View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Impact of Diglossia on Phonological Processing

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Impact of Diglossia on Phonological Processing
Language: English
Authors: Asadi, Ibrahim A., Abu-Rabia, Salim
Source: Reading Psychology. 2021 42(7):685-699.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2021
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Grade 1
Descriptors: Phonological Awareness, Semitic Languages, Kindergarten, Grade 1, Naming, Speech Communication, Phonology, Phonemes, Reading Skills, Language Usage, Reading, Writing (Composition), Age Differences, Preschool Children, Elementary School Students
DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2020.1864608
ISSN: 0270-2711
Abstract: This study examined the impact of the lexical distance (spoken, modern standard Arabic-MSA, shared, and pseudo-words) on phonological awareness (PA) and naming speed (RAN). The data from this longitudinal study were obtained from 261 native Arabic-speaking kindergarteners, which were then followed to first grade. The data revealed a significant effect of the lexical distance both on PA and RAN. The PA of the spoken language was easier than the MSA and the other clusters. Similarly, the naming speed of the spoken items was better than the MSA but slower than the shared ones. Regardless of lexical distance, the main effect was on the length of the items but not on the phonemic position. Thus, in the Arabic diglossic reality, certain phonological features of the MSA may not be sufficiently developed and available in the first grade for the reading development. The results are discussed in relation to previous findings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1314493
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHaFK8x_Xta9p_Xc-x6onfuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIwhxlMV-Z-IV1fC2wIBEICBm-qnDo3bUc2pJ5t0W476TGBnX6DkmuJaD0HeEkwe1e30yizjMdz89rHfkm6jgYiCDFrB8z6d_I_lOqdxWR8ENc1JGcL1DGciy6YKqmiyes4Rs2lCJ6Mxc1makC5yetDScZExHmriZFIqyqm3Vurn-kw4QnEwkiWB9Qa2PVvALsw7nlcc97Rr_4p9m-5Z1Jjsz-fd9prawvdINMBh
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0152850919;bcw01oct.21;2021Oct08.05:35;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0152850919-1">The Impact of Diglossia on Phonological Processing </title> <p>This study examined the impact of the lexical distance (spoken, modern standard Arabic-MSA, shared, and pseudo-words) on phonological awareness (PA) and naming speed (RAN). The data from this longitudinal study were obtained from 261 native Arabic-speaking kindergarteners, which were then followed to first grade. The data revealed a significant effect of the lexical distance both on PA and RAN. The PA of the spoken language was easier than the MSA and the other clusters. Similarly, the naming speed of the spoken items was better than the MSA but slower than the shared ones. Regardless of lexical distance, the main effect was on the length of the items but not on the phonemic position. Thus, in the Arabic diglossic reality, certain phonological features of the MSA may not be sufficiently developed and available in the first grade for the reading development. The results are discussed in relation to previous findings.</p> <p>Keywords: Phonological awareness; naming speed; lexical access; lexical distance; Arabic diglossia</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The role of early literacy skills in children's acquisition of reading and writing has attracted scholars to investigate various orthographies in order to understand their predictors of reading acquisition (Gellert & Elbro, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref1">8</reflink>]; Mansour-Adwan, Asadi, & Khateb, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref2">15</reflink>]). The most popular variable, phonological processing, includes three basic components: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>) phonological awareness (PA); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>) phonological access to lexical store (such as speed of lexical access); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>) verbal short-term memory (Gillon, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>]; Kibby, Lee, & Dyer, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>]; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]). However, literacy development in general and phonological processing aspects in particular, may differ among languages according to the unique characteristics of the language at hand (Share, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>]). This is particularly important for the Arabic language in light of the diglossia phenomenon and the existence of two forms of the same language (Maamouri, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]), which may influence the development of oral language in Arabic (see below). Hence, this study focused on investigating the influence of profile differences and characteristics of the items in PA and speed of lexical access, as measured by rapid automatic naming (RAN)—among Arabic-speaking preschoolers and first graders.</p> <p>Phonological processing is used for a wide range of skills, including representation, manipulation, storage, and retrieval of speech sounds, which explains the importance of PA and lexical access in phonological processes (Layes, Lalonde, & Rebai, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref12">13</reflink>]). While PA is related to decoding accuracy by converting written letters into the speech codes that they represent, RAN is related to reading fluency and to the speed needed to access and retrieve phonological codes from the lexicon.</p> <p>Given that phonological processing involves accessing, manipulating, and retrieval of phonological representation of words that are memorized and organized in an individual's long-term memory according to their phonological features, the performance of both PA and RAN is thought to be influenced by the unique characteristics of the phonological and lexical representation, the quality, and the availability of these representations (Saiegh-Haddad, Levin, Hende, & Ziv, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref13">23</reflink>]). In this same context, the lexical restructuring view suggests that phonological manipulation of familiar words is more efficient than that of unfamiliar words due to the effective representations and more fine-grained phonological information of the familiar ones (Metsala, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>]; Metsala & Walley, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]). This may be particularly true of Arabic, in view of the diglossic phenomenon that characterizes this language. Some scholars (Maamouri, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]) have related the low performance of Arabic-speaking children on international reading tests to the diglossic situation.