Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model
Saved in:
| Title: | Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | David L. Share |
| Source: | Reading Research Quarterly. 2025 60(2). |
| 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: | 51 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Descriptive |
| Descriptors: | Reading Comprehension, Reading Fluency, Reading Instruction, Reading Processes, Reading Strategies, Reading Writing Relationship, Cultural Pluralism, Ethnic Diversity, Reading Rate, Interdisciplinary Approach, Morphemes, Alphabets, Written Language, Orthographic Symbols, Emergent Literacy |
| DOI: | 10.1002/rrq.603 |
| ISSN: | 0034-0553 1936-2722 |
| Abstract: | In this essay, I outline some of the essential ingredients of a universal theory of reading acquisition, one that seeks to highlight commonalities while embracing the global diversity of languages, writing systems, and cultures. I begin by stressing the need to consider insights from multiple disciplines including neurobiology, cognitive science, linguistics, socio-cultural, and historical inquiry, although my major emphasis is on a writing systems approach. A theme common to several of these perspectives is the need to attain a level of word reading speed and effortlessness necessary to overcome the severe limitations of human (sequential) information processing thereby allowing the reader to devote maximum cognitive resources to comprehension. I then present the "Combinatorial Model"--a universal theory of learning to read based on the fundamental principle of spoken and written language combinatoriality. This principle ("infinite ends from finite means") makes it possible for children to learn how to decipher (i.e., decode), combine and chunk/unitize a limited and learnable set of rudimentary (typically meaningless) elements such as letters, aksharas, syllabograms, and character components into a nested hierarchy of meaningful higher-order units such as morphemes and words that can be recognized instantly and effortlessly via rapid parallel processing of their constituent elements. Combinatoriality enables an orthography to provide "learnability" and "decipherability" for the novice reader (via "phonological transparency") as well as unitizability and automatizability for the expert (via morphemic transparency). I then elaborate on the (i) dual nature of this model and the "unfamiliar-to-familiar/novice-to-expert" framework, (ii) the unit/s of unitization, and (iii) the dual nature of writing. I liken the development of reading to a tree that grows both upwards and outwards. Vertical growth can be thought of as a universal 3-phase progression from "sub-morphemic," through "morpho-lexical," to "supra-lexical" phases in which later-developing phases do not replace earlier phases but are added in a nested combinatorial hierarchy. Outward growth is conceptualized as a process of knowledge "arborization"--ongoing refinement, elaboration, and diversification. I conclude by noting that, despite important recent advances, our knowledge of learning to read in non-European and non-alphabetic systems is still in its infancy. Current research is over-reliant on English--an outlier orthography--together with a handful of Roman-script Western European languages. This has led reading science to neglect many issues of global significance such as homography, tone, diacritics, visual complexity, non-linearity, linguistic distance, multilingualism, multiscriptism, and more. An appreciation of the specifics of the particular language (or languages) and orthography (or orthographies) a child is learning to read "within the broader context of global linguistic, orthographic, and cultural diversity" is crucial not only for a deeper understanding of learning to read a specific language but for a truly global non-ethnocentric science of reading. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1468457 |
| 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_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF8Byk9sCzF_fHZ4vjJu7iuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMVXEv07P_DLc1gUxwIBEICBm_N-AKe3GlEzRnchMYuZqNHkRnN6pi56qpz61JfojwL3IDlXLttZ0N0B75T1y720JBc4fFlFdO0VVF4yZ1TFHMYl7mn7bPOVdNNdJbqjz096xZYPHcmVjNX1lCrBTgoqiE9uv0Qbk8k9LrJ3zwqE0yb2vUQGmxK0StzGtf9FK9Sg0UV4WNLPSbp4uZdnHXQeBGThGLn_bND6wUsD Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0184680247;[nrnu]01apr.25;2025Apr25.06:01;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184680247-1">Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model </title> <p>In this essay, I outline some of the essential ingredients of a universal theory of reading acquisition, one that seeks to highlight commonalities while embracing the global diversity of languages, writing systems, and cultures. I begin by stressing the need to consider insights from multiple disciplines including neurobiology, cognitive science, linguistics, socio‐cultural, and historical inquiry, although my major emphasis is on a writing systems approach. A theme common to several of these perspectives is the need to attain a level of word reading speed and effortlessness necessary to overcome the severe limitations of human (sequential) information processing thereby allowing the reader to devote maximum cognitive resources