The Role of Awareness of Cross‐Language Suffix Correspondences in Second‐Language Reading Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding text in a second language can be particularly challenging. The authors explored the contribution of morphological awareness in children's first and second languages to development in second‐language reading comprehension. Critically, the authors examined the role of a skill that might be at the heart of these cross‐linguistic connections: awareness of cross‐language suffix correspondences. This is the awareness, for instance, that the French suffix ‐ eux and the English suffix ‐ ous have the same meaning in the two languages, despite the fact that they look and sound different. The authors tested the contributions of each of these morphological skills to French reading comprehension in a study of students with diverse first languages enrolled in a Canadian early French immersion program with instruction entirely in French. Seventy‐five students were tested in grade 2 and again in grade 3. In grade 2, students completed measures of English and French morphological awareness and awareness of cross‐language suffix correspondences, along with control measures of nonverbal ability, French vocabulary, and French phonological awareness. In grades 2 and 3, students completed measures of French reading comprehension. The authors found that both English and French morphological awareness were related to grade 3 reading comprehension. Neither relation was significant after the autoregressor. In contrast, awareness of cross‐language suffix correspondences predicted individual differences in French reading comprehension, including after autoregressive controls. These findings show the importance of awareness of commonalities between suffixes across languages in enabling the development of French reading comprehension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".