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-3">Diglossia in Arabic</hd> <p>Diglossia refers to the existence of two forms of the same language that are used in different situations (Ferguson, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). In Arabic, this phenomenon manifests as spoken Arabic (SA) and modern standard Arabic (MSA). Children use only the spoken form for oral communication until the preschool period, and then the MSA form is acquired through formal instruction and used for reading and writing and for formal communication purposes (Saiegh-Haddad & Henkin-Roitfarb, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]). The two forms of Arabic are distinct at different linguistic levels, including the semantical, syntactical, morphological, and phonological levels (Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref20">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref22">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>The influence of lexical and phonological distance between the spoken and MSA language on PA has been investigated in various studies. Saiegh-Haddad ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]) reported that while manipulating phonemes found only in the MSA is more difficult than manipulating those that exist also in the spoken one, the lexical distance between the spoken and the MSA (and even pseudo-words) did not affect the performance in PA when the target phoneme was not diglossic. Similar findings were reported in a recent study showing that use of monosyllabic consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) items did not alter the performance of Arabic-speaking preschoolers in PA among the three clusters of spoken, MSA, and shared (identical) CVCs that exist in both spoken and MSA, in which the performance was higher than with pseudo-words (Asadi & Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref25">4</reflink>]). However, in a follow-up study, the author used items with more complex syllabic structure and showed that the lexical distance between the spoken and the MSA was found to influence the performance in PA among kindergarteners and first graders. The unexpected results concern the lack of the influence of the lexical distance on PA; these results were also in contrast with the lexical restructuring view and could be explained by the simpler syllabic structure in the Arabic language than in English (Asadi & Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]; Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref27">19</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>]). Indeed, among other features that were found to influence phonological manipulation are the length and complexity of the items and the positions of the target phonemes (initial versus final), which children are required to manipulate. As for the length of the target words, different studies have reported that manipulating simple and short items is easier than manipulating complex and long ones (Guitard, Saint-Aubin, Tehan, & Tolan, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]; Ibrahim, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref30">11</reflink>]). This finding suggests that the performance is also influenced by the degree of cognitive skills required for the tasks (such as short-term memory), especially when the tasks are more complex or more demanding.</p> <p>Fewer studies have focused on the influence of diglossia on speed of lexical access and on storage and short-term memory functions. Asaad and Eviatar ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]), using RAN tests for letters, tested the influence of diglossia on speed of letter naming and showed that naming speed for letters that represent standard phonemes was significantly slower than for other letters in all age groups except for adults (Asaad & Eviatar, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]). In addition, a recent study reported that diglossia negatively influenced storage and short-term memory functions of native Arab college students, showing that the performance in verbal learning memory in the spoken language was higher than in MSA (Taha, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref33">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-4">This Study</hd> <p>The inconsistency of the influence of diglossia on PA, which is related partially to the use of simple monosyllabic items, and previous studies concerned with the influence of diglossia on phonological processing have ignored the speed of lexical access component and focused only on the PA task. This study, however, <emph>aimed to concurrently test the influence of diglossia on PA and RAN and whether this influence may differ between kindergartners and first graders.</emph> Specifically, we aimed at testing the influence of lexical distance between spoken, MSA, shared, and pseudo-word clusters on PA, but without pseudo-word clusters on the speed of lexical access (using RAN tasks). Additionally, this study tested the influence of length of items and the position of the target phonemes on the performance of PA. Finally, and unlike previous studies, this longitudinal study followed children from kindergarten to first grade. Our main research question is as follows: What is the influence of the diglossia on PA and RAN among Arabic-speaking kindergartners and first graders?</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-5">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0152850919-6">Participants</hd> <p>A cohort of 261 Arabic-speaking children (125 girls and 136 boys) was followed for 2 years, from the third year (K3) of kindergarten (<emph>M</emph><subs>age in month </subs>=71.4; SD= 3.7) to the end of first grade (<emph>M</emph><subs>age in month </subs>=83.1; SD= 4.5). Arabic was the primary language of all participants, who were recruited from nine regular Arabic preschools in north Israel and come from various socioeconomic backgrounds. These kindergartens were randomly selected from nine different cities in the northern district of the education system. All children in the selected kindergartens participated in this study (about 29 children in each kindergarten), except for children with physical and mental disabilities based on their school reports.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-7">Measures</hd> <p>The measurements used in this study were used in an earlier study (Asadi, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]), which included a wide range of linguistic and cognitive tasks that were tested in both kindergarten and first grade.