Syntax Development and its Relation with Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension among ELLs and EL1s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigates the development of syntax and its relation with vocabulary and reading comprehension among English-Language-Learners (ELLs) and monolinguals (EL1s). The first study examined longitudinally the mutually facilitating relations between syntax and vocabulary of ELLs and EL1s in Grades 1-6. In both groups, Grade 1 vocabulary and vocabulary growth predicted Grade 6 syntax. For EL1s, Grade 1 syntax and syntactic growth predicted Grade 6 vocabulary. In contrast, for ELLs only Grade 1 syntax, but not syntactic growth, predicted Grade 6 vocabulary. Additionally, nonverbal reasoning in Grade 1 predicted Grade 6 vocabulary and syntax over and beyond the effects of growth estimates (i.e., Grade 1 performance and growth pace), suggesting that the ability to detect non-linguistic patterns is positively associated with the ability to detect linguistic patterns, and both types of abilities contribute to language learning. The second study revealed a more granular longitudinal relation between syntax and vocabulary from Grades 1-4. In particular, the predictive magnitude from vocabulary to syntax in Grade 1 was larger than that from syntax to vocabulary among ELLs (i.e., within group comparison), and the predictive magnitude from vocabulary to syntax was consistently stronger among ELLs than EL1s (i.e., across group comparison). Results suggest that among ELLs (and less so among EL1s) syntax development draws on an accumulation of vocabulary in elementary school. The third study reviews the available literature on syntax development, and its relation with reading comprehension in two typologically different languages, English and Chinese. This review suggests that regardless of the language and its status (i.e., ELL/EL1), syntax significantly predicts reading comprehension, especially when language proficiency becomes more established. Notably, the review revealed inconsistencies in how syntax and morphosyntax are defined and operationalized. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. Taken together, this dissertation supports a lexicalist perspective arguing that syntactic development depends on an accumulation of vocabulary. Individual differences in statistical learning explain growth over time on vocabulary (declarative knowledge) and syntax (procedural knowledge) in both ELLs and EL1s. This dissertation also shows that in addition to vocabulary, syntax contributes to reading comprehension regardless of ELL/EL1 status.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".