high proportion of minority language students, of which seven agreed to participate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Knowledge of Dutch grammar was assessed by the Sentence Reading Task of the Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw.

    “Knowledge of Dutch grammar was assessed by the Sentence Reading Task of the Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw [Language Test for Minority Children Grades 4-6] (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Working memory was assessed by the backward digit span of the WISC-III-NL.

    “Working memory was assessed by the backward digit span of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III, Dutch version (WISC-III-NL, Kort et al., 2005).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kort et al., 2005

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Considering the importance of vocabulary for lexical inferencing from context, L2 readers would be expected to perform more poorly on this skill than L1 readers.

    “Considering the importance of vocabulary for lexical inferencing from context, it would be expected that L2 readers perform more poorly on this skill than L1 readers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Reading comprehension in Dutch was assessed with the Text Reading Task 2 of the Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw.

    “Reading comprehension in Dutch was assessed with the Text Reading Task 2 of the Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw [Language Test for Minority Children Grades 4-6] (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Existing studies showed that the extent to which morphological information is used in meaning inference is related to vocabulary and reading comprehension.

    “Existing studies showed that the extent to which morphological information is used in meaning inference is related to vocabulary and reading comprehension.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    L2 readers often have smaller vocabularies in the school language than L1 readers and consequently lag behind on reading comprehension.

    “These children often have smaller vocabularies in the school language than their monolingual peers (L1 readers), and consequently lag behind on reading comprehension (Melby- Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Melby- Lervåg & Lervåg, 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Vocabulary in Dutch was assessed by the Word Definition Task of the Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw.

    “Vocabulary in Dutch was assessed by the Word Definition Task of the Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen Bovenbouw [Language Test for Minority Children Grades 4-6] (Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Verhoeven & Vermeer, 1993

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For children reading in their L1, there is ample evidence that they are able to infer the meaning of novel words from context, and that their ability to do so is related to decoding, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and working memory.

    “For children reading in their L1, there is ample evidence that they are able to infer the meaning of novel words from context, and that their ability to do so is related to decoding, vocabulary, reading comprehension, and working memory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research has shown that skilled adult readers are able to consider both morphological and contextual cues at the same time when encountering an unknown word while reading.

    “Previous research has shown that skilled adult readers are able to consider both morphological and contextual cues at the same time when encountering an unknown word while reading.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    L1 and L2 children were recruited from the same classrooms and from schools mostly attended by children from the same neighborhoods, in order to minimize possible differences in socio-economic status between groups.

    “We recruited L1 and L2 children from the same classrooms, from schools mostly attended by children from the same neighborhoods, in order to minimize possible differences in socio-economic status between groups.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    Pseudoword decoding efficiency was assessed by the Klepel test version B.

    “Pseudoword decoding efficiency was assessed by the Klepel test version B (van den Bos, Lutje Spelberg, Scheepstra & de Vries, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites van den Bos, Lutje Spelberg, Scheepstra & de Vries, 1994

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Morphological awareness has long been known to influence reading comprehension outcomes.

    “Morphological awareness has long been known to influence reading comprehension outcomes, and has received interest as a potential target for literacy interventions (Bowers & Kirby, 2010;Goodwin & Ahn, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bowers & Kirby, 2010 source
    • cites Goodwin & Ahn, 2013 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies on adult foreign language learners indicated that learners were most likely to make an accurate guess when they combined morphological and contextual information, but that lower-proficiency learners were likely to rely more on morphology and less on context.

    “Studies on adult foreign language learners indicated that learners where most likely to make an accurate guess when they combined morphological and contextual information (Mori, 2003), but that lower-proficiency learners were likely to rely more on morphology and less on context (Hamada, 2014;Mori & Nagy, 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Mori, 2003 source
    • cites Hamada, 2014 source
    • cites Mori & Nagy, 1999 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In this study, readers with good pseudoword decoding were more accurately decoding the novel words in the experiment, allowing them to discover morphological structure.

    “However, given the high transparency of Dutch orthography, in this study it is more likely that readers with good pseudoword decoding were more accurately decoding the novel words in the experiment, allowing them to discover morphological structure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Dutch orthography is highly transparent.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The measure of reading comprehension was a cloze task, which means it also relies on inferencing about possible word meanings given the context.

    “It should be noted that our measure of reading comprehension was a cloze task, which means it also relies on inferencing about possible word meanings given the context.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Children can use both sources of information independently and can also combine information from word-external and word-internal sources.

