The Linguistic Pathways Model: Capturing the Multiple Dimensions of Reading Development
Saved in:
| Title: | The Linguistic Pathways Model: Capturing the Multiple Dimensions of Reading Development |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Xiuhong Tong (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2025 60(4). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 22 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Reading Processes, Oral Language, Reading Comprehension, Reading Instruction, Reading Skills, Skill Development, Syntax, Sentence Structure |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.70069 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | The importance of oral language skills in reading comprehension is widely recognized in contemporary models. Building on this foundation, we propose the Linguistic Pathways Model. In this model, we illuminate mechanistic and developmental detail by which individual components of oral language support reading comprehension and embrace the multiple dimensions across which reading development plays out. This is the level of theoretical detail needed to inform instruction in the classroom that is most likely to propel children on strong trajectories of reading development. We illustrate the value of this model by focusing on syntactic skills--the ability to understand and manipulate sentence structure. We hypothesize two core pathways by which syntactic skills impact reading comprehension. In the syntax-to-lexicon pathway, syntactic skills influence how readers construct lexical representations, ultimately impacting reading comprehension. In the syntax-to-sentence pathway, syntactic skills affect reading comprehension by shaping how readers parse sentences and generate predictions about upcoming information. In each, we elaborate on mechanisms of these influences. We also detail the nature of developmental effects, including changes in relative reliance on skills over time and the temporal order of effects, and the interactions between the two. This work provides a new theoretical model for understanding the precise pathways through which individual oral language skills contribute to reading comprehension development, making predictions that are testable in classrooms. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1486960 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEG8O_nR2QptYkTla89o-6nAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDM7hQdsd3tScdXjNKgIBEICBm6dCZc8q2dOBnp1E8KlCF6eLHQhpAMdTUjjwsaLkUWVl8ybJVOMFTvJPCELbvCLXqrr0on4t_tt3p5eVH3Vun4E32XzJK9YOmhcPl6ShS0CneTsWmymXrPMM4wbX07p6497Atw0rMaYVMyaEcywT9DZl4QwL5WZswZVwXBRYFp9gcwYe2ULzsYj8XkXhV76hmp8jH6W3zs874-jH Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0188874275;[nrnu]01oct.25;2025Oct28.05:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188874275-1">The Linguistic Pathways Model: Capturing the Multiple Dimensions of Reading Development </title> <p>The importance of oral language skills in reading comprehension is widely recognized in contemporary models. Building on this foundation, we propose the Linguistic Pathways Model. In this model, we illuminate mechanistic and developmental detail by which individual components of oral language support reading comprehension and embrace the multiple dimensions across which reading development plays out. This is the level of theoretical detail needed to inform instruction in the classroom that is most likely to propel children on strong trajectories of reading development. We illustrate the value of this model by focusing on syntactic skills—the ability to understand and manipulate sentence structure. We hypothesize two core pathways by which syntactic skills impact reading comprehension. In the syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway, syntactic skills influence how readers construct lexical representations, ultimately impacting reading comprehension. In the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway, syntactic skills affect reading comprehension by shaping how readers parse sentences and generate predictions about upcoming information. In each, we elaborate on mechanisms of these influences. We also detail the nature of developmental effects, including changes in relative reliance on skills over time and the temporal order of effects, and the interactions between the two. This work provides a new theoretical model for understanding the precise pathways through which individual oral language skills contribute to reading comprehension development, making predictions that are testable in classrooms.</p> <p>Keywords: ambiguity resolution; morphology; oral language; parsing; prediction; prosody; reading comprehension; syntactic skills</p> <p>The Linguistic Pathways Model.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Reading comprehension involves constructing a mental representation of the information in a text (Kintsch [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref1">92</reflink>]; Snow [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref2">157</reflink>]). As such, it is a complex and dynamic skill that draws on a range of cognitive resources and is influenced by the reader, the text, and the purpose (Snow [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref3">157</reflink>]; Cartwright and Duke [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). Acknowledging this complexity, no single model can capture the breadth of influences on reading comprehension. Nevertheless, there is real value in delineating contributors to reading comprehension, both to make testable predictions and educational progress. Here we provide this detail, focusing on the role of oral language skills in the development of reading comprehension. We build on existing theories of reading that highlight the importance of oral language skills (e.g., Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref5">49</reflink>]; Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref6">80</reflink>]; Kim [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref7">91</reflink>]; Kintsch [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref8">93</reflink>]; Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref9">130</reflink>]; Share [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref10">151</reflink>]; see also Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref11">59</reflink>]). We extend these by bringing to the fore the influence of components of oral language—effectively at the level of teachable units—and by doing so at a mechanistic level—diving into how these influence on reading comprehension. And, responding to recent critiques (e.g., Nation [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref12">119</reflink>]), we embrace multiple dimensions across which development plays out. We provide this detail in a new model (see Figure 1) that identifies influences of oral language at the level of teachable units with associated mechanisms of influence on to the development of reading comprehension; in this paper, we describe the general principles of this model and apply them to the specific case of syntax.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The Linguistic Pathways Model." /> </p> <p></p> <p>We base our model on the classic Reading Systems Framework and on the more recent Morphological Pathways Framework (see Figure 1; Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref13">102</reflink>]). As initially articulated by Perfetti and Stafura ([<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref14">130</reflink>], p.22), the value of the Reading Systems Framework was, and continues to be, in providing "a general framework for reading that encompasses its many components," thus "aiding in the formulation of specific hypotheses." In their 2014 paper, Perfetti and Stafura dove into the role of word processes. We expand from this base to explore the influence of oral language, both more broadly and more specifically by advocating for the influence of individual components of language at a mechanistic level.</p> <p>We are inspired to delineate mechanisms by which individual components of oral language influence reading comprehension by the significant progress made in identifying how phonemic awareness influences the development of word reading; it does so through phonological decoding. This scientific advance has shifted models of reading development, and, of greater pragmatic and societal importance, it has also shifted clinical and educational practices (e.g., Dessemontet et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref15">46</reflink>]; National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref16">122</reflink>]; Ziegler et al. [<reflink idref="bib195" id="ref17">195</reflink>]), making a real difference for countless children (and adults) around the world. We think that similar progress can and must be made for other oral language skills. In 2021, this level of mechanistic detail was proposed specific to morphology in the Morphological Pathways Framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref18">102</reflink>]); it has already led to new screening and intervention approaches (e.g., Savage et al. [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref19">148</reflink>]). Here we build on this framework, arguing that the ideas of multiple pathways of influence need to be applied to other language skills, with an eye to pushing theoretical and educational progress. We illustrate its utility specific to syntax in this paper, and label the larger framework the Linguistic Pathways Model (see Figure 1).</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-4">Core Principles Underlying the Linguistic Pathways Model</hd> <p>There are four core principles that guide this model. The first is that the influence of oral language on reading comprehension needs to be considered at the level of its component parts. A second is that this influence needs to be detailed at a mechanistic level, exploring just how the effects of individual skills flow through to reading comprehension. Together these remind us that it is not just about the starting point and the destination, but the journey itself that matters, including when thinking through reading development. The third principle lies in fully embracing the many ways in which development plays out. The fourth lies in considering effects that are universal across languages versus those particular to a given language. We review each of these in general below, and in the remainder of the paper, we apply these to the specific case of syntax.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-5">Considering Language at the Component Level</hd> <p>We think it essential to provide theoretical detail for oral language at the level of teachable units. Specifically, we advocate considering each component of language as a potentially separable predictor of reading development, each deserving precise theoretical detail with associated rigorous and active empirical testing. This idea builds on traditional representations of language structure that include multiple components, such as syntax, morphology, and phonology (Lindfors [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref20">105</reflink>]; Moats [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref21">115</reflink>]; Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref22">149</reflink>]). Certainly, this idea resonates with more recent integration of specific components of language into models of reading (e.g., Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref23">49</reflink>]; Kim [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref24">91</reflink>]; Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref25">130</reflink>]; Share [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref26">151</reflink>]) and long‐standing critiques of the simple view of reading for including a single linguistic comprehension construct (e.g., Kirby and Savage [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref27">94</reflink>]; MacKay et al. [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref28">108</reflink>]). And extending from these three components, within phonology, it is essential to include both segmental and suprasegmental levels, the latter of which has been largely overlooked in models of reading (for an exception see Wade‐Woolley et al. [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref29">184</reflink>]). By the suprasegmental level, we refer to awareness of the overarching sound patterns in oral language (Holliman et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref30">78</reflink>]), including word stress, phrase stress, and intonation. Indeed, evidence of the relation of suprasegmental phonology to reading in English and Chinese (Critten et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref31">33</reflink>]) has led to the integration of suprasegmental level phonology into models (Wade‐Woolley et al. [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref32">184</reflink>]) and advocacy for its status as a point of intervention (Chou et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref33">28</reflink>]) and classroom instruction (Sáez et al. [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref34">146</reflink>]).</p> <p>We acknowledge that modeling of language does not always align with the separability of language into components (e.g., Fricke et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref35">61</reflink>]), and yet our impetus here comes in part from challenges in educational implementation of this single large construct. Indeed, this is a major reason for the strong movement to describe educational targets at the level of individual components of oral language (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref36">121</reflink>]). In line with this curricular emphasis on individual skills, evidence of targeted effects aligns with oral language functioning as multiple components both in children's development and educational experiences. Interventions teaching specific oral language skills show effects on those skills themselves, with limited, if any, impacts on broader language skills or transfer to other oral language abilities (e.g., Haley et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref37">73</reflink>]; Goldstein et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref38">67</reflink>]; Phillips et al. [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref39">133</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref40">134</reflink>]). Similar conclusions emerge from recent meta‐analyses of interventions on language comprehension, showing effects on customized, and primarily proximal, measures, with smaller or undetectable effects on standardized assessments (e.g., Silverman et al. [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref41">154</reflink>]; see also Rogde et al. [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref42">142</reflink>]).</p> <p>At first glance this might seem surprising, and yet considering lessons from the kitchen brings another perspective. The second author's family has a birthday tradition of a fabulous trifle, made with fabulous berries in their juices, light sponge cake, and rich homemade custard. Each of these components needs separate preparation—the cake needs to be mixed and baked, the custard set to simmer on the stove, and the lightly sugared berries allowed to release their juices—before being combined into a divine trifle which again needs time to meld together. We think lessons here apply to instruction in oral language; each component needs to be given due respect, which does not negate the whole, but instead is essential to creating the delicious combination.</p> <p>Shifting back to oral language, language skills are many, rich, and complex, and they emerge over a long period of time (Dickinson et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref43">47</reflink>]; LRRC et al. [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref44">100</reflink>]). Indeed, components of oral language become increasingly differentiated over time (e.g., Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref45">59</reflink>]; Language and Reading Research Consortium, LRRC [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref46">99</reflink>]; Tomblin and Zhang [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref47">166</reflink>]), in a way that homemade trifle does not. And yet, separability might be challenging to establish statistically, in part because of measurement issues; for instance, to give young children enough support to complete morphological tasks, they might need sentences, making it difficult to isolate syntactic and morphological dimensions. Given that language skills are most malleable early in development (e.g., Bornstein and Putnick [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]; Conti‐Ramsden et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]), it is essential to consider oral language at the level of its components. The developmental time course of individual components of language clearly precedes the onset of reading development and continues throughout it. Given this educational context and protracted development, it is important to consider the influences of components of oral language on reading development.</p> <p>As we consider oral language in terms of separable components, this brings the possibility of the separable influences of components of oral language on written representations. This is exemplified for us by considering the multiple functions of punctuation, graphemic representations that are often overlooked in models of reading. Indeed, punctuation marks are graphic signs that mark syntactic and/or prosodic information in a text (e.g., Ryken et al. [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref50">145</reflink>]). Our inclusion of syntactic and prosodic functions in the linguistic system gives a place for these two functions in a model of reading; in terms of punctuation, these functions must then link through the orthographic system, orthographic processes, and/or sentence and text level representations (e.g., Ardanouy et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>]). The need for these connections then turns us to the value of considering mechanisms of influence.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-6">Mechanisms of Influence</hd> <p>It is essential to describe pathways by which individual oral language skills influence reading comprehension. The classic example of the value of doing so of influence comes from the study of phonemic awareness. Identifying phonological decoding as the mechanism by which it influences word reading acquisition (e.g., Beck and Juel [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref52">7</reflink>]; Vellutino and Scanlon [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref53">180</reflink>]; Snow and Juel [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref54">158</reflink>]; Shankweiler and Fowler [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref55">150</reflink>]) has revolutionized both clinical and educational practice (Ziegler et al. [<reflink idref="bib195" id="ref56">195</reflink>]; Dessemontet et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref57">46</reflink>]; National Reading Panel [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref58">122</reflink>]).</p> <p>The value of developing this mechanistic detail is highlighted more recently by the influence of the Morphological Pathways Framework. This model responded directly to questions of just how the awareness of individual word parts (i.e., morphemes) could influence the large complex construct of reading comprehension (e.g., Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref59">21</reflink>]; Frost et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref60">62</reflink>]). The simple idea outlined in that model was that morphological awareness did so by equipping children with the skills they needed to read and understand the complex words in texts (see Figure 2) that could otherwise be a barrier to comprehension (Beck et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref61">8</reflink>]; White et al. [<reflink idref="bib188" id="ref62">188</reflink>]). The pathways described in this model have supported instructional approaches and guidance (e.g., Nation and Bauer [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref63">120</reflink>]; Common Core Standards [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref64">30</reflink>]), which have begun to be tested empirically (e.g., Savage et al. [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref65">148</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref66">147</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Two pathways from morphological awareness to reading comprehension." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Regarding syntax, several theories converge to underscore the significance of syntactic skills in reading comprehension (Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref67">49</reflink>]; MacKay et al. [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref68">108</reflink>]; for a review, see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref69">171</reflink>]). The challenge is that the specific mechanisms underlying this relationship remain underspecified (see, e.g., Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref70">130</reflink>]; Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref71">149</reflink>]), significantly limiting both theoretical progress and educational applications. In this theory, we propose candidate mechanisms by which syntactic skills support the development of reading comprehension. We integrate these hypotheses within current models of reading comprehension and extend beyond these, aligning them with existing empirical evidence; indeed, we detail in the sections that follow the pathways from syntactic skills to reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-8">Developmental Effects</hd> <p>As we advocate for capturing components of oral language, as well as the mechanisms by which these influence reading comprehension, we envision these as dual means through which developmental effects play out. Developmental effects are essential in our model. Many models of reading (e.g., Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref72">130</reflink>]) have been critiqued for not making clear developmental predictions (e.g., Kim [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref73">91</reflink>]; Nation [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref74">119</reflink>]). Our model embraces two key developmental effects. The first is described most prominently by the Simple View of Reading—the idea that relative reliance on skills shifts as children become more proficient readers.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>] The second lies in the temporal order of effects, that is, the question of whether effects originate in and/or determine reading (e.g., Castles et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref76">24</reflink>]). These two developmental patterns then need to be considered in relation to our first two principles: language at a component level and mechanisms by which each component influences reading. There are likely shifts in both the relative weight of influence and the direction of effects for both the influence of components of oral language (see Figure 3) and the mechanisms (see Figure 4) by which these influence reading.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Relative contributions of oral language components to reading comprehension across development." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Relative contributions of oral language components to reading comprehension: examples of morphological awareness pathways." /> </p> <p></p> <p>We begin by reflecting on predictions from the Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref77">80</reflink>]): that early reading comprehension is likely to be dominated by strong effects from word reading shifting to later strong effects of oral language. A large set of studies confirms these predictions (e.g., Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref78">59</reflink>]; Kendeou, Savage, et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref79">85</reflink>]; Kendeou, Van den Broek, et al. [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref80">86</reflink>]; Kim [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref81">89</reflink>]; Lervåg et al. [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref82">101</reflink>]; Protopapas et al. [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref83">138</reflink>]; Verhoeven and Van Leeuwe [<reflink idref="bib183" id="ref84">183</reflink>]; Language and Reading Research Consortium [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref85">99</reflink>]), at least for word reading and oral language, often measured as vocabulary (e.g., Protopapas et al. [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref86">138</reflink>]). We see this as a very general useful principle as a first pass to understanding developmental change; we illustrate this in Figure 3. We expand on this view by adding the need to consider shifts in relative reliance both in terms of the components of language as well as their mechanisms of influence.</p> <p>We think that this approach resolves the conflict between predictions from the Simple View and empirical data to date, at least as it emerges with respect to morphology. Indeed, with the Simple View as a foundation, many have advocated that, as a component of oral language, the role of morphological awareness increases with reading development (e.g., Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref87">19</reflink>]; Mahony et al. [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref88">110</reflink>]; Singson et al. [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref89">155</reflink>]). And yet, these predictions have not always been borne out empirically, with early and continued influences of morphological awareness on levels of reading comprehension across the elementary school years (e.g., Deacon [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref90">36</reflink>]; Kruk and Bergman [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref91">96</reflink>]; Roman et al. [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref92">143</reflink>]).</p> <p>We might reflect on this divergence differently when thinking about the idea of relative weight shifting across both components and pathways, as depicted in Figure 4. At its most simplistic interpretation, we need to test whether the relative weight of circles or arrows shifts in this figure. We reflect on this here in relation to morphology. The role of morphological awareness might indeed increase with reading development, and yet another possibility is tha the influence of the pathways themselves shift in importance. The morphology‐specific pathways that are parallel to word reading and oral language would be morphological decoding and analysis, respectively. Taking ideas from the Simple View at face value leads to the intuition that effects on reading comprehension should initially be strong from morphological decoding and shift more to morphological analysis; that is, shifting from word reading to oral language. And yet, early strong effects from morphological decoding on reading comprehension seem unlikely given that young readers' ability to use morphemes to read words is relatively underdeveloped, with likely much stronger phonological decoding skills. Certainly, young readers and spellers are sensitive to the morphological basis of spelling (e.g., Turnbull et al. [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref93">176</reflink>]; for review see Deacon and Sparks [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref94">43</reflink>]); the reality, though, is that, in comparison, they are remarkably prolific in their creation of new words with existing morphemes (such as <emph>flyer</emph>; e.g., Clark [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref95">29</reflink>]; see also Anglin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>]; Clark [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref97">29</reflink>]; Gombert [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref98">68</reflink>]), showing that they are well versed in the use of morphemes in building and understanding word meaning. As such, there is likely to be a strong influence of morphological analysis on early reading comprehension, with less influence from morphological decoding. Thus, in the case of morphology, the morphological analysis pathway might dominate relations to early reading comprehension more so than the morphological decoding pathway (see Giazitzidou et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref99">65</reflink>]), even though the first is a skill more related to oral language and the second more related to word reading. It seems then that, when we turn beyond the broad categories, predictions from the Simple View of Reading might be turned on their head, pointing to the need to test developmental predictions of relative reliance at a level that is both more detailed within the broad boxes of oral language versus word reading and includes mechanisms of influence.</p> <p>The next dimension of development lies in the temporal order of effects, depicted perhaps most simplistically by the direction in which arrows point in models. Effects in models are typically conceptualized as flowing in a single direction, from labeled constructs towards reading, as is the case, for instance, in the Simple View of Reading (e.g., Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref100">80</reflink>]), the Reading Systems Framework (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref101">130</reflink>]; see also Wade‐Woolley et al. [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref102">184</reflink>]), and the Active View of Reading (Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref103">49</reflink>]; for an exception, see Kim [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref104">91</reflink>]). These conceptualizations overlook the reality that children learn a great deal, both about the world and words, through their reading (e.g., Nation [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref105">119</reflink>]). This idea is captured classically in the concept of Matthew effects (Stanovich [<reflink idref="bib161" id="ref106">161</reflink>]), in which children who are already good readers then read more text and become even better readers, with "the rich getting richer," and those who are already poor in reading increasingly lagging behind. We illustrate this idea here in Figure 5. In this visualization, as in classical models, the arrows from the linguistic system flow to children's reading experience and, critically, these arrows then track back to the linguistic and orthographic systems. We have depicted reading experience quite purposefully with a book showing print on the page to capture the idea that this experience reflects both skill in reading and the reading exposure that such skill can bring.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 The bidirectional relations among oral language components and reading comprehension development." /> </p> <p></p> <p>We illustrate bidirectional influences by considering these ideas in relation to morphology. Certainly, a handful of studies now show that morphological awareness determines gains in reading comprehension (Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref107">41</reflink>]; Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref108">60</reflink>]; Kruk and Bergman [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref109">96</reflink>]), confirming theoretical predictions. In the other direction, a couple of studies have now shown that these effects flow from reading skill to morphological skill. In studies of children in the elementary school years, at least from Grades 1 to 4, reading comprehension determines the rates of children's acquisition of morphological awareness (Kruk and Bergman [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref110">96</reflink>]). Given the prevalence of morphologically complex words in children's texts even at the outset of their reading (Fitzgerald et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref111">57</reflink>]; Hiebert and Tortorelli [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref112">77</reflink>]), these influences make sense; reading comprehension will be associated with greater experience of and engagement with texts, both of which give children rich opportunities to learn about morphologically complex words. The classic example is that of <emph>breakfast</emph>—seeing this word in print can give children insight into its etymological origins, of breaking an overnight fast. Given the reality that these multisyllabic words also require stress placement, an aspect of suprasegmental phonology, one could also imagine that experience reading these complex words would improve suprasegmental phonological awareness, for instance, in awareness of word stress. As such, extending the earlier predicted direction of arrows, effects of the orthographic system and reading comprehension processes are then predicted to flow back to individual elements within the linguistic system, as we show in Figure 1 (see also Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref113">102</reflink>]).</p> <p>As we push the boundaries on the influence of text on children's language skills and mechanisms of influence, we predict that these effects from text are also driven in part by individual differences in learning ability. Here, our ideas are supported by the growing theoretical (e.g., Share [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref114">151</reflink>]; Conrad and Deacon [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref115">31</reflink>]), empirical (e.g., Byrne et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref116">17</reflink>]), and clinical (e.g., Kilpatrick [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref117">88</reflink>]) impetus to bring capacity for learning into the theories and practice of reading. Here we bring these ideas into the Linguistic Pathways Model by making explicit that experience with text is likely to influence individual components of language as well as the mechanisms by which they go on to have impacts on reading; this influence of experience with text includes reading skill, exposure to text, as well as individual differences in lexical learning capacity (see Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref118">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Diving deeper into the idea of temporal order, we anticipate that the temporal order of relations might shift over reading development. This idea was described recently in Conrad and Deacon's ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref119">31</reflink>]) Print Learning Framework, in which the direction of relations between children's knowledge of orthographic features and their word reading is predicted to shift over development. Early on (i.e., prior to formal reading instruction), knowledge about how print within books works is proposed to predict children's development of word reading because this knowledge of print supports them in connecting individual letters to sounds (e.g., Heintzman et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref120">76</reflink>]). Later in development, children's word reading experience is a core resource for learning about regularities in letter patterns that occur across words (also known as sublexical regularities; Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref121">39</reflink>]; Pasquarella et al. [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref122">129</reflink>]). Thus, early aspects of knowledge of orthographic features predict gains in word reading (e.g., Pasquarella et al. [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref123">129</reflink>]) and then word reading drives learning of more sophisticated aspects of orthographic patterns (Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref124">37</reflink>]). We bring these ideas into the Linguistic Pathways Framework.</p> <p>Returning to illustrating these ideas with morphology, we anticipate primarily unidirectional effects of morphological awareness, as an oral language skill that emerges prior to the onset of reading experience, on the development of reading skills at the very outset of reading development. We expect influences of reading back onto morphology to emerge quite quickly once reading experience begins; even at Grade 1, children's texts are quite full of morphologically complex words (e.g., Hiebert and Tortorelli [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref125">77</reflink>]), giving them chances to learn about complex, multisyllabic words through reading experience. As such, we expect effects to initially flow primarily from the oral language skill of morphological awareness and suprasegmental phonological awareness to reading (e.g., Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref126">19</reflink>]; Engen and Høien [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref127">53</reflink>]; Vaknin‐Nusbaum et al. [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref128">177</reflink>]), and then to become more reciprocal, with increasing influences of reading on morphological and suprasegmental phonological awareness (e.g., Critten et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref129">33</reflink>]; Tong, He, and Deacon [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref130">167</reflink>]). Empirical testing of these predictions relies on measuring each of these oral language skills prior to the onset of reading development, a design rarely implemented to date.</p> <p>Both of these developmental patterns then need to be brought forward into pathways of influence, which leads us to consider the core distinction between word reading and reading comprehension. Extending the Morphological Pathways Framework, we anticipate the morphological decoding pathway to be most related to word reading experience (e.g., Korochkina and Rastle [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref131">95</reflink>]) and the morphological analysis pathway to be related to reading comprehension. These influences align with the nature of the pathways; in the absence of explicit instruction, children will learn how to use morphemes to read words through word reading experience generally (e.g., Deacon et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref132">38</reflink>]), which gives them exposure to and experience with complex words, and children will learn how to understand words through morphemes by working to understand texts, giving them experience with working out the meanings of complex words towards reading comprehension (e.g., Beck et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref133">8</reflink>]). And of course, seeing complex words in the context of connected text can give clues to meaning, which can in turn build morphological analysis skills. All of these ideas need empirical testing. As is clear from considering the single context of morphology, deeply taking these ideas into developmental models fundamentally changes the questions that we ask empirically.</p> <p>As for the developmental effects on syntax, we propose that syntactic skills enhance reading comprehension early on, and children later acquire these skills through their reading experiences. For preschoolers, oral communication is crucial for language development, as daily language input helps them gain syntactic knowledge (Halliday [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref134">74</reflink>]). However, as children become readers, their syntactic development shifts to accommodate the more complex syntax found in written text (Nippold [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref135">123</reflink>]). Reading exposes children to syntactic structures that are less common in spoken language (Perfetti et al. [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref136">131</reflink>]). Texts generally feature more complex syntax than oral language, allowing children to visually reflect on these structures (Montag and MacDonald [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref137">118</reflink>]; Montag et al. [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref138">117</reflink>]). This suggests a bidirectional relationship in which early syntactic skills support reading comprehension, and reading experiences also reshape children's syntactic development over time.</p> <p>The direction of effects might shift again for punctuation, with early experience with print and likely also shared reading driving children's first exposure to and learning about punctuation. This could then bring about representation of punctuation in the written system and could, in turn, strengthen awareness of prosody and syntax in the linguistic system. We dive into details on developmental progression specifically for syntax in the following section, given that we use syntax as a detailed example in this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-12">Universality Versus Particularity</hd> <p>We embrace the influence of the language and writing systems on developmental effects of components of oral language and the mechanisms by which they influence reading development. Indeed, we need to consider which of these function universally regardless of the language and writing system(s) in which a child learns to read and which shift in response to the particularities of a given language and/or writing system. Critically, we extend earlier advocacy to consider these influences (e.g., Kim [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref139">91</reflink>]; Verhoeven and Perfetti [<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref140">181</reflink>]) to argue that we need to consider the universal versus particular influences both for components of oral language and their pathways of influence.</p> <p>In terms of the first, we suspect that awareness of all components of oral language is relevant to learning to read across languages, but that their relative influence on reading development shifts based on the particularities of a given language and/or writing system. We put this forward given that languages are made up of the same components universally, and yet their instantiation in print can vary radically. We consider this idea specifically for morphological awareness, contrasting its effects with those of segmental phonological awareness. In line with Verhoeven and Perfetti ([<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref141">182</reflink>]) (see also Nunes and Hatano [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref142">125</reflink>]; Share [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref143">151</reflink>]), we expect morphological awareness to have an effect on learning to read across all languages. This is because words are made up of morphemes in all languages, and learning to read is founded on oral language, making this a strong candidate for a universal skill. We also expect morphological awareness to play a greater role for children learning to read in languages in which morphemes have a greater influence on the writing system. This idea was described perhaps most elegantly two decades ago by McBride‐Chang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref144">113</reflink>]). In this study conducted in three separate languages, both segmental phonological and morphological awareness were related to reading for the second‐grade participants regardless of the language in which they were learning to read, reflecting their universality. Critically, the relative weight of contributions shifted across languages; segmental phonological awareness was relatively more important for reading in English and Korean than in Chinese, and morphological awareness was relatively more important for reading in Chinese and Korean than in English. Subsequent research has confirmed and extended these patterns (see Ruan et al. [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref145">144</reflink>] for a meta‐analysis), including in terms of the core determinants of dyslexia (e.g., Tong, He, and Deacon [<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref146">167</reflink>]; Shu et al. [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref147">153</reflink>]).