to comprehension. I then present the Combinatorial Model—a universal theory of learning to read based on the fundamental principle of spoken and written language combinatoriality. This principle ("infinite ends from finite means") makes it possible for children to learn how to decipher (i.e., decode), combine and chunk/unitize a limited and learnable set of rudimentary (typically meaningless) elements such as letters, aksharas, syllabograms, and character components into a nested hierarchy of meaningful higher‐order units such as morphemes and words that can be recognized instantly and effortlessly via rapid parallel processing of their constituent elements. Combinatoriality enables an orthography to provide learnability and decipherability for the novice reader (via phonological transparency) as well as unitizability and automatizability for the expert (via morphemic transparency). I then elaborate on the (i) dual nature of this model and the unfamiliar‐to‐familiar/novice‐to‐expert framework, (ii) the unit/s of unitization, and (iii) the dual nature of writing. I liken the development of reading to a tree that grows both upwards and outwards. Vertical growth can be thought of as a universal 3‐phase progression from sub‐morphemic, through morpho‐lexical, to supra‐lexical phases in which later‐developing phases do not replace earlier phases but are added in a nested combinatorial hierarchy. Outward growth is conceptualized as a process of knowledge arborization—ongoing refinement, elaboration, and diversification. I conclude by noting that, despite important recent advances, our knowledge of learning to read in non‐European and non‐alphabetic systems is still in its infancy. Current research is over‐reliant on English—an outlier orthography—together with a handful of Roman‐script Western European languages. This has led reading science to neglect many issues of global significance such as homography, tone, diacritics, visual complexity, non‐linearity, linguistic distance, multilingualism, multiscriptism, and more. An appreciation of the specifics of the particular language (or languages) and orthography (or orthographies) a child is learning to read within the broader context of global linguistic, orthographic, and cultural diversity is crucial not only for a deeper understanding of learning to read a specific language but for a truly global non‐ethnocentric science of reading.</p> <p>The Reading Tree.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NRNU/01apr25/rrq603-toc-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMMvl7ESepq84yOvsOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="rrq603-toc-0001.jpg" title="." /> </p> <p></p> <p>"Writing—the art of communicating thoughts to the mind, through the eye—is the great invention of the world. Great in the astonishing range of analysis and combination which necessarily underlies the most crude and general conception of it—great, very great in enabling us to converse with the dead, the absent, and the unborn, at all distances of time and of space; and great, not only in its direct benefits, but greatest help, to all other inventions. ... When we remember that words are sounds [syllables] merely, we shall conclude that the idea of representing those sounds by marks, so that whoever should at any time after see the marks, would understand what sounds they meant, was a bold and ingenious conception, not likely to occur to one man of a million, in the run of a thousand years. And, when it did occur, a distinct mark for each word, giving twenty thousand different marks first to be learned, and afterwards remembered, would follow in the second thought, and would present such a difficulty as would lead to the conclusion that the whole thing was impracticable. But the necessity still would exist; and we may readily suppose that the idea was conceived, and lost, and reproduced, and dropped, and taken up again and again, until at last, the thought of dividing sound into parts, and making a mark not to represent a whole sound, but only a part of one, and then of combining these marks, not very many in number, upon the principles of permutation, so as to represent any and all of the whole twenty thousand words, and even any additional number was somehow conceived and pushed into practice," Abraham Lincoln, 1859/[<reflink idref="bib348" id="ref1">348</reflink>], pp. 7–8.</p> <p>"A writing system capable of transcribing any utterance in its associated language necessarily combines phonographic and logographic techniques, and therefore invokes both phonological recoding and the identification of whole words or morphemes." Unger, [<reflink idref="bib659" id="ref2">659</reflink>], p. 75.