    “Thus, although children can use both sources of information independently, they can also combine information from word-external and word-internal sources.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The lack of difference between L2 and L1 readers in morphological inferencing can be attributed to enhanced metalinguistic awareness.

    “Possibly, this can be attributed to the recruitment of L1 vocabulary (Ramirez et al., 2010) as well as enhanced metalinguistic awareness (Adesope et al., 2010) and good decoding skills (Raudszus et al., 2018).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Adesope et al., 2010 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Better morphological inferencing leads to better reading comprehension, because gaps in word-to-text integration can be patched better.

    “Secondly, better morphological inferencing leads to better reading comprehension, because gaps in word-to-text integration can be patched better.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous research found no difference in digit span performance assessed in L1 and L2 in children whose L2 was also their language of schooling.

    “However, previous research found no difference in digit span performance assessed in L1 and L2 in children whose L2 was also their language of schooling (Chincotta & Underwood, 1996).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chincotta & Underwood, 1996 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In realistic reading, a problem is not only whether readers can make inferences, but also whether they even notice the need to do so.

    “In realistic reading, a problem is not only whether readers can make inferences, but also whether they even notice the need to do so (Haastrup, 1991).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Haastrup, 1991

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    In a realistic reading context, low vocabulary can lead to readers not being able to process all cues effectively.

    “In this situation, low vocabulary can lead to readers not being able to process all cues effectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: In realistic reading, children often face the task of using morphological information when a surrounding context is also present.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is possible that even if L1 and L2 students were recruited from the same classrooms, they differed in their socio-economic background in addition to their linguistic profile.

    “It is possible that even if L1 and L2 students were recruited from the same classrooms, they differed in their socio-economic background in addition to their linguistic profile.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    We cannot exclude the explanation that L2 and L1 participants differed not only in their vocabulary, but also in their background knowledge.

    “we cannot exclude the explanation that L2 and L1 participants differed not only in their vocabulary, but also in their background knowledge.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Background knowledge has been shown to influence reading comprehension in L2 readers.

    “As research has shown background knowledge to influence reading comprehension in L2 readers (e.g., Droop & Verhoeven, 1998)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Droop & Verhoeven, 1998 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study did not take into account L2 readers' L1 skills.

    “Also, while we investigated lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 readers, we did not take into account L2 readers' L1 skills.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In the study design, morphological and contextual cues never provided conflicting information, so their relative contribution cannot be fully distinguished.

    “Thirdly, in our design, morphological and contextual cues never provided conflicting information, which means that their relative contribution cannot be fully distinguished.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    L2 children with small vocabularies might be less effective at contextual inferencing.

    “Considering contextual inferencing from context, L2 children with small vocabularies might be less effective at this skill.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    No data about individual students' socio-economic status were available.

    “Finally, no data about individual students' socio-economic status were available.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The stimuli were designed to address situations that all primary school children are familiar with.

    “While our stimuli were designed to address situations that all primary school children are familiar with”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Brusnighan and Folk (2012) showed processing time disadvantages even in skilled adult readers when conflicting information was provided.

    “Brusnighan and Folk (2012) showed processing time disadvantages even in skilled adult readers when conflicting information was provided.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brusnighan and Folk (2012) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The role of memory in inferencing might be a passive resonance process rather than active construction.

    “Also, the role of memory in inferencing might be a passive resonance process rather than active construction (Bolger, Balass, Landen, & Perfetti, 2008)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bolger, Balass, Landen, & Perfetti, 2008 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In order to use morphological information, accurate decoding is crucial.

    “In order to use morphological information, accurate decoding is crucial.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    In order to access information from context, a minimum of linguistic competence is needed, and L2 readers do not always reach that threshold.

    “In order to access information from the context, a minimum of linguistic competence is needed, and L2 readers do not always reach that threshold.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The low reliability of the working memory task and the limited sample size could be additional reasons for the null results with respect to working memory.

    “This, in addition to our limited sample size, could be another reason for the null results with respect to working memory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is possible that for the L2 participants, the Dutch digit span measure underestimated their working memory, resulting in less reliable results with respect to working memory.

    “It is therefore possible that for the L2 participants, the Dutch digit span measure underestimated their working memory, resulting in less reliable results with respect to working memory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
61 of 61

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Readers with a high level of decoding, vocabulary, and grammar knowledge are better able to infer the meaning of unknown words than readers with lower language and reading proficiency.