</p> <p>We build on these ideas to consider the influence of cross‐linguistic variations on the pathways of influence, that is, the ways in which awareness of the components of oral language influences reading. The core question lies in how features of languages and writing systems might change the relative reliance on the pathways. Here, we exemplify these ideas of cross‐linguistic variability in the strength of the mechanisms by looking at the pathways originally described in the Morphological Pathways Framework. The original model (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref148">102</reflink>]) gave only brief consideration to cross‐linguistic variability in laying out the morphological decoding and morphological analysis pathways to reading. We think that these influences need to be considered in greater detail, given the strong possibility that there is a greater influence of language and writing system differences on morphological decoding than on morphological analysis.</p> <p>Beginning with morphological decoding, we suspect that the use of morphemes in reading words is at work universally, though it might emerge differently and to a varying extent based on the ways in which morphemes are represented in the writing system. Take, for instance, Chinese, in which most characters are made up of a combination of semantic and phonetic radicals (Shu et al. [<reflink idref="bib152" id="ref149">152</reflink>]), providing meaning and sound information, respectively. There is now abundant evidence that readers of Chinese actively use information about meaning and sound from these radicals in their visual character recognition (e.g., Ding et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref150">48</reflink>]; Feldman and Siok [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref151">55</reflink>]; Liu et al. [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref152">106</reflink>]; Taft and Zhu [<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref153">164</reflink>]; Taft et al. [<reflink idref="bib165" id="ref154">165</reflink>]; Zhou and Marslen‐Wilson [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref155">194</reflink>]). We think that this is another way in which morphemic decoding emerges: through the use of semantic radicals, which carry this meaning information in characters to accurately read words. Turning to differences in orthographic transparency in alphabetic languages, we expect effects to emerge in speed in more transparent orthographies (such as Italian) (e.g., Burani et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref156">16</reflink>]; D'Alessio et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref157">35</reflink>]; Marcolini et al. [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref158">111</reflink>]; but see Häikiö et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref159">72</reflink>]); in phonologically transparent writing systems, we suspect that morphology offers little to accurate word reading beyond what is already provided by phonological regularities, and so the main value of morphological decoding processes will emerge in speeding lexical access and reading processes. Reflecting this relative utility, we expect morphological decoding to play a relatively more prominent role in learning to read in languages in which morphemes play a greater role in the writing system, such as both English and Chinese, than in writing systems more heavily governed by phonological regularities, such as Finnish. This idea, of course, needs empirical testing.</p> <p>Turning to morphological analysis, we expect the use of morphemes in understanding words to play a role that is relatively consistent across variations in languages. This is because morphology is a core principle by which words are constructed, with morphemes serving as the core building blocks of words across all languages. With oral language as foundational to reading across all languages, and with complex words well‐established as a barrier to reading comprehension (e.g., Beck et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref160">8</reflink>]), we expect morphological analysis to have similar utility in understanding words across different languages. Some evidence in support of this comes from McBride‐Chang et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref161">113</reflink>]) findings of relations of similar size between morphological awareness and vocabulary across young speakers of English, Chinese, and Korean, the same study in which differential relations to word recognition emerged. Although we note that morphological analysis per se was not measured in this study, the relations between morphological awareness and vocabulary likely capture this function, at least in part reflecting the extent to which children use morphemes to understand and acquire new word meanings.</p> <p>Cross‐linguistic research is clearly needed. One way to do so would be to leverage tasks designed for other purposes. For instance, to measure what they termed sublexical‐level morphological awareness, Tong, He, and Deacon ([<reflink idref="bib167" id="ref162">167</reflink>]) asked children to choose which of four pictures best represented the meaning of pseudocharacters with semantic radicals. In this study with Grade 2 Chinese‐speaking children, performance on this task was related to both vocabulary and word reading, effects that were unique from those of a more traditional morphological awareness task and other controls. Such a task could be incorporated along with definition and picture‐choice measures developed in English for morphological analysis (e.g., Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref163">103</reflink>]; Nunes and Bryant [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref164">124</reflink>]). Cross‐linguistic inquiry into the relative involvement of the morphological analysis pathway to reading comprehension will be essential in testing these predictions.</p> <p>Together, these principles emphasize identifying precise oral language influences as well as mechanisms for their impact. These principles also highlight the need to consider the multi‐dimensional nature of development, of language, and of the orthographic system. In the sections that follow, we illustrate these principles more precisely with a focus on syntax.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-13">Illustrating the Linguistic Pathways Model Through Syntax</hd> <p>Diving into syntax, we describe precise mechanisms of influence for this component of oral language that lead to testable predictions, followed by describing the developmental time course of their influence. We build on this by discussing cross‐linguistic predictions and educational implications of this model.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-14">Syntax and Reading Comprehension: Theoretical Context</hd> <p>As we consider how syntax impacts reading comprehension, we step back to review its consideration within classic models. Several theories converge to suggest the importance of syntactic skills in reading comprehension. The Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref165">80</reflink>]) posits that reading comprehension is the product of two components: decoding and linguistic comprehension. Linguistic comprehension is often assumed to include sentence‐level processing, as articulated more clearly within Scarborough's ([<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref166">149</reflink>]) Rope Model of Reading, in which syntax is included in the broader category of language structure within language comprehension (see also Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref167">49</reflink>]). Building on these ideas, the Reading Systems Framework (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref168">130</reflink>]) lists syntax within both the linguistic system and the lexicon, from both of which it impacts reading comprehension (see also Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref169">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>There is both educational and empirical evidence in line with these theoretical predictions, as educators and researchers emphasize sentence complexity as a key factor in text readability (Common Core State Standards Initiative [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref170">121</reflink>]; Graesser et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref171">70</reflink>]). Further, an increasing number of studies demonstrate a connection between syntactic skills and reading comprehension (e.g., MacKay et al. [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref172">108</reflink>]; for a review see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref173">171</reflink>]). Indeed, existing research supports concurrent associations between syntactic skills and reading comprehension across a range of languages and writing systems, including English (e.g., Blackmore and Pratt [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref174">9</reflink>]; Browne Rego and Bryant [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref175">14</reflink>]; Holsgrove and Garton [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref176">79</reflink>]), Chinese (Tong and McBride [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref177">169</reflink>]), Arabic (Asadi [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref178">5</reflink>]), Dutch (Raudszus et al. [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref179">140</reflink>]), and French (Massonnié et al. [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref180">112</reflink>]; Sohail et al. [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref181">159</reflink>]). Crucially, a small set of studies demonstrate syntactic skills to be a predictor of reading comprehension development over time, in both monolingual child speakers of English and Chinese (Deacon and Kieffer [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref182">40</reflink>]; Tong and McBride [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref183">169</reflink>]). These findings suggest syntactic skills as a potential causal factor in the development of reading comprehension, a possibility reinforced by a few studies showing that training poor readers' syntactic abilities improves their reading (e.g., Kennedy and Weener [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref184">87</reflink>]; Weaver [<reflink idref="bib185" id="ref185">185</reflink>]). Taken together, there is theoretical and empirical consensus as to the relevance of syntactic skills to reading comprehension.</p> <p>The core gap lies in identifying just how syntactic skills impact reading comprehension, which we directly address here. The bulk of theories articulate syntactic skill as crucial to reading comprehension without detailing just how this works; this is the case for both classic and new models (e.g., Duke and Cartwright [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref186">49</reflink>]; Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref187">80</reflink>]; Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref188">149</reflink>]). The few models that describe mechanisms make diverging predictions as to their nature. For instance, some propose that syntactic skills facilitate sentence comprehension through parsing (e.g., Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref189">130</reflink>]; Van Dijk and Kintsch [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref190">178</reflink>]; see also Sorenson Duncan et al. [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref191">160</reflink>]). Others suggest mechanisms of enabling prediction of upcoming words or identifying the main idea (e.g., Tong, Tong, and McBride [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref192">170</reflink>]; for a review, see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref193">171</reflink>]). There are then mixed predictions from the few theories that describe mechanisms.</p> <p>Describing these different mechanisms in competing theories gives the impression that these are mutually exclusive, and yet these mechanisms could be at work simultaneously, either in complementary or interactive manners. For example, syntactic skills might facilitate understanding through parsing at the same time as they support the prediction of upcoming words and/or identification of main ideas. As we open the door to the possibility of multiple mechanisms, this leads us to consider whether these follow different developmental time courses, with some in play earlier in reading development than others. For example, syntactic skills may support word‐level lexical representations, which then facilitate children's understanding of the meaning of text at the early stages of reading development (Tunmer et al. [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref194">174</reflink>]). As learners' syntactic skills develop, they become more proficient at utilizing parsing and prediction strategies to integrate their prior knowledge with new information, which in turn enhances their overall reading comprehension. As we consider this possibility, we point to the need to examine interactions between mechanisms as they develop over time.</p> <p>Detailing and connecting these mechanisms will both inform the development of a comprehensive theory of reading comprehension, as well as effective instructional strategies. Mechanisms can be viewed as causes of reading comprehension and therefore highly promising as targets for intervention. The widely cited Common Core Standards ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref195">30</reflink>]), for instance, suggest teaching about syntax without identifying just how teachers might do so. This is challenging to implement given that educators find teaching about syntax difficult, more so than other aspects of language, such as academic vocabulary (Barnes et al. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref196">6</reflink>]). Although some older studies have demonstrated that teaching poor readers about syntax can significantly improve their reading comprehension (Kennedy and Weener [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref197">87</reflink>]; Weaver [<reflink idref="bib185" id="ref198">185</reflink>]), the limited available recent empirical work has often taught syntactic skills alongside other oral language skills (Silverman et al. [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref199">154</reflink>]), leaving it impossible to isolate whether effects come from instruction in syntax or other aspects of oral language. We think that the educational detail available to teachers has been limited in part because of the sparse theoretical delineation and empirical testing of mechanisms. Our goal is to fill this gap, with an eye to improving theory and practice at the same time. We do so by putting forward a testable theory describing specific mechanisms by which syntactic skills contribute to reading comprehension. We hope this framework will guide future research and inform practical ways to optimize children's reading outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-15">Syntactic Pathways in the Linguistic Pathways Model</hd> <p>In the Linguistic Pathways Model, we hypothesize two indirect pathways by which syntactic skills contribute to reading comprehension: one through the lexicon and another through sentence comprehension (see Figure 6). At teh outset, we suggest that, of these two, teh sentence pathway is likely to be the most powerful, a prediction that needs and deserves testing. For each of these pathways, we describe mechanisms by which these relations function. In the following sections, we elaborate on these pathways, as well as the influence of development on them. We also hypothesize which of these pathways operate universally, regardless of the language in which children are learning to read, and which might be specific to individual languages.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01oct25/rrq70069-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq70069-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Two pathways from syntactic awareness to reading comprehension." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188874275-17">Syntax‐To‐Lexicon Pathway</hd> <p>In our view, syntactic skills support word‐level lexical representations. This idea aligns with a good deal of past theorizing and empirical evidence, and yet, it is also contentious with classic and influential models of word reading suggesting no role for syntactic skills in word reading (e.g., Ehri [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref200">52</reflink>]; Rayner [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref201">141</reflink>]). Certainly, one cannot overstate the value of children's letter‐by‐letter processing of words, and yet, given the value of syntactic information in oral language processing (e.g., Favier et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref202">54</reflink>]), it seems reasonable to propose a syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway by which syntactic skills can facilitate word recognition (e.g., Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref203">168</reflink>]) and vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Paribakht and Wesche [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref204">128</reflink>]; Ramos and Dario [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref205">139</reflink>]), which in turn enhances lexical representation. Skills in reading individual words and a large vocabulary size with depth are essential to reading comprehension, as posited by the Simple View of Reading theory (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref206">80</reflink>]) and widely recognized in research and theory (e.g., Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref207">168</reflink>]). Robust word representations and large vocabulary size facilitate rapid word recognition, freeing up cognitive resources for higher‐level information processing (e.g., Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref208">168</reflink>]). Syntactic skills could offer key additional support for this word‐level processing that is so essential to reading comprehension.</p> <p>The idea that syntax contributes to lexical representation aligns with linguistic theories, such as the Minimalist Program (Chomsky [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref209">27</reflink>]), Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (Joshi and Schabes [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref210">84</reflink>]), and Combinatory Categorial Grammar (Steedman [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref211">163</reflink>]), suggesting that words contain syntactic information. Based on these views, the grammatical links between words in a sentence are determined by the intrinsic relationships between individual words based on their meanings and functions (Chomsky [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref212">26</reflink>]; Jackendoff [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref213">82</reflink>]), and particularly the event structure inherent in the verb, which is projected into syntactic structure (see Wechsler [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref214">186</reflink>] for a review). For example, in this sentence, "The cat chased the mouse." The verb "chased" establishes a relationship between "the cat" (the subject) and "the mouse" (the object). The intrinsic meanings of these words dictate their grammatical roles: "the cat" is performing the action, while "the mouse" is receiving it. The event structure (<emph>chasing</emph>) is closely tied to the action represented by the verb. This clear role assignment contributes to a more precise lexical representation of the entities involved.</p> <p>Moreover, syntactic skills enhance word recognition by utilizing syntactic cues alongside partial decoding to determine the correct pronunciation of words (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref215">168</reflink>]). For instance, imagine a child reading the sentence, "The dog ran to the p...," though not its complete last word. With the initial sound/p/and their understanding of sentence structure, the child can infer that the final word is likely a noun starting with the sound/p/. This knowledge helps them narrow down their options to words like <emph>park</emph> or <emph>pavilion</emph>, rather than verbs like <emph>ponder</emph> or <emph>pounce</emph>. Successfully identifying the word aids in completing the sentence and also enhances the child's overall understanding of the passage. This demonstrates how awareness of sentence structure can indirectly improve reading comprehension by facilitating accurate word reading. Such use of syntactic cues to infer word class exemplifies how syntactic awareness, combined with partial decoding, and support word recognition and contributes to reading comprehension (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref216">168</reflink>]).