Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Learning Disabilities
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McClure, J.
Right arrow Articles by Keenan, V.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McClure, J.
Right arrow Articles by Keenan, V.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Use of Grammatical Morphemes by Beginning Readers

Judith McClure, PhD

student Learning Center, Regis College

Michael Kalk, PhD

University of Colorado in Boulder

Verne Keenan, PhD

Institute for the Study of Intellectual Behavior at the University of Colorado in Boulder

Grammatical morphemes have little inherent meaning but provide the syntactic cues necessary to structure language (the, -ing). Twenty-four good beginning readers and 24 poor readers from 12 suburban schools were tested on three measures of grammatical morpheme use: sentence recall, speech production, and language comprehension. The two groups did not differ in sentence recall. Good readers produced more correct grammatical morphemes than poor readers, but the difference disappeared when IQ effects were partialized. More grammatical morphemes were comprehended by good readers than poor readers, even when IQ was controlled.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 13, No. 5, 34-39 (1980)
DOI: 10.1177/002221948001300507


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?