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-3">Introduction</hd> <p>Since its invention more than 5000 years ago, writing, and the literacy it affords, have largely defined our world, both ancient and modern. Writing defined the ancient world by making possible the record‐keeping, commerce, taxation, and cultural/religious institutions that bound together groups of people remote from one another in space and time. The modern world was re‐defined by the advent of the printing press and the wide availability of cheap paper. And today, technology is again transforming our world as the digital revolution turns David Olson's <emph>World on Paper</emph> (1994) into a paperless world inextricably interconnecting all in global cyber‐space/time. Yet the key to the world of the written word, whether on a screen, paper, clay, or stone remains unchanged: the rapid, seemingly effortless access to the meanings locked in the symbol combinations of the written text. For many, this key is beyond their grasp. The illiterate and semi‐literate are excluded. Among the literate, written language, like spoken language, unites; even those who speak mutually unintelligible languages yet are literate in a common script—Chinese in East Asia, Modern Standard Arabic in the Arabic‐speaking world, Brahmi‐derived Indic (<emph>akshara</emph>) scripts in South and Southeast Asia, and in former times, Aramaic in the ancient Near East, Latin in pre‐Reformation Western Europe, Old Church Slavonic in Eastern Europe, and, perhaps now, English in the digital age. But literacy also divides by demarcating and separating cultures and communities, empowering the literate while disenfranchising the illiterate and semi‐literate. As a vehicle for emancipation, learning to read and write, even possession of a book, was once outlawed among enslaved persons in America; and, in certain parts of the world, literacy is still discouraged or even denied to women (Laaredj‐Campbell, [<reflink idref="bib324" id="ref3">324</reflink>]; The Lancet, [<reflink idref="bib629" id="ref4">629</reflink>]). Even today, global literacy remains an elusive goal, with an estimated 876 million adults functionally illiterate, two thirds of whom are women (United Nations, [<reflink idref="bib662" id="ref5">662</reflink>]). And in most parts of the world, rich and poor alike, illiteracy often goes hand in hand with poverty, poor health, corruption, crime, and human misery.</p> <p>This essay is about the foundations of literacy—the basic reading and writing skills taught to children when they begin formal schooling around the world, and which remain the primordial <emph>raison d'etre</emph> of this institution. Literacy learning is unquestionably much more than the foundational word‐reading skills discussed here, but it is nothing without them. And the key to these foundations is the rapid, near‐effortless access to word identity— the sound and meaning of a word (Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib454" id="ref6">454</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Hart, [<reflink idref="bib456" id="ref7">456</reflink>]; Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib459" id="ref8">459</reflink>]; Seidenberg &amp; McClelland, [<reflink idref="bib542" id="ref9">542</reflink>]). Word reading speed and effortlessness are the quintessence of reading expertise (Kuhn et al., [<reflink idref="bib320" id="ref10">320</reflink>]; LaBerge &amp; Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib325" id="ref11">325</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref12">450</reflink>]; Wolf &amp; Katzir‐Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib714" id="ref13">714</reflink>]) because it frees the reader to focus on meaning. Highly accurate but slow, effortful reading is the defining feature of dyslexia in so‐called "regular" or "transparent" orthographies such as German and Italian (Tressoldi et al., [<reflink idref="bib646" id="ref14">646</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Schurz, [<reflink idref="bib709" id="ref15">709</reflink>]; Zoccolotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib739" id="ref16">739</reflink>]), as well as adult "compensated" dyslexics in English (Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref17">69</reflink>]; Bruck, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref18">73</reflink>]; Lefly &amp; Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib332" id="ref19">332</reflink>]). The skilled reader sails effortlessly through some four to five words per second (Brysbaert, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref20">75</reflink>]; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref21">492</reflink>]); a single familiar word is read as quickly as a single letter (Cattell, [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref22">97</reflink>]). This process is not only fast but unstoppable. Highway road signs and billboards are designed to exploit this inescapable feature of skilled reading—even at high speeds, a driver need only glance at the print and the message is instantly grasped. Even when a printed word is flashed on a screen so briefly that the reader is unaware of having seen anything—not even a blur—the brain will register the message (Forster &amp; Davis, [<reflink idref="bib207" id="ref23">207</reflink>]; Marcel, [<reflink idref="bib368" id="ref24">368</reflink>]). And because word reading is so effortless, the skilled reader can stay glued to a book for hours without a break or fatigue. Once word reading skill reaches the point of "ease," reading can become a pastime offering bountiful rewards (Cunningham &amp; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref25">135</reflink>]; van Bergen et al., [<reflink idref="bib669" id="ref26">669</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-4">Ethnocentrism and Global Diversity</hd> <p>A truly global science of reading must be