</p> <p>For vocabulary in particular, readers can better infer the meanings and uses of words based on syntactic positions and functions within sentences as they develop syntactic skill. This enriches their lexical representations—the mental dictionary of word meanings and usage patterns (e.g., Lahiri and Marslen‐Wilson [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref217">98</reflink>]). This idea is consistent with the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis, based on which syntactic cues support learning novel words (e.g., Echols and Marti [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref218">50</reflink>]; Gertner and Fisher [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref219">64</reflink>]). Specifically, children can use grammatical constraints to form categories for upcoming words (Fisher et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref220">56</reflink>]). For instance, when they hear the sentence, "The girl painted a picture", familiarity with the subject + verb + object (SVO) structure could help them deduce that "the girl" is the subject or agent and "a picture" is the object or recipient. This understanding allows them to recognize that the verb <emph>painted</emph> describes an action performed by the girl on the picture, thereby deepening their comprehension of the entire passage. Moreover, research on incidental learning indicates that grammatical structures aid in the understanding of new words within reading contexts (Ramos and Dario [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref221">139</reflink>]).</p> <p>The existing empirical studies support the idea that syntactic skills contribute to word reading and vocabulary, which then improve reading comprehension (e.g., Kim [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref222">90</reflink>]; Xie and Yeung [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref223">190</reflink>]; Sohail et al. [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref224">159</reflink>]). A few studies have shown that word reading mediates the relation between syntactic skills and reading comprehension in younger children, including English monolinguals (Tunmer [<reflink idref="bib172" id="ref225">172</reflink>]; Tunmer et al. [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref226">174</reflink>]), Korean monolinguals (Kim [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref227">90</reflink>]), and Chinese‐English bilinguals (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref228">168</reflink>]). Intriguingly, mediation via word reading did not emerge in a study of older English‐speaking children (Deacon and Kieffer [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref229">40</reflink>]), suggesting that perhaps mediation is stronger in younger than in older readers. Indeed, a recent meta‐analysis of studies conducted in English reported on meta‐regressions supporting this hypothesis; mediation via word reading and vocabulary tended to be stronger in younger than in older elementary school‐aged children (MacKay and Deacon [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref230">109</reflink>]). Some studies also show that syntactic skills contribute to vocabulary acquisition. For example, interviews with university students suggested that they frequently relied on sentence‐level knowledge to deduce the meanings of new words (Paribakht and Wesche [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref231">128</reflink>]). Browne Rego and Bryant ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref232">14</reflink>]) also reported that children with stronger syntactic skills were better equipped to read and understand challenging vocabulary (see also Xie and Yeung [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref233">190</reflink>]). Syntactic skills then appear to support reading and understanding of individual words, which then enables reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-18">Syntax‐To‐Sentence Pathway</hd> <p>Our second predicted pathway is one in which syntactic skills enable understanding of individual sentences (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref234">130</reflink>]), which we call the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway. We base these ideas on the fact that text‐level reading comprehension involves more than just recognizing individual words—it also requires understanding larger components, including sentences (e.g., Sorenson Duncan et al. [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref235">160</reflink>]). A sentence is a set of words that conveys a complete idea and expresses a full thought (Araujo et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref236">3</reflink>]). Unlike isolated words, sentences have more complex structures (i.e., syntax), including sequential and hierarchical organization, essential for understanding the overall text (e.g., Araujo et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref237">3</reflink>]; Gernsbacher [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref238">63</reflink>]; Graesser et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref239">71</reflink>]). In this model, we argue that syntactic skills can enhance the understanding of sentence meaning, which is key to achieving overall text comprehension. The syntax‐to‐sentence pathway aligns with theoretical models of reading comprehension highlighting that language skills, including syntactic skills, should help "sentence‐level processes" (p.311, Kim [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref240">90</reflink>]; see also Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref241">80</reflink>], p.131; see also Tunmer and Chapman [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref242">173</reflink>]). We make this prediction concrete by articulating a place for sentence level understanding explicitly in a model of reading comprehension.</p> <p>Understanding involves internally representing the information it conveys (Carpenter and Just [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref243">22</reflink>]), which is defined as sentence representation in the Reading Systems Framework (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref244">130</reflink>]). This internal representation is likely propositional, forming a relational structure that includes a predicate along with one or more arguments (Carpenter and Just [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref245">22</reflink>]). In our model, we put forward that there are two key mechanisms at work in this pathway: parsing and prediction. Specifically, our hypothesis is that syntactic skills enable the parsing of sentences (e.g., Van Gompel and Pickering [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref246">179</reflink>]; Weighall [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref247">187</reflink>]) and the prediction of upcoming events in sentences (e.g., Pickering and Gambi [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref248">135</reflink>]), ultimately determining children's interpretation and the overall meaning of sentences toward building text‐level reading. We describe these two mechanisms below.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-19">Parsing as a Mechanism Within the Syntax‐To‐Sentence Pathway</hd> <p>We predict parsing to be one of the mechanisms by which syntactic skills support reading comprehension within the Syntax‐to‐Sentence Pathway. Parsing involves breaking down a sentence into its syntactic components and determining the relationships between them. For simple sentences, parsing entails identifying the grammatical components such as the subject, verb, and object (e.g., Abney [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref249">1</reflink>]). For complex sentences, this involves dividing them into constituent clauses (e.g., Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref250">130</reflink>]). The inclusion of parsing as a mechanism aligns with the identification of a "parser" within the Reading Systems Framework (Perfetti and Stafura [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref251">130</reflink>]), and here we offer a key extension in clarifying the role that parsing plays—specifically as a mechanism that enables sentence‐level comprehension.</p> <p>Parsing can support understanding of both simple and complex sentences. For simple sentences, parsing gets readers to "who did what to whom" (e.g., Cuetos et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref252">34</reflink>]). Many languages follow a subject‐verb‐object (SVO) structure for the main elements of a sentence (for a review, see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref253">171</reflink>]). In a typical sentence, the subject is the focus of the statement, the verb describes the action, the object receives the action, and adverbials provide additional context such as time, place, manner, or reason. This understanding is fundamental to sentence and text comprehension.</p> <p>Parsing is perhaps even more useful for understanding complex sentences. It involves breaking them down into manageable units or clauses, easing comprehension. For example, in the sentence, "Although the storm raged outside, the children continued to play games in the living room, completely unaware of the chaos unfolding just beyond the window," we can identify three distinct clauses: "although the storm raged outside," "the children continued to play games in the living room," and "completely unaware of the chaos unfolding just beyond the window." This segmentation could allow readers to focus separately on each part, clarifying the contrasting ideas of external turmoil and the children's oblivious enjoyment, thereby supporting overall understanding of the sentence's meaning. Several researchers speculate that these techniques help readers navigate complex syntactic structures, enhancing their understanding of sophisticated texts (Bowey and Patel [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref254">11</reflink>]; Brimo and Melamed [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref255">13</reflink>]; MacKay et al. [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref256">108</reflink>]), a suggestion that remains largely untested. The idea, though, is that parsing can support understanding both simple and complex sentences.</p> <p>Parsing as essential to sentence comprehension is supported by its wide acknowledgement as the primary mechanism for identifying and resolving sentence ambiguity (e.g., MacDonald and Hsiao [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref257">107</reflink>]; Zipke [<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref258">196</reflink>]). Syntactic ambiguities refer to the sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways due to their grammatical structure (e.g., Pritchett [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref259">137</reflink>]). Also known as garden‐path sentences, these ambiguities often initially mislead readers or listeners (e.g., Pritchett [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref260">137</reflink>]), a phenomenon that exists widely in many languages such as English and Chinese (Yang [<reflink idref="bib191" id="ref261">191</reflink>]). Re‐analysis of syntactic structures is a key way to disambiguate meanings (e.g., Weighall [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref262">187</reflink>]). There is evidence of gradual learning of this skill, with most children achieving adult‐like ability by 8 years of age (e.g., Weighall [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref263">187</reflink>]). A classic example is "The horse raced past the barn fell." Readers typically begin by interpreting "The horse raced past the barn" as a complete sentence, with <emph>raced</emph> as the main verb. However, upon reaching <emph>fell</emph>, readers might realize their initial parse was incorrect, requiring a reanalysis to understand that "raced past the barn" is actually a reduced relative clause modifying <emph>horse</emph>, and <emph>fell</emph> is the main verb. This example illustrates how garden‐path sentences can temporarily mislead readers, requiring them to revise their initial syntactic analysis to arrive at the correct interpretation: "The horse that was raced past the barn fell." It seems to us that children who have better syntactic skills will be better equipped to reanalyze such sentences to arrive at the correct sentence‐level understanding. Thus, parsing is crucial for sentence comprehension, as it is widely regarded as the primary mechanism for identifying and resolving sentence ambiguity.</p> <p>In summary, syntactic skill plays a crucial role in parsing sentences effectively. It involves understanding the structure and rules that govern sentence formation, including the relationships between words and phrases. With strong syntactic skills, readers can identify subjects, verbs, objects, and modifiers, allowing them to break sentences down into their constituent parts (Cuetos et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref264">34</reflink>]). This understanding enables them to recognize clauses, phrases, and grammatical roles, which are essential for interpreting complex sentences accurately (e.g., Bowey and Patel [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref265">11</reflink>]; Brimo and Melamed [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref266">13</reflink>]). By applying syntactic knowledge, readers can discern how different elements interact, facilitating clearer comprehension of the overall meaning and nuances of the text.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-20">Prediction as a Mechanism Within the Syntactic‐To‐Sentence Pathway</hd> <p>Prediction is the second mechanism that we propose by which syntactic skills contribute to sentence comprehension. Prediction enables readers to anticipate upcoming linguistic elements (e.g., Favier et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref267">54</reflink>]). According to the predictive account, readers use context and prior knowledge, including syntax, to anticipate upcoming words and structures during reading or listening (e.g., Favier et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref268">54</reflink>]; Pickering and Gambi [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref269">135</reflink>]). This predictive capacity is fundamental to both language processing and reading comprehension (e.g., Favier et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref270">54</reflink>]), particularly at the sentence level (e.g., Pickering and Gambi [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref271">135</reflink>]). The idea here is that children predict subsequent linguistic input and refine their predictions based on feedback (e.g., Hopp et al. [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref272">81</reflink>]). For instance, in the sentence "The chef carefully chopped...," a reader might anticipate that the next words are more likely to be nouns such as <emph>onions</emph> or <emph>vegetables</emph> rather than verbs such as <emph>cut</emph> or <emph>eat</emph>, based on their syntactic knowledge. Similarly, in Chinese, after hearing "老师正在批改..." (The teacher is grading...), a listener would likely expect "作业" (homework) or "试卷" (exam papers) to follow, rather than "跑步" (run) or "走路" (walk).</p> <p>Returning to the idea of sentence ambiguity, prediction can also assist readers (e.g., Levy [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref273">104</reflink>]), separate from the effects that come from parsing. For instance, in the English sentence "The horse raced past the barn fell," readers might initially interpret <emph>raced</emph> as the main verb. However, their syntactic skill enables them to quickly reanalyze it as part of a reduced relative clause ("The horse [that was] raced past the barn") when they encounter the unexpected verb <emph>fell</emph>. Indeed, empirical studies have demonstrated that readers use syntactic structural elements to predict upcoming sentence structure. For instance, Staub and Clifton Jr ([<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref274">162</reflink>]) found that readers anticipate an or‐clause upon encountering a clause beginning with "either<emph>"</emph>, highlighting sensitivity to syntactic constraints. This evidence underscores the predictive nature of language comprehension, where the processing system actively generates expectations about forthcoming linguistic content based on available cues (e.g., Levy [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref275">104</reflink>]; Pickering and Garrod [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref276">136</reflink>]). It seems, then, that children with greater syntactic skills will be better able to identify and leverage syntactic structural elements to predict upcoming sentence structure, thereby increasing their understanding of both sentences and texts as a whole.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-21">Connecting the Two Syntactic Pathways to Reading Comprehension</hd> <p>Comprehending a text involves more than just recognizing individual words or understanding sentences; it involves integrating a sequence of sentences into a cohesive structure (e.g., Zacks and Ferstl [<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref277">192</reflink>]) and building a referential situation model (e.g., Graesser et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref278">71</reflink>]). The syntax‐to‐lexicon and syntax‐to‐sentence pathways can support the process of building situation models of a text in at least three ways: providing a direct link from syntactic skills and lexical representation to comprehension; freeing cognitive resources for higher‐level processing; and facilitating the monitoring of comprehension.</p> <p>First, syntactic skills may directly provide cues or processing instructions on how to construct the situation model, which then helps to understand the meaning of the whole text (e.g., Gernsbacher [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref279">63</reflink>]). This hypothesis has been supported by a number of past studies, which showed unique contributions of syntactic skills to reading comprehension after controlling for other cognitive–linguistic skills (for a review, see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref280">171</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the syntax‐to‐lexicon and syntax‐to‐sentence pathways can support overall reading comprehension by freeing cognitive resources. When readers have stronger lexical representations and better sentence comprehension skills, they can process words and sentences more automatically and efficiently. The transition from laborious letter‐by‐letter decoding (e.g., d−/d/, o−/ɒ/, g−/ɡ/ for "dog") to instant whole‐word recognition, and from methodical word‐by‐word analysis (e.g., "The cat sat on the mat") to effortless sentence comprehension exemplifies automaticity in reading (e.g., LaBerge and Samuels [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref281">97</reflink>]; Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref282">168</reflink>]). This automaticity significantly reduces the cognitive load associated with basic decoding and parsing. Consequently, it frees up mental resources for higher‐level comprehension processes, enabling readers to make inferences, connect ideas across the text, critically analyze content, and ultimately construct meaning more effectively.</p> <p>Third, as readers develop stronger representations at the lexical and sentence levels, they become more effective at monitoring their own understanding. Specifically, improved lexical representation and sentence comprehension enable individuals to evaluate and regulate their understanding of information (i.e., comprehension monitoring; Oakhill et al. [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref283">126</reflink>]). Readers can recognize when they encounter unclear or ambiguous text and make necessary adjustments to maintain comprehension (e.g., Oakhill et al. [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref284">127</reflink>]; Tunmer and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref285">175</reflink>]; Zargar et al. [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref286">193</reflink>]). It can also enable readers to detect and correct misunderstandings more effectively (e.g., Tunmer and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref287">175</reflink>]). This continuous monitoring helps ensure that readers stay on track and accurately interpret the text (e.g., Zargar et al. [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref288">193</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-22">Developmental Predictions</hd> <p>As we consider how syntactic skills relate to reading comprehension, we outline how effects might change with development in two ways. The first lies in articulating how the relative reliance on these pathways shifts as children become more proficient readers; here, we explore what these pathways look like in beginning readers versus more proficient readers. The second lies in the temporal order of effects—in essence, the direction of the arrows in the model. Following the precedent set in the Morphological Pathways Framework, we draw these arrows bidirectionally, noting that children bring their oral language skills to the process of reading, and they also learn about complex words and sentences from their reading experience. That said, the direction of these arrows is likely to shift with increasing reading proficiency, pointing to interactions between these two developmental processes. We tease out these factors to make testable predictions below.