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-8">Phonemic isolation</hd> <p>The task consisted of 64 items administered to children in order to test their ability to isolate initial and final phonemes. These items targeted four different clusters that differ in their linguistic affiliation (see online Appendix A). They included 16 items from the spoken language (such as /βAʋτℛAλω:υ/), 16 items from the MSA (such as /:/), and 16 items that were shared by both spoken and MSA (such as /:/) in addition to 16 pseudo-words (such as /:/). The spoken and shared items included phonemes that exist in the spoken language, and half of the literary items (eight) and pseudo-words (eight) included phonemes that exist only in the MSA (such as //,//,//,//). As for the length of the items, there were (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref35">1</reflink>) 16 simple (CVC) monosyllabic items (such as /σℜʋ:ϕ/) with three phonemes; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>) 16 complex (CVCC and CCVC) monosyllabic items (such as /d/ and /:/, respectively) with four phonemes; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref37">3</reflink>) 16 bisyllabic items (such as /:/) with between five and six phonemes; and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref38">4</reflink>) 16 disyllabic items (such as /AΞτℜAβυ:τℜ/) with between seven and eight phonemes. For the purpose of controlling the length of the items in the four aforementioned clusters (which differ in their linguistic affiliation), the items were divided equally into the four clusters; that is, in each cluster there were four simple monosyllabic, four complex monosyllabic, four bisyllabic, and four disyllabic items. The items were read individually to each participant, who had to repeat each word after the examiner and then isolate the targeted phonemes. One point was assigned for successfully isolating final or initial phonemes. The reliability of this test (Cronbach's α) was 0.95.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-9">Naming speed</hd> <p>The naming speed task was developed in order to test the lexical retrieval speed of visually presented objects using three versions of a RAN—task, which differed with respect to the linguistic affiliation of the words they represented: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref39">1</reflink>) RAN for spoken words (such as /βA:σ/); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref40">2</reflink>) RAN for MSA words (such as /:/); and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>) RAN for shared words (such as /:/). Each list consisted of five different pictures of objects that were randomly repeated 10 times each (50 stimuli). The length of the words in the three tests was controlled so that each version included two mono- and three bisyllabic words. Based on the teachers who prepared the kindergarten report, the children were exposed to all of the words, including those in the MSA, during daily activities. However, before starting the task, each participant was first required to identify five stimuli in each version. During the test, a participant was asked to name the stimuli as rapidly as possible. The time of naming was recorded in each of the subtests, providing a final score of items per minute for each version. The validity of the RAN tasks was tested by correlations analysis between the spoken and the MSA version (<emph>r</emph> = 0.59; <emph>p</emph><.001), between the spoken and the shared version (<emph>r</emph> = 0.67; <emph>p</emph><.001), and finally between the shared and the MSA version (<emph>r</emph> = 0.60; <emph>p</emph><.001). Based on the high correlations between the three versions, a general index of RAN was produced.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-10">Procedure</hd> <p>The tasks were administrated in a quiet room at preschools and schools that participated in this study. In the first phase, during the third trimester (between April and June) of kindergarten, each child was individually tested in PA and RAN tasks. The PA task was conducted separately for initial and final phonemes. The three versions of RAN were randomized among children. The same process was conducted in the second phase (at the end of first grade, which was between May and June). The same participants were given the same measures of PA and RAN. All of the examiners were students in the field of learning disabilities, and all had received specific and detailed training for administration of the tasks in the different stages.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-11">Results</hd> <p>The descriptive statistics of a participant's raw scores of the impact of lexical distance on PA and RAN are found in Table 1, which presents the performance in the different clusters both for kindergartners and first graders with no indication for ceiling or floor effects. In addition, the differences in the performance between kindergartners and first graders were significant (<emph>p</emph><.001) for all variables.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive statistics of raw scores mean and SD for phonological awareness and RAN.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Grade</td><td>Phonological awareness</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Spoken</td><td>MSA</td><td>Shared</td><td>Pseudo</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>Max</td></tr><tr><td>K3<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">a</xref></td><td char=".">10.7</td><td char=".">4.7</td><td char=".">10.4</td><td char=".">4.8</td><td char=".">10.3</td><td char=".">4.8</td><td char=".">9.1</td><td char=".">4.7</td><td char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">b</xref></td><td char=".">14.2</td><td char=".">2.9</td><td char=".">13.7</td><td char=".">3.4</td><td char=".">13.8</td><td char=".">3.2</td><td char=".">13.3</td><td char=".">3.2</td><td char=".">16</td></tr><tr><td>RAN</td></tr><tr><td>K3</td><td char=".">36.9</td><td char=".">10.7</td><td char=".">28.8</td><td char=".">10.2</td><td char=".">39.2</td><td char=".">10.7</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Grade 1</td><td char=".">43.1</td><td char=".">11.1</td><td char=".">34.8</td><td char=".">10.9</td><td char=".">48.8</td><td char=".">12.8</td><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 The values for rapid automatized naming (RAN) represents item per minute.</p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>n</emph> = 261.</item> <item>3 <emph>n</emph> = 260.