anchored in an appreciation of the diversity and unity of languages and writing systems (DeFrancis, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref27">159</reflink>]) and the social, cultural, and historical context of literacy learning (Gee, [<reflink idref="bib223" id="ref28">223</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib224" id="ref29">224</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib563" id="ref30">563</reflink>]; Street, [<reflink idref="bib610" id="ref31">610</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib611" id="ref32">611</reflink>]). The estimated 7000 or so living languages in the world today (Eberhard et al., [<reflink idref="bib177" id="ref33">177</reflink>]) are by no means all like English (Blasi et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref34">59</reflink>]; Evans &amp; Levinson, [<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref35">196</reflink>]), nor is the majority of the world learning to read in a European alphabet (Daniels &amp; Bright, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref36">143</reflink>]; Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref37">144</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib562" id="ref38">562</reflink>]; Vaid, [<reflink idref="bib666" id="ref39">666</reflink>]) or even a writing system that can be said to consist of "letters" (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref40">139</reflink>]). These observations echo growing concern among social scientists (Blasi et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref41">59</reflink>]; Henrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib266" id="ref42">266</reflink>]; Singh &amp; Bortfeld, [<reflink idref="bib586" id="ref43">586</reflink>]), linguists (Evans &amp; Levinson, [<reflink idref="bib196" id="ref44">196</reflink>]; Gaur, [<reflink idref="bib221" id="ref45">221</reflink>]; Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib510" id="ref46">510</reflink>]; Sampson, [<reflink idref="bib526" id="ref47">526</reflink>]) and reading researchers (Frost, [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref48">216</reflink>]; Huettig &amp; Ferreira, [<reflink idref="bib281" id="ref49">281</reflink>]; Li, Huang, et al., [<reflink idref="bib343" id="ref50">343</reflink>]; Rastle, [<reflink idref="bib484" id="ref51">484</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref52">556</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib562" id="ref53">562</reflink>]; Siegelman et al., [<reflink idref="bib583" id="ref54">583</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib707" id="ref55">707</reflink>]) that conclusions from studies conducted on highly literate populations from affluent Anglophone and Western European cultures cannot be indiscriminately generalized across humanity. Reading research has been overwhelmingly dominated by work on English, which is an outlier among alphabetic orthographies (Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref56">544</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref57">556</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib562" id="ref58">562</reflink>]; Siegelman et al., [<reflink idref="bib583" id="ref59">583</reflink>]; Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib730" id="ref60">730</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref61">1</reflink>] It is worth keeping in mind, too, that although the Roman alphabet is by far the most common script, it is only one of numerous non‐Roman alphabetic writing systems used by around 400 million people (Cyrillic, Korean, N'ko, Greek, Armenian, Georgian and more, Daniels &amp; Bright, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref62">143</reflink>]). Most children around the globe learn to read in non‐alphabetic writing systems such as abjads (e.g., Arabic), abugidas (often referred to as alphasyllabaries; e.g., Hindi), syllabic systems such as Japanese Kana, or morpho‐syllabaries (e.g., Chinese). And even among the many languages (the majority non‐European) using the Roman alphabet, English is by far the deepest (Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref63">544</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref64">556</reflink>]) and hence an outlier owing to the extreme degree of complexity in orthography‐to‐phonology mappings. I have argued that because spelling–sound relationships are so complex (but not chaotic) in English orthography, much of reading research has been confined to a narrow Anglocentric research agenda addressing theoretical and applied issues with only limited relevance for a universal science of reading and literacy (Share, [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref65">556</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib562" id="ref66">562</reflink>]). This situation is finally beginning to change (see, for example, Joshi, this special issue; Joshi et al., [<reflink idref="bib296" id="ref67">296</reflink>]; Joshi &amp; McBride, [<reflink idref="bib293" id="ref68">293</reflink>]; Joshi &amp; McCardle, [<reflink idref="bib294" id="ref69">294</reflink>]; Lai et al., [<reflink idref="bib326" id="ref70">326</reflink>]; McBride, [<reflink idref="bib377" id="ref71">377</reflink>]; McBride et al., [<reflink idref="bib379" id="ref72">379</reflink>]; Pae &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib437" id="ref73">437</reflink>]; Pae &amp; Winskel, [<reflink idref="bib435" id="ref74">435</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Verhoeven, [<reflink idref="bib449" id="ref75">449</reflink>]; Pugh &amp; Verhoeven, [<reflink idref="bib473" id="ref76">473</reflink>]; Reichle &amp; Yu, [<reflink idref="bib496" id="ref77">496</reflink>]; Saiegh‐Haddad et al., [<reflink idref="bib521" id="ref78">521</reflink>]; Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib520" id="ref79">520</reflink>]; Snowling et al., [<reflink idref="bib592" id="ref80">592</reflink>]; Verhoeven et al., [<reflink idref="bib686" id="ref81">686</reflink>], Verhoeven et al., [<reflink idref="bib681" id="ref82">681</reflink>]), although many of the theories and models currently being used to frame work elsewhere are still understandably entrenched in Anglocentric and Eurocentric/alphabetocentric thinking (Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref83">144</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib560" id="ref84">560</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib562" id="ref85">562</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib563" id="ref86">563</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>]</p> <p>The following essay offers a blueprint for constructing a general theory of learning to read, one that seeks universals yet embraces the enormous diversity among languages and writing systems around the globe. There is much in common—our biological heritage and limited‐capacity information processing system—but fundamental differences exist as well owing largely to language, writing system, and cultural diversity.</p> <p>I begin by first asking <emph>who</emph> should be collaborating in this enterprise. Which disciplines can help inform a theory of learning to read? This is not a purely academic exercise; it has direct implications for the scope of teacher training curricula and credentialing in the field of literacy and reading. While educators have the primary, but not sole, charge to provide children with the tools needed for literacy acquisition, it is equally clear that no single discipline has a monopoly in this field and that a complete science of reading requires multiple interlocking levels of explanation that can only come via genuine interdisciplinary dialogue (Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib604" id="ref88">604</reflink>]). The various disciplinary insights must complement rather than compete against one another.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-5">Marking out the Construction Site: The Importance of Multiple Interlocking Interdisciplinary...</hd> <p>A complete and truly global science of reading, one that speaks to all languages and orthographies in all cultural settings, past, present, and future, must be informed by five disciplines: neurobiology, cognitive science, linguistics, graphonomy (the study of writing systems), and socio‐cultural‐historical inquiry.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-6">Neurobiological Constraints</hd> <p>The anatomical and functional architecture of the human brain places severe constraints on the ability to process temporally sequenced information such as audible and visible language (Baddeley, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref90">36</reflink>]; Baddeley &amp; Hitch, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref91">37</reflink>]; Broadbent, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref92">71</reflink>]; Christiansen &amp; Chater, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref93">114</reflink>]; Cowan, [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref94">131</reflink>]; Frazier &amp; Fodor, [<reflink idref="bib208" id="ref95">208</reflink>]; Frazier &amp; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib209" id="ref96">209</reflink>]; LaBerge &amp; Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib325" id="ref97">325</reflink>]; Miller, [<reflink idref="bib393" id="ref98">393</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref99">450</reflink>]; Posner, [<reflink idref="bib465" id="ref100">465</reflink>]; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref101">492</reflink>]; Stahl &amp; Feigenson, [<reflink idref="bib601" id="ref102">601</reflink>]). These limitations on human information processing are the product of biological constraints shaped by evolution (Christiansen &amp; Chater, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref103">115</reflink>]; DeHaene, [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref104">160</reflink>])—principally our perceptual apparatus, attentional capacity, and memory.