</p> <p>In terms of relative reliance, we first reflect on how these would work for the component of syntactic awareness and then for the mechanisms. In terms of the component skills, we predict that syntactic awareness might be less important compared to phonological and morphological awareness in younger learners. Younger readers primarily focus on developing decoding skills (Tunmer and Hoover [<reflink idref="bib175" id="ref289">175</reflink>]; Ehri [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref290">52</reflink>]), with phonological and morphological awareness playing a more critical role at this stage (Carlisle [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref291">20</reflink>]; Kirby and Savage [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref292">94</reflink>]). As readers progress and comprehension becomes more central, syntactic awareness may assume greater importance in supporting reading comprehension (Cain [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref293">18</reflink>]; Mokhtari and Thompson [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref294">116</reflink>]).</p> <p>In terms of the mechanisms, or what we refer to as pathways, we hypothesize that there is a shift from the dominance of the syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway to the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway as reading skills improve. In early reading development, likely prior to Grade 3, we hypothesize that syntactic skills may contribute to reading comprehension primarily via the syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway (see e.g., Tunmer et al. [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref295">174</reflink>]). For beginning readers, decoding likely takes precedence in determining reading comprehension as learners focus on mastering phonics to interpret unfamiliar words, ultimately facilitating fluent reading (Gough [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref296">69</reflink>]). According to the syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis, children leverage syntactic information to infer the meanings of new words, particularly verbs (Gleitman [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref297">66</reflink>]; see also Gertner and Fisher [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref298">64</reflink>]). Thus, we propose that syntactic skills may contribute to lexical development, which in turn influences reading comprehension through a syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway in young readers.</p> <p>As children become more proficient readers, we expect a strengthening in the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway. As learners' syntactic skills improve, they are likely to become more adept at using parsing and prediction strategies to connect prior knowledge with new information, thereby enhancing their overall reading comprehension. In many ways, these predictions parallel those from the Simple View of Reading (Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref299">80</reflink>]), in which it is theorized, and now widely validated (e.g., Foorman et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref300">59</reflink>]; Kendeou, Savage, and van denSavage [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref301">85</reflink>]; Kim [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref302">90</reflink>]; Verhoeven and Van Leeuwe [<reflink idref="bib183" id="ref303">183</reflink>]), that early reading comprehension is dominated by strong effects from word reading, shifting to later strong effects of oral language (in contrast to morphology). Here, we specify that this shift both extends to and is unique to the ways in which syntactic skill influences reading comprehension.</p> <p>In terms of temporal order, we anticipate that the components of oral language drive the development of early reading comprehension, and that later the experience of reading itself (which is associated with reading comprehension) begins to change awareness of components of oral language. Applying this to syntax, we predict that syntactic skills will first support reading comprehension development with children later acquiring syntactic skills through their reading. These ideas build on the fact that, for preschoolers, oral communication serves as the primary source of language development; in terms of syntax, daily oral language input enables them to accumulate syntactic knowledge (Halliday [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref304">74</reflink>]). For instance, a recent paper showed that parents' use of open‐ended questions supported their child's development of syntactic skills (Buckalew et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref305">15</reflink>]). So early in reading development, children bring oral language skills related to syntax to bear on the process of learning to read. This idea aligns with older models (e.g., Scarborough [<reflink idref="bib149" id="ref306">149</reflink>]), based on which children who are better able to reflect on the phrase and sentence level of language are predicted to make more progress in reading comprehension (see also Hoover and Gough [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref307">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>And yet, as children become readers, their syntactic development is influenced by the complex syntax that they encounter in written text (Nippold [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref308">123</reflink>]), marking a transition "from everyday spoken grammar to the grammar of literacy" around age five when formal schooling begins (Halliday [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref309">74</reflink>], p.27), and to exposure to texts with increasing levels of syntactic complexity (Nippold [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref310">123</reflink>], Chapter 9). This idea aligns with Perfetti et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref311">131</reflink>]) suggestion that reading offers "experience with syntactic structures that are less common in spoken than in written language" (Perfetti et al. [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref312">131</reflink>], p.238). Indeed, texts have notoriously more complex syntactic structures than oral language (e.g., Nippold [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref313">123</reflink>]; Williamson et al. [<reflink idref="bib189" id="ref314">189</reflink>]), which gives children both exposure to complex structures and a chance to reflect on the structures by fixing them in front of the children in print.</p> <p>To our knowledge, two empirical studies have tested the bidirectional relationship between overall syntactic skills and reading comprehension, one in Chinese children (Tong and McBride [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref315">169</reflink>]) and one in English (Deacon and Kieffer [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref316">40</reflink>]). Both studies showed that syntactic awareness predicted gains in reading comprehension over 1 year in the upper elementary school years, after extensive controls. Only the study with Chinese‐speaking children showed effects in the other direction, with reading comprehension impacting gains in syntactic awareness. Given that there are only two studies, it is not clear whether the diverging patterns of results are due to differences in measurement, language, or controls. Future studies should expand on the existing research by examining younger students and the developmental changes in both pathways related to reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-23">Universal Principles Versus Particularities</hd> <p>We hypothesize both universality and particularity for syntax. We expect both pathways and their associated mechanisms to operate similarly in many languages (see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref317">171</reflink>], for a review). We also hypothesise particularities in the relative reliance on these two pathways based on the features of a given language.</p> <p>We illustrate the universality hypothesis using English and Chinese as contrasting examples, representing two linguistically diverse languages. Although many English and Chinese syntactic structures are quite distinct, they share key similarities (e.g., Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref318">171</reflink>]). A key commonality is their basic Subject‐Verb‐Object (SVO) word order. For instance, the Chinese sentence "约翰在读书" ("John is reading.") directly mirrors the English sentence "John is reading." Word order plays a crucial role in sentence comprehension across languages, potentially reflecting a universal linguistic principle (e.g., Hawkins [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref319">75</reflink>]). Both English and Chinese rely on word order to establish grammatical relationships and convey meaning (e.g., Chang [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref320">25</reflink>]; Jespersen [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref321">83</reflink>]). Altering word order within a sentence can shift the grammatical functions of words and fundamentally change the sentence's meaning. It is also noteworthy that both polysemous words and sentence ambiguity commonly exist in both English and Chinese as well as other languages (Yang [<reflink idref="bib191" id="ref322">191</reflink>]). These structural similarities could indicate comparable effects of syntactic proficiency on reading comprehension in both English and Chinese, aligning with findings from studies on Chinese‐English bilinguals (e.g., Siu and Ho [<reflink idref="bib156" id="ref323">156</reflink>]). This notion is further supported by a recent meta‐analysis, which found remarkably similar overall effect sizes for the relationship between syntactic skills and reading comprehension in English (<emph>d</emph> = 0.55) and Chinese (<emph>d</emph> = 0.51) readers (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref324">171</reflink>]). A key extension to this would be to test the emergence of these pathways in these two languages.</p> <p>We expect particularities for each language as well, with specific syntactic features of individual languages influencing the degree to which readers use these syntactic pathways to enhance their reading comprehension. In terms of our contrast of interest, we expect a stronger reliance on the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway in reading comprehension in Chinese than in English. Chinese has a topic‐prominent structure and classifier system, as well as a lack of inflectional morphology; these features are likely to lead readers of Chinese to rely more heavily on syntactic cues for basic sentence interpretation at early developmental stages (for a review see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref325">171</reflink>]). This could potentially strengthen the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway in reading comprehension. In contrast, English, with its rich inflectional morphology and complex verb phrases, might initially emphasize a syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway during early reading comprehension development. However, as readers encounter increasingly complex written materials characterized by extensive subordinate clauses, they may rely more on syntactic skills to navigate intricate clause relationships. This shift could potentially strengthen the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway in reading comprehension. Thus, language structure may modulate the pathways, including how they play out over time.</p> <p>While we include writing in our model, we primarily focus on the pathways and mechanisms underlying reading comprehension due to space limitations. We hypothesize both similarities and differences in the pathways and mechanisms involved in reading and writing. Consistent with Kim's ([<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref326">91</reflink>]) Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model, we expect these pathways to function in fundamentally similar ways across both literacy domains. At the same time, we anticipate differences in the relative reliance on each pathway, reflecting the unique characteristics of the reading and writing processes (e.g., Fitzgerald and Shanahan [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref327">58</reflink>]; see also Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref328">102</reflink>]). For example, in the syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway, writing involves a top‐down process in which syntactic planning directs lexical retrieval and word choice, whereas in reading, lexical recognition typically supports syntactic parsing. For the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway, syntactic skills facilitate bottom‐up sentence parsing and interpretation in reading, while in writing they support top‐down sentence construction and expression. As readers encounter a sentence, they decode individual words and use their knowledge of syntactic rules—such as word order, phrase structure, and grammatical relationships—to analyze how words fit together (e.g., Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref329">171</reflink>]). In contrast, as a generative and constructive process, writing requires a forward‐oriented use of syntax, where writers manipulate syntactic structures to shape meaning intentionally. Moreover, writers monitor and revise their sentences to improve grammaticality and coherence, reflecting an ongoing interaction between syntactic knowledge and expressive goals. As raised in the Morphological Pathways Framework (Levesque et al. [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref330">102</reflink>]), we think that approaches to investigating the time course of influence of individual aspects of language on spelling and writing will be important (Breadmore et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref331">12</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-24">Future Directions</hd> <p>We believe that these predictions are testable. For example, studies of individual differences could examine the relationship between syntactic skills, lexical knowledge, and sentence comprehension and onto reading comprehension, particularly with developmental designs. Researchers could test the relations between syntactic and lexical knowledge, and sentence comprehension, and then determine if higher levels of syntactic skills are associated with better lexical representation and sentence comprehension. Connecting these findings to gains in reading comprehension over time will be essential. Additionally, training studies could be conducted to provide targeted interventions focused on improving syntactic skills. Researchers can then compare changes in lexical knowledge and sentence comprehension between children taught about syntax and the control group to see if improvements in syntactic skills lead to better lexical representations and sentence comprehension, and to the ultimate goal of improved text comprehension.</p> <p>The hypothesis that the role of syntactic skills in reading comprehension varies across grade levels and language systems is also empirically testable. Indeed, past studies have shown that syntactic skills contribute to reading comprehension via word reading in Korean‐speaking second graders (Kim [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref332">90</reflink>]), and both directly and indirectly via word reading in Chinese fourth graders (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib168" id="ref333">168</reflink>]). A recent meta‐analysis (Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref334">171</reflink>]) also found that the strength of the relationship between syntactic skills and reading comprehension can vary across different language systems. For example, in English, there was a numerical trend suggesting that the correlation's magnitude increased linearly as grade level advanced, with larger effects observed in upper elementary grades compared to early elementary grades. In contrast, the Chinese language context exhibited a numerically higher (though not statistically significant) correlation in the early elementary grades (<emph>r</emph> = 0.56) in comparison to the upper (<emph>r</emph> = 0.50) and secondary grades (<emph>r</emph> = 0.50). This pattern points to potential for the influence of language‐specific factors on the syntax‐comprehension link, which needs specific targeted testing in studies designed with parallel measures.</p> <p>Extending on this idea of measures also points to intriguing potential sources of differences between languages. Indeed, Tong et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref335">171</reflink>]) meta‐analysis revealed differences in task selection across languages. In Chinese, syntax is highly flexible in oral language, often allowing for the omission of subjects, verbs, or objects when the context provides sufficient information. As a result, Chinese studies frequently evaluate syntactic abilities using written assessment formats. In contrast, English syntax is more rigid and therefore similar in oral and written domains, with word order playing a critical role in conveying meaning. English studies, therefore, tended to rely more on oral assessments of syntactic skills. These divergent assessment approaches underscore the fundamental differences in how syntax functions within the Chinese and English language systems. The flexibility of Chinese syntax allows for more contextual interpretation, while the rigidity of English syntax necessitates a stronger focus on explicit structural knowledge. It is possible that these differences emerge when considering effects of different measures of syntax. For example, in Tong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref336">171</reflink>]), the meta‐analysis found similar correlations in English and Chinese between reading comprehension and tasks assessing word order and error detection/correction. However, the correlation between the oral cloze task and reading comprehension was significantly stronger in Chinese than in English. The variations in assessment reflect language‐specific characteristics, thereby shedding light on how the features of languages and writing systems shape the relationships between syntactic abilities and reading comprehension.</p> <p>Future research could investigate these two key mechanisms across different grade levels and language systems to better understand the relationship between syntactic skills and reading comprehension. By studying these mechanisms across various grades and language systems, researchers can determine which mechanism plays a more significant role at different educational stages, providing a developmental perspective on the interaction between syntax and reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-25">Educational Implications</hd> <p>The two pathways proposed for syntax in this model—syntax‐to‐lexicon and syntax‐to‐sentence—offer a promising framework for enhancing students' syntax learning and, in due course, their reading comprehension development. Educational policies in various countries emphasize the importance of teaching syntax in their curriculum guidelines, including the curriculum guidelines for Hong Kong (Curriculum and Assessment Guideline [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref337">51</reflink>]), Ireland (Primary Language Curriculum [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref338">45</reflink>]), England (Department for Education [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref339">44</reflink>]), and Singapore (English language syllabus primary [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref340">114</reflink>]). Despite this widespread recognition and recommendation, there remains a significant gap in understanding how to effectively implement syntax instruction in educational practice (Phillips [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref341">132</reflink>]; for a review, see Tong et al. [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref342">171</reflink>]). Indeed, to our knowledge, only a few old studies have investigated the targeted effects of syntax instruction (e.g., Weaver [<reflink idref="bib185" id="ref343">185</reflink>]). This paucity of studies leaves it remarkably unclear as to whether, when, and how, instruction in syntax can lead to improvement in reading comprehension.