</item> </ulist> <p>In order to test the impact of the lexical distance (spoken, MSA, shared, and pseudo-words) on PA, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures analyses were done. These analyses revealed a significant main effect of the lexical status <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref43">257</reflink>)=57.1; <emph>p</emph><.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.181 and grade level <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref44">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref45">259</reflink>)=220.7, <emph>p</emph><.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.460. In addition, a significant interaction between the lexical distance and grade level was found: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref47">257</reflink>)=9.33, <emph>p</emph><.001, <emph>η <sups>2</sups></emph>=0.035. To understand the source of the lexical distance effect, and following previous scholars (Shany & Share, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref48">24</reflink>]), pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni test were done. In both grades, the performance in spoken cluster was significantly higher than in shared and MSA clusters that did not differ. The performance in pseudo-words was significantly lower than in the other clusters (spoken > MSA = shared > pseudo-words). The main effect obtained for the grade level was due to higher performance in the first grade than in kindergarten in all clusters (see Table 1). Finally, the gap between pseudo-words and the other clusters was larger in kindergarten than in the first grade, which may explain the significant interaction between the two factors.</p> <p>As for the impact of the lexical distance (spoken, MSA, and shared) on RAN, the repeated measures revealed significant main effects of the lexical distance: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref49">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib255" id="ref50">255</reflink>)=274.5, <emph>p</emph><.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.517, and grade level <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib256" id="ref52">256</reflink>)=204.3; <emph>p</emph><.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.444. Also, the interaction of lexical distance by grade level was found to be significant: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib255" id="ref54">255</reflink>)=15.1, <emph>p</emph><.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><emph><sups></sups></emph>=0.056. Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni test revealed that the differences among the three clusters were significant (<emph>p</emph><.001) both in kindergarten and first grade. Also, the main effect of grade level was due to higher performance in the first grade than in kindergarten. The interaction between the two factors may be explained by the larger gap between the shared and each of the other two clusters in the first grade than in kindergarten (see Figure 1).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Performance in raw scores for phonological awareness (on the left) and RAN (on the right) in the different clusters (N = 261).</p> <p>As for the impact of the length of the items, such as the simple monosyllabic (three phonemes), complex monosyllabic (four phonemes), bisyllabic (5–6 phonemes), and disyllabic (7–8 phonemes) on PA, the repeated measures revealed a significant effect of the length <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref56">257</reflink>)=94.8; <emph>p</emph><.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.272, and grade level <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref58">259</reflink>)=219.9; <emph>p</emph><.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.460. In addition, a significant interaction was found between the length and grade level <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib258" id="ref60">258</reflink>)=12.6; <emph>p</emph><.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.047. Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni test revealed that the performance in short words was significantly higher than in long ones in both grades except for the differences between complex monosyllabic and bisyllabic words that revealed an opposite pattern showing higher performance in the bisyllabic words both in kindergarten (<emph>p</emph><.001) and in first grade (<emph>p</emph><.05), as presented in Table 2. Also, similar to the previous analysis, the performance in first grade was significantly higher than in kindergarten. The interaction between length and grade level may be related to differences in the gap between the complex monosyllabic (and disyllabic) and the others. This gap was higher in kindergarten than in first grade (see Figure 2).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Performance in raw scores for the different clusters in phonological awareness by length (on the left) and by phonemic position (on the right) tasks (N = 261).</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics of raw scores mean and SD for the length of the items.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Grade</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Simple-mono<sup>a</sup></td><td /><td>Complex-mono<sup>b</sup></td><td /><td>Bi-syllabic<sup>c</sup></td><td /><td>Di-syllabic<sup>d</sup></td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>Max</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>K3<sup>e</sup></td><td>11.4</td><td>4.6</td><td>9.7</td><td>4.9</td><td>10.7</td><td>4.7</td><td>9.1</td><td>4.8</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1<sup>f</sup></td><td>14.5</td><td>2.5</td><td>13.7</td><td>3.2</td><td>14.1</td><td>2.7</td><td>13.3</td><td>2.6</td><td>16</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Simple-mono: Simple mono-syllabic items with 3 phonemes.</item> <item>5 Complex-mono: complex mono-syllabic items with 4 phonemes.</item> <item>6 Bi-syllabic: bi-syllabic items with 5–6 phonemes.</item> <item>7 Di-syllabic: di-syllabic items with 7–8 phonemes.</item> <item>8 <emph>n</emph> = 261.</item> <item>9 <emph>n</emph> = 260.</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, in contrast to lexical status and the item length, the main effect of phonemic position (initial versus final) on PA was not significant: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref62">259</reflink>)=3.58; <emph>p</emph>>.05; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups> =0.014. The impact of grade level, however, was found to be significant: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref64">259</reflink>)=2.18, <emph>p</emph><.001, <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups>=0.458, indicating higher performance in the first grade than in kindergarten. Also, the interaction of phonemic position by grade level was found to be significant: <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib259" id="ref66">259</reflink>)=21.1; <emph>p</emph><.001; <emph>η</emph><sups>2</sups><emph><sups></sups></emph>=0.075. Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni test revealed that manipulating final phonemes was significantly higher than initial ones in the first grade, but not in kindergarten, which may explain the interaction of position by grade level (as shown in Table 3 and Figure 2).</p> <p>Table 3. Descriptive statistics of raw scores mean and SD for the phonemic position.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Grade</td><td>Initial</td><td>Final</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>M</italic></td><td>SD</td><td>M</td><td>SD</td><td>Max</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>K3<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn10">a</xref></td><td char=".">20.6</td><td char=".">9.1</td><td char=".">19.9</td><td char=".">10.5</td><td char=".">32</td></tr><tr><td>Grade 1<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn11">b</xref></td><td char=".">26.6</td><td char=".">.47</td><td char=".">28.4</td><td char=".">6.2</td><td char=".">32</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>10 <emph>n</emph> = 261.</item> <item>11 <emph>n</emph> = 260.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0152850919-12">Discussion</hd> <p>This longitudinal study aimed at examining the impact of diglossia and lexical distance on two of the components of phonological processing: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>) PA (using a phonemic isolation task) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>) speed of lexical access (using RAN tasks). Also, we tested whether this impact differed between kindergartners and first graders. In addition, we tested the impact of the length of the items and the phonemic position on PA. Our results from the repeated measures analyses revealed significant main effects of the lexical distance (both for PA and RAN) and the length of the items, but not for the position of the phoneme to be manipulated. In addition, a main effect of the grade level showed developmental changes in all measures. Finally, our results showed significant interactions between grade level and lexical distance and length of the items and phonemic position.</p> <p>The impact of the lexical distance on PA is in line with previous studies showing that manipulating less-familiar items is more difficult than manipulating familiar ones (Metsala, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref69">17</reflink>]; Walley, Metsala, & Garlock, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]). In our previous study, the differences between the spoken, MSA, and shared words were not significant, which was explained by the use of only simple monosyllabic (CVC) items (Asadi & Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>]). In contrast, in this study, also using complex monosyllabic, bisyllabic, and disyllabic items, the lexical distance between these clusters was found to impact the PA performance. Our results provide support to the lexical restructuring view, according to which PA is influenced by experience with oral language and by familiarity with the phonological features at hand. Indeed, our findings revealed that manipulation of familiar items (real words) was easier than that of unfamiliar ones (pseudo-words). Furthermore, among real words, children manipulated spoken items that they use in their daily communication and that already exist and are stored in their lexicon better than they manipulated MSA and shared items, indicating that the MSA might be less mature in these early grade levels (Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref72">19</reflink>]). Additionally, this finding may suggest that the representations of the phonological features of the MSA (and shared) language are less available even in the first grade, when these phonological features are required for the development of reading processes. As for the similarity in the performance between the shared items and those from the MSA, this may be due to the fact that children in these early grade levels did not yet benefit from the reciprocal relation between PA and written language, at least in the accuracy level of the phonological processing.</p> <p>The impact of the lexical distance on the other component of phonological processing, i.e., speed of lexical access (measured by RAN), was also significant in both grade levels. Our results are in accordance with previous findings in which the speed of lexical access and retrieval of letter names that are less familiar (such as from the MSA) was slower than others in the early grade levels, but not among the adult readers (Asaad & Eviatar, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>]). These results provide additional support to the lexical restructuring view (Metsala, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref74">17</reflink>]; Metsala & Walley, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref75">18</reflink>]; Walley et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]) indicating that accessing and retrieval of phonological information of familiar words seem to be more efficient than those of less familiar ones. Unlike PA, the impact on RAN showed significant differences among the three clusters (spoken, shared, and MSA), in which the shared items were the faster and the MSA were the slower in both grade levels (shared > spoken > MSA). The advantage of the shared items among the spoken ones may be related to the orthographic representation of the shared items. Unlike the spoken items, the shared ones also have orthographic representations that seem to contribute to the efficiency and availability of the phonological information that accelerate the speed of lexical access. However, when the effect of the orthographic representation is controlled, as with MSA and shared items, the familiarity of the items in the oral language becomes the dominant factor that impacts the speed of the lexical access and retrieval of the shared items more than the MSA items, which are less familiar.