    “It can be assumed that readers with a high level of decoding, vocabulary, and grammar knowledge are better able to infer the meaning of unknown words than readers with lower language and reading proficiency.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous research on lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 reading children has not considered morphological and contextual information sources at the same time.

    “Previous research on lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 reading children has not considered these information sources at the same time, while in a real-world reading situation, readers need to process and integrate both types of cues.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Children born outside the Netherlands have different exposure to Dutch from the other participants.

    “Children who were born outside of the Netherlands were also excluded from participation, as their exposure to Dutch can be assumed to be different from the other participants.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In a real-world reading situation, readers need to process and integrate both morphological and contextual cues.

    “Previous research on lexical inferencing in L1 and L2 reading children has not considered these information sources at the same time, while in a real-world reading situation, readers need to process and integrate both types of cues.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Dutch orthography is highly transparent.

    “given the high transparency of Dutch orthography”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    L1 and L2 participants did not differ in background knowledge in a way that explains the difference in contextual inferencing.

    “we cannot exclude the explanation that L2 and L1 participants differed not only in their vocabulary, but also in their background knowledge.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Vocabulary scores are a valid measure of linguistic ability in the target language.

    “Lower contextual inferencing skills in L2 readers are thus not a result of their language status, but of their lower linguistic ability in the target language.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Making a lexical inference requires holding verbal material in memory until all cues are combined.

    “in order to make a lexical inference, verbal material needs to be held in memory until all cues are combined.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In realistic reading, children often face the task of using morphological information when a surrounding context is also present.

    “In a realistic reading context, children will often face the task of using morphological information when a surrounding context is also present.”
9 of 9

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(135.99) = -0.72reported p = .476 · recomputed p = .473

    “t(135.99)= -0.72,p = .476”

  • Consistentt(150.14) = -1.45reported p = .15 · recomputed p = .149

    “t(150.14)= -1.45,p = .150”

  • Consistentt(149.71) = 5.48reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(149.71)= 5.48, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(138.69) = 2.67reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “t(138.69)= 2.67, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(149.46) = 2.68reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008

    “t(149.46)= 2.68, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(165) = -8.81reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(165) = -8.81,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(165) = -26.04reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(165) = -26.04,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(165) = -4.93reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(165) = -4.93,p < .001”

8 of 8

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • L1 and L2 sample counts disagree with Table 1

    Major

    The participant description reports 59 L1 and 107 L2 children, while Table 1 lists 64 L1 and 102 L2 children for the background measures. Both pairs total 166, but the group counts differ.

  • Low-grammar contextual-condition effect is reported twice with different values

    Minor

    For low-grammar participants with contextual information present, the paragraph gives an effect of 0.46, then gives 0.51 for the same condition. The latter duplicates the value previously reported for words in isolation.

  • Table 4 z-score does not match its estimate and SE

    Minor

    The reported estimate divided by its SE gives −1.6, not the reported z-score of −0.59; rounding of the estimate and SE cannot account for the difference.

    Reported -0.59 · recomputed -1.6

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brus, B. T., & Voeten, M. J. M. (1999). Een-minuut-test: Vorm A en B (EMT). Nijmegen: Berkhout.
  2. van den Bos, K. P., Lutje Spelberg, H. C., Scheepstra, A. J. M., & De Vries, J. R. (1994). De Klepel: Vorm A en B. Een test voor de leesvaardigheid van pseudowoorden [The Klepel: Form A and B. A test for ability for reading pseudowords]. Nijmegen: Berkhout.
  3. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1993). Taaltoets Allochtone Kinderen-Bovenbouw [Language Test for Minority Children-Grades 4–6]. Tilburg: Zwijsen.
  4. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A. (1996). Taalvaardigheid in de bovenbouw [Language ability in the upper grades of primary school]. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Raudszus, H., Segers, E., & Verhoeven, L.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Raudszus, Henriette
ORCID
Venue
Reading and Writing
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-01-27
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
1513-1538
ISSN
  • 0922-4777 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0905
DOI
10.1007/s11145-021-10122-z
OpenAlex
W3125508682
Semantic Scholar
08a72f8d5462aa4b13d2365f8b329afd5fbd355f
Cited by
15
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Reading and Writing (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
lexical inferencing, morphological cues, contextual cues, second language reading, bilingual children, decoding, reading comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, Dutch as a second language

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-19.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-19.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review