</p> <p>This two‐pathway framework provides a structure for designing and implementing intervention studies to test how increasing children's syntactic skills can improve their reading comprehension. The syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway suggests that interventions could link syntactic instruction with vocabulary development. This could involve teaching new words within syntactically rich contexts, highlighting the grammatical roles words play in sentences, and the use of syntactic cues to infer word meanings. Such interventions could strengthen the connections between a child's developing lexicon and their understanding of syntactic structures, leading to more robust vocabulary knowledge and improved decoding abilities. The syntax‐to‐sentence pathway, on the other hand, informs interventions that focus on sentence‐level processing. This might include activities that involve sentence deconstruction and reconstruction, and the identification of different sentence types (e.g., simple, compound, complex) based on parsing or prediction. These interventions could enhance children's ability to parse complex sentences, recognize relationships between clauses and phrases, and ultimately build a more coherent mental representation of the text. By targeting both word‐level and sentence‐level processing, interventions based on this two‐pathway framework offer a more comprehensive approach to improving syntactic skills, with the ultimate goal of boosting reading comprehension and overall language proficiency in children. Further research exploring the efficacy of interventions based on this framework is warranted to refine instructional strategies and maximize their impact on children's literacy development.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-26">Conclusions</hd> <p>We have extended previous theoretical models of reading comprehension by proposing the Linguistic Pathways Model. In this framework, we argue that skills with individual components of language, such as morphology and syntax, need to be tested as separate predictors of reading development. The influence of these components on reading comprehension is driven by distinct mechanisms and is also influenced by processes of diverging developmental pathways. In this article, we specifically focus on the connections between syntax and reading comprehension within the Linguistic Pathways Model. We propose that syntactic skills influence reading comprehension through two primary pathways: the syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway and the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway. The syntax‐to‐lexicon pathway suggests that syntactic awareness plays a crucial role in how readers construct lexical representations, thereby affecting reading comprehension. Meanwhile, the syntax‐to‐sentence pathway indicates that syntactic awareness shapes reading comprehension by influencing how readers parse sentences and generate predictions about forthcoming information. These two proposed pathways and the mechanisms by which they influence reading comprehension offer promising avenues for future empirical investigation and effective interventions. The model as a whole encourages detailed attention to individual components of language as they influence reading comprehension.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-27">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors are grateful to Emma Hak‐Kovacs for creating some of the figures to illustrate the ideas presented in this work.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-28">Consent</hd> <p>Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-29">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188874275-30">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.</p> <ref id="AN0188874275-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref75" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Embedded within this is the idea that developmental shifts could come from changes in reading skill or maturation. We expect oral language effects to be more likely to shift with maturation and for those from experience with reading to be more likely to be related to reading skill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref96" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This research was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (project no. 18609220, 18622222) awarded to Xiuhong Tong and from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (no. 435‐2018‐1456) to S. Hélène Deacon.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0188874275-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abney, S. P. 1991. " Parsing by Chunks." In Principle‐Based Parsing: Computation and Psycholinguistics, edited by R. C. Berwick, S. P. Abney, and C. Tenny, 257 – 278. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐3474‐3_10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anglin, J. M. 1993. " Vocabulary Development: A Morphological Analysis." Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58 : 10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref236" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Araujo, V., M. F. Moens, and A. Soto. 2023. " Learning Sentence‐Level Representations With Predictive Coding." Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction 5, no. 1 : 59 – 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/make5010005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref51" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Ardanouy, E., A. Ryken, and S. H. Deacon. 2025. " A Pilot Study Exploring Elementary School‐Aged Children's Knowledge of the Syntactic and Prosodic Functions of Punctuation." Reading Psychology : 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2025.2523045.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref178" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asadi, I. A. 2020. " Predicting Reading Comprehension in Arabic‐Speaking Middle Schoolers Using Linguistic Measures." Reading Psychology 41, no. 2 : 87 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1726846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref196" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes, E. M., A. W. Oliveira, and D. K. Dickinson. 2019. " Teacher Accommodation of Academic Language During Head Start Pre‐Kindergarten Read‐Alouds." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 24, no. 4 : 369 – 393. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2019.1657868.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref52" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I. L., and C. Juel. 1995. " The Role of Decoding in Learning to Read." American Educator 19, no. 2 : 8 – 20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref61" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Beck, I. L., M. G. McKeown, and L. Kucan. 2013. Bringing Words to Life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. 2nd ed. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref174" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blackmore, A. M., and C. Pratt. 1997. " Grammatical Awareness and Reading in Grade 1 Children." Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly 43, no. 4 : 567 – 590. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093360">www.jstor.org/stable/23093360</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bornstein, M. H., and D. L. Putnick. 2012. " Stability of Language in Child Hood: A Multiage, Multidomain, Multimeasure and Multisource Study." Developmental Psychology 48, no. 2 : 477 – 491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025889.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowey, J. A., and R. K. Patel. 1988. " Metalinguistic Ability and Early Reading Achievement." Applied PsychoLinguistics 9, no. 4 : 367 – 383. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400008067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breadmore, H. L., E. Côté, and S. H. Deacon. 2023. " The Timing Tells the Tale: Multiple Morphological Processes in Children's and Adults' Spelling." Scientific Studies of Reading 27, no. 5 : 408 – 427. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2023.2186233.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brimo, D., and T. Melamed. 2017. " Pre‐Professional Students' Explicit Syntax Knowledge: Preliminary Analysis." Child Language Teaching and Therapy 33, no. 3 : 255 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659017717845.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Browne Rego, L., and P. Bryant. 1993. " The Connection Between Phonological, Syntactic, and Semantic Skills and Children's Reading and Spelling." European Journal of Psychology of Education 8 : 235 – 246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174079.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buckalew, G., A. G. Ramirez, and J. M. Schneider. 2024. " Maternal Question Use Relates to Syntactic Skills in 5‐ to 7‐Year‐Old Children." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 67, no. 12 : 4734 – 4747. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_JSLHR‐23‐00426.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burani, C., S. Marcolini, M. De Luca, and P. Zoccolotti. 2008. " Morpheme‐Based Reading Aloud: Evidence From Dyslexic and Skilled Italian Readers." Cognition 108, no. 1 : 243 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrne, B., W. L. Coventry, R. K. Olson, et al. 2008. " A Behaviour‐Genetic Analysis of Orthographic Learning, Spelling and Decoding." Journal of Research in Reading 31, no. 1 : 8 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2007.00358.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cain, K. 2007. " Syntactic Awareness and Reading Ability: Is There Any Evidence for a Special Relationship? " Applied PsychoLinguistics 28, no. 4 : 679 – 694. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 1995. " Morphological Awareness and Early Reading Achievement." In Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, edited by L. B. Feldman, 189 – 209. Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 2000. " Awareness of the Structure and Meaning of Morphologically Complex Words: Impact on Reading." Reading and Writing 12, no. 3 : 169 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. 2010. " Effects of Instruction in Morphological Awareness on Literacy Achievement: An Integrative Review." Reading Research Quarterly 45, no. 4 : 464 – 487. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, P. A., and M. A. Just. 1975. " Sentence Comprehension: A Psycholinguistic Processing Model of Verification." Psychological Review 82, no. 1 : 45 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076248.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cartwright, K. B., and N. K. Duke. 2019. " The DRIVE Model of Reading: Making the Complexity of Reading Accessible." Reading Teacher 73, no. 1 : 7 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1818.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles, A., K. Rastle, and K. Nation. 2018. " Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition From Novice to Expert." Psychological Science in the Public Interest 19, no. 1 : 5 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, H. W. 1992. " The Acquisition of Chinese Syntax." In Language Processing in Chinese, edited by H. C. Chen and O. J. L. Tzeng, 277 – 311. North–Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166‐4115(08)61895‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chomsky, N. 1993. " A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory." In The View From Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, 1 – 52. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chou, S. T. Y., R. Sutherland, and P. McCabe. 2024. " A Systematic Scoping Review of the Literacy Skills of Children With Childhood Apraxia of Speech: Recommendations for Best Practice and Further Research." International Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 26, no. 3 : 346 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2024.2363935.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, E. V. 2017. " Morphology in Language Acquisition." In The Handbook of Morphology, edited by A. Spencer and A. M. Zwicky, 374 – 389. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405166348.ch19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Common Core State Standards Initiative. 2021. "Key Shifts in English Language Arts." <ulink href="http://www.corestandards.org/other&amp;#8208;resources/key&amp;#8208;shifts&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;language&amp;#8208;arts/">http://www.corestandards.org/other&amp;#8208;resources/key&amp;#8208;shifts&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;language&amp;#8208;arts/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad, N. J., and S. H. Deacon. 2023. " Print Learning: A Theoretical Framework for the Role of Children's Learning About the Orthography in the Development of Reading Skill." Reading Research Quarterly 58, no. 1 : 113 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.489.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conti‐Ramsden, G., M. C. St Clair, A. Pickles, and K. Durkin. 2012. " Developmental Trajectories of Verbal and Nonverbal Skills in Individuals With a History of Specific Language Impairment: From Childhood to Adolescence." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 55, no. 6 : 1716 – 1735. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2012/10‐0182).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Critten, S., A. J. Holliman, D. J. Hughes, et al. 2021. " A Longitudinal Investigation of Prosodic Sensitivity and Emergent Literacy." Reading and Writing 34, no. 2 : 371 – 389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐020‐10077‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cuetos, F., D. C. Mitchell, and M. M. Corley. 2013. " Parsing in Different Languages." In Language Processing in Spanish, 145 – 187. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> D'Alessio, M. J., V. Jaichenco, and M. A. Wilson. 2018. " The Role of Morphology in Word Naming in Spanish‐Speaking Children." Applied PsychoLinguistics 39, no. 5 : 1065 – 1093. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H. 2012. " Sounds, Letters and Meanings: The Independent Influences of Phonological, Morphological and Orthographic Skills on Early Word Reading Accuracy." Journal of Research in Reading 35, no. 4 : 456 – 475. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2011.01496.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., J. Benere, and A. Castles. 2012. " Chicken or Egg? Untangling the Relationship Between Orthographic Processing Skill and Reading Accuracy." Cognition 122, no. 1 : 110 – 117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.09.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., J. Benere, and A. Pasquarella. 2013. " Reciprocal Relationship: Children's Morphological Awareness and Their Reading Accuracy Across Grades 2 to 3." Developmental Psychology 49, no. 6 : 1113 – 1126. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029474.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., N. Conrad, and S. Pacton. 2008. " A Statistical Learning Perspective on Children's Learning About Graphotactic and Morphological Regularities in Spelling." Canadian Psychology on Literacy Development 49, no. 2 : 118 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708‐5591.49.2.118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., and M. Kieffer. 2018. " Understanding How Syntactic Awareness Contributes to Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Mediation and Longitudinal Models." Journal of Educational Psychology 110, no. 1 : 72 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., M. J. Kieffer, and A. Laroche. 2014. " The Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Evidence From Mediation and Longitudinal Models." Scientific Studies of Reading 18 : 432 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.926907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., C. Mimeau, K. Levesque, and J. Ricketts. 2024. " Testing Mechanisms Underlying Children's Reading Development: The Power of Learning Lexical Representations." Developmental Psychology 60, no. 7 : 1343 – 1356. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001749.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., and E. Sparks. 2015. " Children's Spelling Development: Theories and Evidence." In The Oxford Handbook of Reading, edited by A. Pollatsek and R. Treiman, 311 – 325. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.001.0001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department for Education. 2013. "English Programmes of Study: Key Stages 1 and 2 National Curriculum in England. UK Government." https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335186/PRIMARY_national_curriculum_‐_English_220714.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Department of Education and Skills, Ireland. 2019. "Primary Language Curriculum." https://<ulink href="http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;programmes&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;study">www.gov.uk/government/publications/national&amp;#8208;curriculum&amp;#8208;in&amp;#8208;england&amp;#8208;english&amp;#8208;programmes&amp;#8208;of&amp;#8208;study</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dessemontet, R. S., C. Martinet, A.‐F. de Chambrier, B.‐M. Martini‐Willemin, and C. Audrin. 2019. " A Meta‐Analysis on the Effectiveness of Phonics Instruction for Teaching Decoding Skills to Students With Intellectual Disability." Educational Research Review 26 : 52 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.01.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dickinson, D. K., R. M. Golinkoff, and K. Hirsh‐Pasek. 2010. " Speaking out for Language: Why Language Is Central to Reading Development." Educational Researcher 39, no. 4 : 305 – 310. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10370204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ding, G., D. Peng, and M. Taft. 2004. " The Nature of the Mental Representation of Radicals in Chinese: A Priming Study." Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, no. 2 : 530 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.30.2.530.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke, N. K., and K. B. Cartwright. 2021. " The Science of Reading Progresses: Communicating Advances Beyond the Simple View of Reading." Reading Research Quarterly 56 : S25 – S44. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Echols, C. H., and C. N. Marti. 2004. " The Identification of Words and Their Meanings: From Perceptual Biases to Language‐Specific Cues." In Weaving a Lexicon, edited by D. G. Hall and S. R. Waxman, 41 – 78. Boston Review. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7185.003.0005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Education Bureau, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government. 2025. "Curriculum and Assessment Guideline." https://<ulink href="http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum&amp;#8208;development/kla/eng&amp;#8208;edu/curriculum&amp;#8208;documents.html">www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum&amp;#8208;development/kla/eng&amp;#8208;edu/curriculum&amp;#8208;documents.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C. 2005. " Learning to Read Words: Theory, Findings, and Issues." Scientific Studies of Reading 9, no. 2 : 167 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engen, L., and T. Høien. 2002. " Phonological Skills and Reading Comprehension." Reading and Writing 15, no. 7 : 613 – 631. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020958105218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Favier, S., A. S. Meyer, and F. Huettig. 2021. " Literacy Can Enhance Syntactic Prediction in Spoken Language Processing." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150, no. 10 : 2167 – 2174. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001042.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, L. B., and W. W. T. Siok. 1999. " Semantic Radicals Contribute to the Visual Identification of Chinese Characters." Journal of Memory and Language 40, no. 4 : 559 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2629.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher, C., K. S. Jin, and R. M. Scott. 2020. " The Developmental Origins of Syntactic Bootstrapping." Topics in Cognitive Science 12, no. 1 : 48 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald, J., J. Elmore, J. E. Relyea, E. H. Hiebert, and A. J. Stenner. 2016. " Has First‐Grade Core Reading Program Text Complexity Changed Across Six Decades? " Reading Research Quarterly 51, no. 1 : 7 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitzgerald, J., and T. Shanahan. 2000. " Reading and Writing Relations and Their Development." Educational Psychologist 35, no. 1 : 39 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., S. Koon, Y. Petscher, A. Mitchell, and A. Truckenmiller. 2015. " Examining General and Specific Factors in the Dimensionality of Oral Language and Reading in 4th–10th Grades." Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 3 : 884 – 899. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foorman, B. R., Y. Petscher, and M. D. Bishop. 2012. " The Incremental Variance of Morphological Knowledge to Reading Comprehension in Grades 3–10 Beyond Prior Reading Comprehension, Spelling, and Text Reading Efficiency." Learning and Individual Differences 22, no. 6 : 792 – 798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fricke, S., K. Burgoyne, C. Bowyer‐Crane, et al. 2017. " The Efficacy of Early Language Intervention in Mainstream School Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 58, no. 10 : 1141 – 1151. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12737.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., J. Grainger, and K. Rastle. 2005. " Current Issues in Morphological Processing: An Introduction." Language &amp; Cognitive Processes 20, no. 1–2 : 1 – 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gernsbacher, M. A. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. 1st ed. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203772157.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gertner, Y., and C. Fisher. 2012. " Predicted Errors in Children's Early Sentence Comprehension." Cognition 124, no. 1 : 85 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giazitzidou, S., K. Levesque, and S. H. Deacon. 