</p> <p>The advantage in PA of the simple monosyllabic words with respect to the longer items is in accordance with previous findings (Guitard et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]; Wade-Woolley, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref78">28</reflink>]) showing that manipulating short items is easier than manipulating long ones. The impact of the length, however, was not significant when the complexity of the syllabic structure was considered. Specifically, manipulating shorter words (four phonemes) with more complex monosyllabic structures (CCVC and CVCC) was harder than manipulating longer words (5–6 phonemes) with simpler syllabic structures (CVC and CV), indicating that the length of the items is also influenced by the complexity of the syllabic structures of these items. Indeed, some have argued that phonological manipulation of more complex and demanding items may involve higher-order cognitive resources, such as verbal working memory (De Graaff, Hasselman, Bosman, & Verhoeven, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>]). Accordingly, our results provide support to the view that the performance in PA is influenced by the degree of cognitive demand of the task, such as the complexity of the syllabic structure and the length of the items (Caravolas & Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our results concern the impact of the position of the target phonemes on PA, showing that the differences between initial and final phonemes are not significant and do not appear to contribute to the inconsistency in the results from different languages (De Graaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref81">6</reflink>]; McBride-Chang, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref82">16</reflink>]; Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref83">20</reflink>]). In a recent cross-sectional study among Arabic speaking kindergartners (K2 and K3) that aimed to compare the performance of initial and final phonemes using only simple monosyllabic structures (CVC), the authors reported that manipulating initial phonemes was easier than manipulating final ones in both grade levels. However, the mean differences between the initial and final positions were found to be restricted between K2 (2.57) and K3 (1.03), suggesting that the impact of the phonemic position may be influenced by the grade levels (Asadi & Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>]). A follow-up cross-sectional study revealed the opposite pattern when using more complex monosyllabic structures (CVCC and CCVC) among K3 and first graders, who showed higher performance in the final phonemes than in the initial ones (Asadi, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>]). These results are in accordance with this study and with earlier findings from the Arabic language (Saiegh-Hadda, 2004). However, the advantage of final phonemes in this study was observed only in the first graders, indicating that the phonemic position is influenced by grade level and by the complexity of the syllabic structures at hand, which is also in line with the view that PA is influenced by the degree of cognitive demand of the task (Caravolas & Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref86">5</reflink>]).</p> <p>Theoretical implications arising from this study are related to the fact that in Arabic, the diglossia phenomenon, reflected in this study by the lexical distance between words, has an impact on both components of phonological processing—PA and speed of lexical access—showing that manipulating more familiar words that are easily available and represented in the mental lexicon is easier and more efficient than manipulating the less familiar ones, which is in accordance with the lexical restructuring view (Metsala, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref87">17</reflink>]; Metsala & Walley, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref88">18</reflink>]; Walley et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]). Also, phonological characteristics, such as the complexity of the syllabic structure and the phonemic position, influence the performance in PA, suggesting that the latter is influenced by the degree of cognitive demanding task at the different ages (De Graaff et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>]), which leads us to the methodological implications: Future research should pay more attention to the different phonological characteristics of the items when testing PA, taking into consideration the nature of the syllabic structure of the items at hand and whether they are appropriate to the ages of the participants. As for the pedagogical implications, the gap found between the different clusters and especially between the spoken and the MSA may explain some of the difficulties in the Arabic reading process. Therefore, specific and efficient enrichment programs should emphasize exposure to and use of the MSA, not only in preschool, but also in the early elementary grades, which may contribute to better and more efficient representations of the phonological features of the MSA. The main limitation of this study is related to the fact that this study did not include the third component of phonological processing, i.e., verbal short-term memory. In addition, this longitudinal study needs to follow the participants to more advanced grade levels and to investigate when the impact of diglossia on phonological processing may show some change in the gap between the spoken and MSA languages. Finally, the impact of the abovementioned gap should be tested directly on academic skills in Arabic, rather than only on cognitive and linguistic measures that underlie reading and writing skills.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-13">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We acknowledge the staff and the children from the participating preschools for their cooperation as well as students in the master's degree program in learning disabilities for their role in data collection.