2025. " Getting at How: Testing Mediating Factors in the Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Grade 1." Reading Research Quarterly 60 : e70007. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gleitman, L. 1990. " The Structural Sources of Verb Meanings." Language Acquisition 1, no. 1 : 3 – 55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, H., E. Kelley, C. Greenwood, et al. 2016. " Embedded Instruction Improves Vocabulary Learning During Automated Storybook Reading Among High‐Risk Preschoolers." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 59, no. 3 : 484 – 500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gombert, J. E. 1992. Metalinguistic Development. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B. 1996. " How Children Learn to Read and Why They Fail." Annals of Dyslexia 46 : 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graesser, A. C., D. S. McNamara, and J. M. Kulikowich. 2011. " Coh‐Metrix: Providing Multilevel Analyses of Text Characteristics." Educational Researcher 40, no. 5 : 223 – 234. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11413260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graesser, A. C., K. K. Millis, and R. A. Zwaan. 1997. " Discourse Comprehension." Annual Review of Psychology 48, no. 1 : 163. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Häikiö, T., R. Bertram, and J. Hyönä. 2011. " The Development of Whole‐Word Representations in Compound Word Processing: Evidence From Eye Fixation Patterns of Elementary School Children." Applied PsychoLinguistics 32, no. 3 : 533 – 551. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haley, A., C. Hulme, C. Bowyer‐Crane, M. J. Snowling, and S. Fricke. 2017. " Oral Language Skills Intervention in Pre‐School—A Cautionary Tale." International Journal of Language &amp; Communication Disorders 52, no. 1 : 71 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460‐6984.12257.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. " The Language of Science." In The Collected Works of M. A. K. Halliday, edited by J. Webster, vol. 5. Bloomsbury Academic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins, J. A. 2014. Word Order Universals. Vol. 3. Elsevier.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heintzman, S., N. J. Conrad, and S. H. Deacon. 2024. " vgck versus vack: The Contributions of Children's Early Sub‐Lexical Orthographic Knowledge to Gains in Word Reading." Journal of Research in Reading 47, no. 2 : 145 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H., and L. S. Tortorelli. 2022. " The Role of Word‐, Sentence‐, and Text‐Level Variables in Predicting Guided Reading Levels of Kindergarten and First‐Grade Texts." Elementary School Journal 122, no. 4 : 557 – 590. https://doi.org/10.1086/719658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holliman, A. J., N. Gutierrez‐Palma, S. Critten, C. Wood, H. Cunnane, and C. Pillinger. 2017. " Examining the Independent Contribution of Prosodic Sensitivity to Word Reading and Spelling in Early Readers." Reading and Writing 30 : 509 – 521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9687‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holsgrove, J. V., and A. F. Garton. 2006. " Phonological and Syntactic Processing and the Role of Working Memory in Reading Comprehension Among Secondary School Students." Australian Journal of Psychology 58, no. 2 : 111 – 118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530600730476.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoover, W. A., and P. B. Gough. 1990. " The Simple View of Reading." Reading and Writing 2, no. 2 : 127 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hopp, H., D. Thoma, T. Kieseier, J. Jakisch, and S. Sturm. 2022. " Early Plurilingual Foreign Language Teaching in Mixed Classrooms: Linguistic and Metalinguistic Predictors of Foreign Language Development Among Majority‐Language and Minority‐Language Students in EFL Classes." System 108 : 102828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102828.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jespersen, O. 2013. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Volume 1, Sounds and Spellings. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, A., and Y. Schabes. 1996. Handbook of Formal Languages and Automata. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P., R. Savage, and P. van den Broek. 2009. " Revisiting the Simple View of Reading." British Journal of Educational Psychology 79, no. 2 : 353 – 370. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185408X369020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendeou, P., P. Van den Broek, M. J. White, and J. S. Lynch. 2009. " Predicting Reading Comprehension in Early Elementary School: The Independent Contributions of Oral Language and Decoding Skills." Journal of Educational Psychology 101, no. 4 : 765 – 778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015956.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, D. K., and P. Weener. 1973. " Visual and Auditory Training With the Cloze Procedure to Improve Reading and Listening Comprehension." Reading Research Quarterly 8, no. 4 : 524 – 541. https://doi.org/10.2307/747173.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilpatrick, D. A. 2018. " Incorporating Recent Advances in Understanding Word‐Reading Skills Into Specific Learning Disability Diagnoses: The Case of Orthographic Mapping." In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues, edited by D. P. Flanagan and E. M. McDonough, 947 – 972. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. S. G. 2016. " Direct and Mediated Effects of Language and Cognitive Skills on Comprehension of Oral Narrative Texts (Listening Comprehension) for Children." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 : 101 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.08.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. S. G. 2017. " Why the Simple View of Reading Is Not Simplistic: Unpacking Component Skills of Reading Using a Direct and Indirect Effect Model of Reading (DIER)." Scientific Studies of Reading 21, no. 4 : 310 – 333. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1291643.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y. S. G. 2020. " Interactive Dynamic Literacy Model: An Integrative Theoretical Framework for Reading‐Writing Relations." In Reading‐Writing Connections: Towards Integrative Literacy Science, 11 – 34. Springer International Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. 1988. " The Role of Knowledge in Discourse Comprehension: A Construction‐Integration Model." Psychological Review 95, no. 2 : 163 – 182.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. 1994. " Text Comprehension, Memory, and Learning." American Psychologist 49, no. 4 : 294 – 303.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., and R. S. Savage. 2008. " Can the Simple View Deal With the Complexities of Reading? " Literacy 42, no. 2 : 75 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐4369.2008.00487.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korochkina, M., and K. Rastle. 2025. " Morphology in Children's Books, and What It Means for Learning." NPJ Science of Learning 10, no. 1 : 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539‐025‐00313‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruk, R. S., and K. Bergman. 2013. " The Reciprocal Relations Between Morphological Processes and Reading." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 114, no. 1 : 10 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBerge, D., and S. J. Samuels. 1974. " Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading." Cognitive Psychology 6, no. 2 : 293 – 323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lahiri, A., and W. Marslen‐Wilson. 1991. " The Mental Representation of Lexical Form: A Phonological Approach to the Recognition Lexicon." Cognition 38, no. 3 : 245 – 294.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium. 2015. " The Dimensionality of Language Ability in Young Children." Child Development 86, no. 6 : 1948 – 1965. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12450.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Language and Reading Research Consortium, H. Jiang, J. Logan, and R. Jia. 2018. " Modeling the Nature of Grammar and Vocabulary Trajectories From Prekindergarten to Third Grade." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 61, no. 4 : 910 – 923. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR‐L‐17‐0090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lervåg, A., C. Hulme, and M. Melby‐Lervåg. 2018. " Unpicking the Developmental Relationship Between Oral Language Skills and Reading Comprehension: It's Simple, but Complex." Child Development 89, no. 5 : 1821 – 1838. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K. C., H. L. Breadmore, and S. H. Deacon. 2021. " How Morphology Impacts Reading and Spelling: Advancing the Role of Morphology in Models of Literacy Development." Journal of Research in Reading 44, no. 1 : 10 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K., M. Kieffer, and S. H. Deacon. 2017. " Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehension: Examining Mediating Factors." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 160 : 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.02.015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, R. 2008. " Expectation‐Based Syntactic Comprehension." Cognition 106, no. 3 : 1126 – 1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindfors, J. W. 1987. Children's Language and Learning. 2nd ed. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, P. D., K. K. Chung, C. McBride‐Chang, and X. Tong. 2010. " Holistic Versus Analytic Processing: Evidence for a Different Approach to Processing of Chinese at the Word and Character Levels in Chinese Children." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 107, no. 4 : 466 – 478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.06.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacDonald, M. C., and Y. Hsiao. 2018. " Sentence Comprehension." In Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 2nd ed., 171 – 196. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKay, E., E. Lynch, T. S. Duncan, and S. H. Deacon. 2021. " Informing the Science of Reading: Student's Awareness of Sentence‐Level Information Is Important for Reading Comprehension." Reading Research Quarterly 56, no. 1 : 221 – 230. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKay, E. M., and S. H. Deacon. 2025. A Meta‐Analysis of the Relation of Syntactic Skills to Reading Comprehension in English‐Speaking Children: When, Where, How [Unpublished Manuscript]. Department of Psychology, Dalhousie University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahony, D., M. Singson, and V. Mann. 2000. " Reading Ability and Sensitivity to Morphological Relations." Reading and Writing 12 : 191 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008136012492.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcolini, S., D. Traficante, P. Zoccolotti, and C. Burani. 2011. " Word Frequency Modulates Morpheme‐Based Reading in Poor and Skilled Italian Readers." Applied PsychoLinguistics 32, no. 3 : 513 – 532. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000191.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Massonnié, J., M. Bianco, L. Lima, and P. Bressoux. 2019. " Longitudinal Predictors of Reading Comprehension in French at First Grade: Unpacking the Oral Comprehension Component of the Simple View." Learning and Instruction 60 : 166 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride‐Chang, C., J. R. Cho, H. Liu, et al. 2005. " Changing Models Across Cultures: Associations of Phonological Awareness and Morphological Structure Awareness With Vocabulary and Word Recognition in Second Graders From Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 92, no. 2 : 140 – 160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ministry of Education, Singapore. 2020. "English Language Syllabus Primary." https://<ulink href="http://www.moe.gov.sg/">www.moe.gov.sg/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moats, L. C. 2010. Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers. 2nd ed. Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mokhtari, K., and H. B. Thompson. 2006. " How Problems of Reading Fluency and Comprehension Are Related to Difficulties in Syntactic Awareness Skills Among Fifth Graders." Reading Research and Instruction 46, no. 1 : 73 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070609558461.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montag, J. L., M. N. Jones, and L. B. Smith. 2015. " The Words Children Hear: Picture Books and the Statistics for Language Learning." Psychological Science 26, no. 9 : 1489 – 1496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594361.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montag, J. L., and M. C. MacDonald. 2015. " Text Exposure Predicts Spoken Production of Complex Sentences in 8‐ and 12‐Year‐Old Children and Adults." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, no. 2 : 447 – 468. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000054.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, K. 2019. " Children's Reading Difficulties, Language, and Reflections on the Simple View of Reading." Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 24, no. 1 : 47 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1609272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, P., and L. Bauer. 2023. " What Is Morphological Awareness and How Can You Develop It? " Language Teaching Research Quarterly 33 : 80 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Governors Association Center for Best Practices Council of Chief State School Officers. 2010. "Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. "Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence‐Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (NIH Publication No. 00‐4754). U.S. Government Printing Office."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nippold, M. A. 2016. Later Language Development: School‐Age Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. 4th ed. PRO‐ED.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., and P. Bryant. 2006. Improving Literacy by Teaching Morphemes. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes, T., and G. Hatano. 2004. " Morphology, Reading and Spelling: Looking Across Languages." In Handbook of Children's Literacy, edited by T. Nunes and P. Bryant, 651 – 672. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐1731‐1_34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakhill, J., J. Hartt, and D. Samols. 2005. " Levels of Comprehension Monitoring and Working Memory in Good and Poor Comprehenders." Reading and Writing 18 : 657 – 686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐005‐3355‐z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakhill, J. V., K. Cain, and P. E. Bryant. 2003. " The Dissociation of Word Reading and Text Comprehension: Evidence From Component Skills." Language &amp; Cognitive Processes 18, no. 4 : 443 – 468. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paribakht, T. S., and M. Wesche. 1999. " Reading and "Incidental" L2 Vocabulary Acquisition: An Introspective Study of Lexical Inferencing." Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, no. 2 : 195 – 224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pasquarella, A., H. Deacon, B. X. Chen, E. Commissaire, and K. Au‐Yeung. 2014. " Acquiring Orthographic Processing Through Word Reading: Evidence From Children Learning to Read French and English." International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 61, no. 3 : 240 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.932579.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., and J. Stafura. 2014. " Word Knowledge in a Theory of Reading Comprehension." Scientific Studies of Reading 18, no. 1 : 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., N. Landi, and J. Oakhill. 2005. " The Acquisition of Reading Comprehension Skill." In The Science of Reading: A Handbook, edited by M. J. Snowling and C. Hulme, 227 – 247. Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, B. M. 2014. " Promotion of Syntactical Development and Oral Comprehension: Development and Initial Evaluation of a Small‐Group Intervention." Child Language Teaching and Therapy 30, no. 1 : 63 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, B. M., Y.‐S. Kim, C. J. Lonigan, C. M. Connor, J. Clancy, and S. Al Otaiba. 2021. " Supporting Language and Literacy Development With Intensive Small‐Group Interventions: An Early Childhood Efficacy Study." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 57 : 75 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.05.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, B. M., C. J. Lonigan, Y.‐S. G. Kim, J. Clancy, and C. M. Connor. 2024. " Impact of Supplemental Multicomponent Early Childhood Language Instruction." Journal of Educational Psychology 116, no. 6 : 1034 – 1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000865.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pickering, M. J., and C. Gambi. 2018. " Predicting While Comprehending Language: A Theory and Review." Psychological Bulletin 144, no. 10 : 1002 – 1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000158.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pickering, M. J., and S. Garrod. 2013. " An Integrated Theory of Language Production and Comprehension." Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, no. 4 : 329 – 347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pritchett, B. L. 1988. " Garden Path Phenomena and the Grammatical Basis of Language Processing." Language 64, no. 3 : 539 – 576. https://doi.org/10.2307/414532.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Protopapas, A., A. Fakou, S. Drakopoulou, C. Skaloumbakas, and A. Mouzaki. 2013. " What Do Spelling Errors Tell Us? Classification and Analysis of Errors Made by Greek Schoolchildren With and Without Dyslexia." Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 26, no. 5 : 615 – 646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐012‐9378‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramos, R., and F. Dario. 2015. " Incidental Vocabulary Learning in Second Language Acquisition: A Literature Review." Profile Issues in Teachers' Professional Development 17, no. 1 : 157 – 166. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v17n1.43957.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudszus, H., E. Segers, and L. Verhoeven. 2018. " Lexical Quality and Executive Control Predict Children's First and Second Language Reading Comprehension." Reading and Writing 31 : 405 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐017‐9791‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K. 1998. " Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research." Psychological Bulletin 124, no. 3 : 372 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.124.3.372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogde, K., Å. M. Hagen, M. Melby‐Lervåg, and A. Lervåg. 2019. " The Effect of Linguistic Comprehension Instruction on Generalized Language and Reading Comprehension Skills: A Systematic Review." Campbell Systematic Reviews 15, no. 4 : e1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1059.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roman, A. A., J. R. Kirby, R. K. Parrila, L. Wade‐Woolley, and S. H. Deacon. 2009. " Toward a Comprehensive View of the Skills Involved in Word Reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 102, no. 1 : 96 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.01.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruan, Y., G. K. Georgiou, S. Song, Y. Li, and H. Shu. 2018. " Does Writing System Influence the Associations Between Phonological Awareness, Morphological Awareness, and Reading? A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 110, no. 2 : 180 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryken, A. M., L. Wade‐Woolley, and S. H. Deacon. 2024. " Punctuation: A Missing Link Between Awareness of Prosody and Reading Comprehension." Reading and Writing 38, no. 2 : 1 – 372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐024‐10517‐8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sáez, L., M. Whitney, J. F. Nese, J. Alonzo, and R. N. Nese. 2025. " Reading Prosody: A Listening Guide for Teachers." Reading Teacher 78, no. 4 : 243 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2368.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savage, R., G. K. Georgiou, T. Inoue, K. Dunn, and R. Parrila. 2025. " Set‐For‐Variability Predicts Responsiveness to Tier 2 Reading Interventions." Scientific Studies of Reading 29, no. 2 : 115 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2418940.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savage, R., K. Maiorino, K. Gavin, H. Horne‐Robinson, G. Georgiou, and H. Deacon. 2024. " Contrasting Direct Instruction in Morphological Decoding and Morphological Inquiry‐Analysis Interventions in Grade 3 Children With Poor Morphological Awareness." Journal of Learning Disabilities 57, no. 2 : 120 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scarborough, H. S. 2001. " Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Reading (Dis)Abilities: Evidence, Theory, and Practice." In Handbook of Early Literacy Research, edited by S. B. Neuman and D. K. Dickinson, 97 – 110. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shankweiler, D., and A. E. Fowler. 2004. " Questions People Ask About the Role of Phonological Processes in Learning to Read." Reading and Writing 17, no. 5 : 483 – 515. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:READ.0000044598.81628.e6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. 2025. " Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model." Reading Research Quarterly 60, no. 2 : e603. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.603.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., X. Chen, R. C. Anderson, N. Wu, and Y. Xuan. 2003. " Properties of School Chinese: Implications for Learning to Read." Child Development 74, no. 1 : 27 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8624.00519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., C. McBride‐Chang, S. Wu, and H. Liu. 2006. " Understanding Chinese Developmental Dyslexia: Morphological Awareness as a Core Cognitive Construct." Journal of Educational Psychology 98, no. 1 : 122 – 133.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverman, R. D., E. Johnson, K. Keane, and S. Khanna. 2020. " Beyond Decoding: A Meta‐Analysis of the Effects of Language Comprehension Interventions on K–5 Students' Language and Literacy Outcomes." Reading Research Quarterly 55 : S207 – S233. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.3462020.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singson, M., D. Mahony, and V. Mann. 2000. " The Relation Between Reading Ability and Morphological Skills: Evidence From Derivational Suffixes." Reading and Writing 12 : 219 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008196330239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siu, T. S. C., and S. H. C. Ho. 2020. " A Longitudinal Investigation of Syntactic Awareness and Reading Comprehension in Chinese‐English Bilingual Children." Learning and Instruction 67 : 101327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward an R&amp;D Program in Reading Comprehension. Rand Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., and C. Juel. 2005. " Teaching Children to Read: What Do We Know About How to Do It? " In The Science of Reading: A Handbook, edited by M. J. Snowling and C. Hulme, 501 – 520. Blackwell.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sohail, J., T. Sorenson Duncan, P. W. Koh, S. H. Deacon, and X. Chen. 2022. " How Syntactic Awareness Might Influence Reading Comprehension in English–French Bilingual Children." Reading and Writing 35, no. 5 : 1289 – 1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐021‐10245‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorenson Duncan, T., M. Karkada, S. H. Deacon, and I. M. Smith. 2021. " Building Meaning: Meta‐Analysis of Component Skills Supporting Reading Comprehension in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder." Autism Research 14, no. 5 : 840 – 858. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2483.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. 1986. " Matthew Effects in Reading—Some Consequences of Individual‐Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy." Reading Research Quarterly 21, no. 4 : 360 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057409189001‐204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Staub, A., and C. Clifton Jr. 2006. " Syntactic Prediction in Language Comprehension: Evidence From Either... or." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32, no. 2 : 425 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.32.2.425.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steedman, M. 2001. The Syntactic Process. MIT press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taft, M., and X. Zhu. 1997. " Submorphemic Processing in Reading Chinese." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 23, no. 3 : 761 – 775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.23.3.761.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taft, M., X. Zhu, and D. Peng. 1999. " Positional Specificity of Radicals in Chinese Character Recognition." Journal of Memory and Language 40, no. 4 : 498 – 519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomblin, J. B., and X. Zhang. 2006. " The Dimensionality of Language Ability in School‐Age Children." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 49, no. 6 : 1193 – 1208. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2006/08).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., X. He, and S. H. Deacon. 2017. " Tone Matters for Cantonese–English Bilingual Children's English Word Reading Development: A Unified Model of Phonological Transfer." Memory &amp; Cognition 45, no. 2 : 320 – 333. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421‐016‐0657‐0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., J. L. Y. Kwan, S. Xiuli Tong, and S. H. Deacon. 2022. " How Chinese–English Bilingual Fourth Graders Draw on Syntactic Awareness in Reading Comprehension: Within‐ and Cross‐Language Effects." Reading Research Quarterly 57, no. 2 : 409 – 429. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.400.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., and C. McBride. 2017. " A Reciprocal Relationship Between Syntactic Awareness and Reading Comprehension." Learning and Individual Differences 57 : 33 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.05.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., X. Tong, and C. McBride. 2017. " Unpacking the Relation Between Morphological Awareness and Chinese Word Reading: Levels of Morphological Awareness and Vocabulary." Contemporary Educational Psychology 48 : 167 – 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, X., L. Yu, and S. H. Deacon. 2024. " A Meta‐Analysis of the Relation Between Syntactic Skills and Reading Comprehension: A Cross‐Linguistic and Developmental Investigation." Review of Educational Research 95 : 385 – 426. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543241228185.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W. E. 1989. " The Role of Language‐Related Factors in Reading Disability." In Phonology and Reading Disability: Solving the Reading Puzzle, edited by D. Shankweiler and I. Y. Liberman, 91 – 131. University of Michigan Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W. E., and J. W. Chapman. 2012. " The Simple View of Reading Redux: Vocabulary Knowledge and the Independent Components Hypothesis." Journal of Learning Disabilities 45, no. 5 : 453 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221941143268.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W. E., M. L. Herriman, and A. R. Nesdale. 1988. " Metalinguistic Abilities and Beginning Reading." Reading Research Quarterly 23, no. 2 : 134 – 158. https://doi.org/10.2307/747799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W. E., and W. A. Hoover. 1992. " Cognitive and Linguistic Factors in Learning to Read." In Reading Acquisition, edited by P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, and R. Treiman, 175 – 214. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turnbull, K., S. H. Deacon, and E. Kay‐Raining Bird. 2011. " Mastering Inflectional Suffixes: A Longitudinal Study of Beginning Writers' Spellings." Journal of Child Language 38, no. 3 : 533 – 553. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091000022X.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V., M. Sarid, M. Raveh, and E. Nevo. 2016. " The Contribution of Morphological Awareness to Reading Comprehension in Early Stages of Reading." Reading and Writing 29, no. 9 : 1915 – 1934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9658‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Dijk, T. A., and W. Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Gompel, R. P. G., and M. Pickering. 2007. " Syntactic Parsing." In Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, edited by G. Gaskell, 1st ed., 289 – 307. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino, F. R., and D. M. Scanlon. 1987. " Phonological Coding, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Ability: Evidence From a Longitudinal and Experimental Study." Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly 33, no. 3 : 321 – 363. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23086538">www.jstor.org/stable/23086538</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., and C. Perfetti. 2022. " Universals in Learning to Read Across Languages and Writing Systems." Scientific Studies of Reading 26, no. 2 : 150 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1938575.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., and C. A. Perfetti. 2011. " Morphological Processing in Reading Acquisition: A Cross‐Linguistic Perspective." Applied PsychoLinguistics 32, no. 3 : 457 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., and J. Van Leeuwe. 2012. " The Simple View of Second Language Reading Throughout the Primary Grades." Reading and Writing 25 : 1805 – 1818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐011‐9346‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade‐Woolley, L., C. Wood, J. Chan, and S. Weidman. 2021. " Prosodic Competence as the Missing Component of Reading Processes Across Languages: Theory, Evidence and Future Research." Scientific Studies of Reading 26, no. 2 : 165 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1995390.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weaver, P. A. 1979. " Improving Reading Comprehension: Effects of Sentence Organization Instruction." Reading Research Quarterly 15, no. 1 : 129 – 146. https://doi.org/10.2307/747435.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, S. 2020. " The Role of the Lexicon in the Syntax–Semantics Interface." Annual Review of Linguistics 6, no. 1 : 67 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐linguistics‐011619‐030349.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weighall, A. R. 2008. " The Kindergarten Path Effect Revisited: Children's Use of Context in Processing Structural Ambiguities." Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 99, no. 2 : 75 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2007.10.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, T. G., M. A. Power, and S. White. 1989. " Morphological Analysis: Implications for Teaching and Understanding Vocabulary Growth." Reading Research Quarterly 24, no. 3 : 283 – 304. https://doi.org/10.2307/747771.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williamson, G. L., J. Fitzgerald, and A. J. Stenner. 2013. " The Common Core State Standards' Quantitative Text Complexity Trajectory: Figuring out How Much Complexity Is Enough." Educational Researcher 42, no. 2 : 59 – 69. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X124666.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xie, Q., and S. S. S. Yeung. 2022. " Do Vocabulary, Syntactic Awareness, and Reading Comprehension in Second Language Facilitate the Development of Each Other in Young Children? " Learning and Instruction 82 : 101682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101682.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, L. 2014. " The Disambiguation and Application of the English Syntactic Ambiguity." In International Conference on Education, Language, Art and Intercultural Communication (ICELAIC‐14), 329 – 333. Atlantis Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zacks, J. M., and E. C. Ferstl. 2016. " Discourse Comprehension." In Neurobiology of Language, 661 – 673. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zargar, E., A. M. Adams, and M. D. Connor. 2020. " The Relations Between Children's Comprehension Monitoring and Their Reading Comprehension and Vocabulary Knowledge: An Eye‐Movement Study." Reading and Writing 33 : 511 – 545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐019‐09966‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, X., and W. Marslen‐Wilson. 1999. " Phonology, Orthography and Semantic Activation in Reading Chinese." Journal of Memory and Language 41, no. 4 : 579 – 606. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2663.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J. C., C. Perry, and M. Zorzi. 2014. " Modelling Reading Development Through Phonological Decoding and Self‐Teaching: Implications for Dyslexia." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences 369, no. 1634 : 20120397. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0397.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zipke, M. 2007. " The Role of Metalinguistic Awareness in the Reading Comprehension of Sixth and Seventh Graders." Reading Psychology 28, no. 4 : 375 – 396. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710701260615.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xiuhong Tong and S. Hélène Deacon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib195" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib149" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib184" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib180" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib188" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib171" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib183" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib176" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib161" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib167" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib181" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib182" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib152" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib165" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib194" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref175"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib185" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib178" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref192"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib174" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref200"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib168" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref212"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib186" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref220"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref222"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib190" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib172" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref239"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref242"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib179" firstref="ref246"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib187" firstref="ref247"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref248"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref252"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref254"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref255"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref257"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib196" firstref="ref258"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref259"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib191" firstref="ref261"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref272"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl161" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref273"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl162" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref274"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl163" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref276"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl164" bibid="bib192" firstref="ref277"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl165" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref281"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl166" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref283"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl167" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref284"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl168" bibid="bib175" firstref="ref285"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl169" bibid="bib193" firstref="ref286"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl170" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref291"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl171" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref293"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl172" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref294"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl173" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref296"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl174" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref297"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl175" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref305"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl176" bibid="bib189" firstref="ref314"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl177" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref319"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl178" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref320"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl179" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref321"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl180" bibid="bib156" firstref="ref323"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl181" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref327"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl182" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref331"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl183" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref337"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl184" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref338"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl185" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref339"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl186" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref340"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl187" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref341"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1486960 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: The Linguistic Pathways Model: Capturing the Multiple Dimensions of Reading Development – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xiuhong+Tong%22">Xiuhong Tong</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2934-5278">0000-0002-2934-5278</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22S%2E+Hélène+Deacon%22">S. Hélène Deacon</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4792-5137">0000-0002-4792-5137</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(4). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 22 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Processes%22">Reading Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Oral+Language%22">Oral Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Skills%22">Reading Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Syntax%22">Syntax</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sentence+Structure%22">Sentence Structure</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.70069 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The importance of oral language skills in reading comprehension is widely recognized in contemporary models. Building on this foundation, we propose the Linguistic Pathways Model. In this model, we illuminate mechanistic and developmental detail by which individual components of oral language support reading comprehension and embrace the multiple dimensions across which reading development plays out. This is the level of theoretical detail needed to inform instruction in the classroom that is most likely to propel children on strong trajectories of reading development. We illustrate the value of this model by focusing on syntactic skills--the ability to understand and manipulate sentence structure. We hypothesize two core pathways by which syntactic skills impact reading comprehension. In the syntax-to-lexicon pathway, syntactic skills influence how readers construct lexical representations, ultimately impacting reading comprehension. In the syntax-to-sentence pathway, syntactic skills affect reading comprehension by shaping how readers parse sentences and generate predictions about upcoming information. In each, we elaborate on mechanisms of these influences. We also detail the nature of developmental effects, including changes in relative reliance on skills over time and the temporal order of effects, and the interactions between the two. This work provides a new theoretical model for understanding the precise pathways through which individual oral language skills contribute to reading comprehension development, making predictions that are testable in classrooms. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1486960 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486960 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.70069 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 22 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Reading Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Oral Language Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Skills Type: general – SubjectFull: Skill Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Syntax Type: general – SubjectFull: Sentence Structure Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: The Linguistic Pathways Model: Capturing the Multiple Dimensions of Reading Development Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Xiuhong Tong – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: S. Hélène Deacon IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 10 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0034-0553 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1936-2722 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 60 – Type: issue Value: 4 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