</p> <hd id="AN0152850919-14">Appendix A</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Lexical clusters</td><td>Phonemic position</td></tr><tr><td>Length of the items*</td></tr><tr><td>Initial</td><td>Final</td></tr><tr><td>Arabic</td><td>IPA</td><td>Arabic</td><td>IPA</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Spoken</td><td>Simple mono-syllabic</td><td>سيد</td><td>:</td><td>سيخ</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>جاط</td><td>α:</td><td>باص</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td>Complex mono-syllabic</td><td>غْبار</td><td>α:</td><td>تْريس</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td>كْبير</td><td>:</td><td>بنْج</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bi-syllabic</td><td>شايِف</td><td>α:</td><td>كَلسات</td><td>αα:</td></tr><tr><td>زِنِخْ</td><td></td><td>دَبْدوب</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td>Di-syllabic</td><td>بسْكليت</td><td>:</td><td>بَنطلون</td><td>αα:</td></tr><tr><td>تَلفون</td><td>αα:</td><td>فَطَريش</td><td>αα:</td></tr><tr><td>MSA</td><td>Simple mono-syllabic</td><td>ذات</td><td>α:</td><td>ريح</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>خام</td><td>α:</td><td>سوق</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td>Complex mono-syllabic</td><td>مَهْد</td><td>α</td><td>لَيْث</td><td>α</td></tr><tr><td /><td>ظِفْر</td><td></td><td>سَرْد</td><td>α</td></tr><tr><td>Bi-syllabic</td><td>ظاهِر</td><td>α:</td><td>مِسواك</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>ثَعْلبْ</td><td>αα</td><td>مَرَحْ</td><td>αα</td></tr><tr><td>Di-syllabic</td><td>خُنفُساء</td><td>α:</td><td>احْتِراق</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>طَماطِم</td><td>αα</td><td>تَعاويذ</td><td>αα:</td></tr><tr><td>Shared</td><td>Simple mono-syllabic</td><td>صوف</td><td>ʢ:</td><td>فيل</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>دين</td><td>:</td><td>ديك</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td>Complex mono-syllabic</td><td>بَنْكْ</td><td>α</td><td>عَرْضْ</td><td>α</td></tr><tr><td /><td>ضَرْب</td><td>α</td><td>حَرْبْ</td><td>α</td></tr><tr><td>Bi-syllabic</td><td>فاتِح</td><td>α:</td><td>مَنْحوس</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>حِرْمان</td><td>α:</td><td>غَرَض</td><td>αα</td></tr><tr><td>Di-syllabic</td><td>سِنْدِباد</td><td>α:</td><td>اخطبوط</td><td>αα:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>نتائِج</td><td>αα:</td><td>سَبانِخ</td><td>αα:</td></tr><tr><td>Pseudo</td><td>Simple mono-syllabic</td><td>حاف</td><td>α:</td><td>تيم</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>لار</td><td>α:</td><td>شوغ</td><td>:</td></tr><tr><td>Complex mono-syllabic</td><td>قْساب</td><td>α:</td><td>لَنْذْ</td><td>α</td></tr><tr><td /><td>ثَوع</td><td>α:</td><td>عْلاظ</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td>Bi-syllabic</td><td>ذِشوان</td><td>α:</td><td>كامِز</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>قِنِفْ</td><td></td><td>نَعْلَفْ</td><td>αα</td></tr><tr><td>Di-syllabic</td><td>ضِنْدِباف</td><td>α:</td><td>بُرْتُعاظ</td><td>α:</td></tr><tr><td /><td>كَنارِب</td><td>αα:</td><td>طلافِث</td><td>αα:</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>12 *simple mono-syllabic included 3 phonemes; complex mono-syllabic included 4 phonemes; bi-syllabic included 5-6 phonemes; di-syllabic included 7-8 phonemes.</p> <ref id="AN0152850919-15"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1864608.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0152850919-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Asaad, H., & Eviatar, Z. (2013). The effects of orthographic complexity and diglossia on letter naming in Arabic: Developmental changes. Writing Systems Research, 5 (2), 156 – 168. doi: 10.1080/17586801.2013.862163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref4" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Asadi, I. A. (2019a). How the characteristics of phonemes and syllabic structures can impact the phonological awareness of kindergarten and first-grade Arabic-speaking children. Reading Psychology, 40 (8), 768 – 781. doi: 10.1080/02702711.2019.1674431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Asadi, I. A. (2019b). The contribution of linguistic and cognitive measures to listening comprehension in Arabic-speaking kindergarteners. Literacy Research and Instruction, 59 (1), 1 – 16. doi: 10.1080/19388071.2019.1662143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref25" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Asadi, I. A., & Abu-Rabia, S. (2019). The impact of the position of phonemes and lexical status on phonological awareness in the diglossic Arabic language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48 (5), 1051 – 1062. doi: 10.1007/s10936-019-09646-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref80" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Caravolas, M., & Landerl, K. (2010). The influences of syllable structure and reading ability on the development of phoneme awareness: A longitudinal, cross-linguistic study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14 (5), 464 – 484. ‏ doi: 10.1080/10888430903034804</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref79" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> De Graaff, S., Hasselman, F., Bosman, A. M., & Verhoeven, L. (2008). Cognitive and linguistic constraints on phoneme isolation in Dutch kindergartners. Learning and Instruction, 18 (4), 391 – 403. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.08.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Languages and social context (pp. 232–251).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref1" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Gellert, A. S., & Elbro, C. (2018). Predicting reading disabilities using dynamic assessment of decoding before and after the onset of reading instruction: A longitudinal study from kindergarten through grade 2. Annals of Dyslexia, 68 (2), 126 – 144. ‏ doi: 10.1007/s11881-018-0159-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York, NY : Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guitard, D., Saint-Aubin, J., Tehan, G., & Tolan, A. (2018). Does neighborhood size really cause the word length effect? Memory & Cognition, 46 (2), 244 – 260. ‏ doi: 10.3758/s13421-017-0761-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ibrahim, R. (2011). Literacy problems in Arabic: Sensitivity to diglossia in tasks involving working memory. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24 (5), 571 – 582. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kibby, M. Y., Lee, S. E., & Dyer, S. M. (2014). Reading performance is predicted by more than phonological processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 960. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Layes, S., Lalonde, R., & Rebai, M. (2019). Effects of an adaptive phonological training program on reading and phonological processing skills in arabic-speaking children with Dyslexia. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35 (2), 103 – 117. ‏ doi: 10.1080/10573569.2018.1515049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maamouri, M. (1998). Language education and human development: Arabic diglossia and its impact on the quality of education in the Arab region.‏ Paper presented at the Mediterranean Development Forum of the World Bank, Marrakech, Morocco.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mansour-Adwan, J., Asadi, I. A., & Khateb, A. (2020). Phonological task comparability in Arabic and relation to reading: A longitudinal assessment in kindergarten and first grade. Reading and Writing, 33 (8), 2121 – 2151. doi: 10.1007/s11145-020-10032-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride-Chang, C. (1995). What is phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (2), 179 – 192. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.179</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children's phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (1), 3 – 19. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24 (3), 431 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0142716403000225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2004). The impact of phonemic and lexical distance on the phonological analysis of words and pseudowords in a diglossic context. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25 (4), 495 – 512. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0142716404001249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2007). Linguistic constraints on children's ability to isolate phonemes in diglossic Arabic. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28 (4), 607 – 625. doi: 10.1017/S0142716407070336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Henkin-Roitfarb, R. (2014). The structure of Arabic language and orthography. In E. Saiegh-Haddad & M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives (pp. 3 – 28). Dordrecht, the Netherlands : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad, E., Levin, I., Hende, N., & Ziv, M. (2011). The linguistic affiliation constraint and phoneme recognition in Diglossic Arabic. Journal of Child Language, 38 (2), 297 – 315. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090999036 doi: 10.1017/S0305000909990365</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., & Share, D. L. (2011). Subtypes of reading disability in a shallow orthography: A double dissociation between accuracy-disabled orthography and rate-disabled readers of Hebrew. Annals of Dyslexia, 61 (1), 64–84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an "outlier" orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584 – 615. ‏ doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taha, H. (2017). How does the linguistic distance between spoken and standard language in Arabic affect recall and recognition performances during verbal memory examination. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46 (3), 551 – 566. ‏ doi: 10.1007/s10936-016-9453-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (1), 33 – 58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade-Woolley, L. (2016). Prosodic and phonemic awareness in children's reading of long and short words. Reading and Writing, 29 (3), 371 – 382. ‏ doi: 10.1007/s11145-015-9600-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L., & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing, 16 (1/2), 5 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A :1021789804977 doi: 10.1023/A:1021789804977</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ibrahim A. Asadi and Salim Abu-Rabia</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib257" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib259" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib255" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib256" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib258" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1314493
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Impact of Diglossia on Phonological Processing
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Asadi%2C+Ibrahim+A%2E%22">Asadi, Ibrahim A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Abu-Rabia%2C+Salim%22">Abu-Rabia, Salim</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Psychology%22"><i>Reading Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2021 42(7):685-699.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonological+Awareness%22">Phonological Awareness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Semitic+Languages%22">Semitic Languages</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Naming%22">Naming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Communication%22">Speech Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonology%22">Phonology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonemes%22">Phonemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Usage%22">Language Usage</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading%22">Reading</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Writing+%28Composition%29%22">Writing (Composition)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Differences%22">Age Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02702711.2020.1864608
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0270-2711
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined the impact of the lexical distance (spoken, modern standard Arabic-MSA, shared, and pseudo-words) on phonological awareness (PA) and naming speed (RAN). The data from this longitudinal study were obtained from 261 native Arabic-speaking kindergarteners, which were then followed to first grade. The data revealed a significant effect of the lexical distance both on PA and RAN. The PA of the spoken language was easier than the MSA and the other clusters. Similarly, the naming speed of the spoken items was better than the MSA but slower than the shared ones. Regardless of lexical distance, the main effect was on the length of the items but not on the phonemic position. Thus, in the Arabic diglossic reality, certain phonological features of the MSA may not be sufficiently developed and available in the first grade for the reading development. The results are discussed in relation to previous findings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1314493
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1314493
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02702711.2020.1864608
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 685
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Phonological Awareness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Semitic Languages
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Naming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Speech Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Phonemes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Usage
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Writing (Composition)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Impact of Diglossia on Phonological Processing
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Asadi, Ibrahim A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Abu-Rabia, Salim
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0270-2711
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 42
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1