</p> <p>For example, the functional anatomy of the human eye evolved to navigate a three‐dimensional terrestrial world, hence has had to adapt ("exapt") to the peculiarly 2‐dimensional world of writing (DeHaene, [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref105">160</reflink>]; Kolinsky, [<reflink idref="bib318" id="ref106">318</reflink>]). The human fovea allows only one‐and‐a‐bit words to be seen with maximum acuity (Drieghe et al., [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref107">171</reflink>]; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref108">492</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib698" id="ref109">698</reflink>]), dictating more or less word‐by‐word reading, at least in English (Reichle &amp; Schotter, [<reflink idref="bib495" id="ref110">495</reflink>], but see Snell et al., [<reflink idref="bib589" id="ref111">589</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref112">3</reflink>] Again, at the core of reading is the individual word (Clifton et al., [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref113">118</reflink>]; Reichle et al., [<reflink idref="bib494" id="ref114">494</reflink>]; Yeatman &amp; White, [<reflink idref="bib724" id="ref115">724</reflink>]). Rather like peering through a telescope, the narrow window of foveal vision flicks from word to word in a skipping spotlight fashion quite unlike most eye movements in the natural world.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref116">4</reflink>] And, contrary to the claims of many commercial schemes for speed reading, humans are incapable of reading whole phrases or lines (Seidenberg, [<reflink idref="bib541" id="ref117">541</reflink>]). If the human eye possessed the panoramic visual acuity of eagles, the story would be very different, although we are blissfully unaware of our visual lacunae. This uniquely sequential word‐by‐word uptake of information also dictates that writing systems the world over must cram distinct ("chunkable") units of meaning (e.g., Chinese characters, English words, Korean syllable blocks) into small densely packed windows occupying no more than a few degrees of visual angle. Furthermore, these visual‐orthographic "chunks" of information must include sufficient visual variety to accommodate unique combinations of letters, syllabograms, or character components necessary for the thousands of basic units of meaning (morphemes) that combine to make up the complete lexicon of a language. Indeed, the number of distinctive features (lines, curves, dots, junctures) for a morpheme or word in English could not differ much from the number of strokes in a Chinese morpho‐syllabic character owing to the dictates of human neurobiology. Consideration of the structure of the human eye and vocal tract together with the limited‐capacity processing capabilities of the human brain explains the logic of Hockett's "dual patterning" and Martinet's "double articulation" referred to here as the combinatorial structure of spoken and written language, namely, that a finite number of meaningless units (such as phonemes or letters) can be combined and recombined to create a potentially infinite number of unique words (Hockett, [<reflink idref="bib276" id="ref118">276</reflink>]; Sandler, [<reflink idref="bib530" id="ref119">530</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-7">Cognitive Science and Human Information Processing Limitations</hd> <p>A great deal of cognitive research has been concerned with the perceptual, attentional, and memory limitations of human information processing and the study of reading is no exception. As already noted above, humans are very poor at processing a string of elements whether heard or seen. The sequential word‐by‐word uptake of information in reading (and typically character‐by‐character in the case of the novice reader) places an enormous burden on the speed of information processing, its storage, and retrieval in working memory. Like spoken language, written language obliges immediate <emph>Now‐or‐Never</emph> processing (Christiansen &amp; Chater, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref120">115</reflink>], see also Rayner's ([<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref121">492</reflink>]) <emph>immediacy‐of‐processing</emph> assumption). This is only possible when strings of characters are unitized into larger chunks such as syllables or morphemes which are then made available to the next level up in the processing hierarchy (Christiansen &amp; Chater, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref122">115</reflink>]; Frazier &amp; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib210" id="ref123">210</reflink>]). If word reading is too slow, older material will be lost or submerged under the deluge of new incoming material.</p> <p>Word reading must not only be very fast but sufficiently effortless to the point that the reader can not only identify each meaning‐bearing unit (morpheme or word), and its context‐specific meaning, but also integrate these meanings both within and across phrases and sentences (Perfetti &amp; Stafura, [<reflink idref="bib448" id="ref124">448</reflink>]) while constructing a mental model of the text as a whole (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib311" id="ref125">311</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib312" id="ref126">312</reflink>]) <emph>and</emph> monitoring the extent to which the goals of reading are being met (Oakhill et al., [<reflink idref="bib426" id="ref127">426</reflink>]). Unfortunately, human attentional limitations allow us to perform only one effortful cognitive activity at a time unless a second activity is highly proceduralized or "automatized". In the domain of spoken language, Christiansen and Chater ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref128">115</reflink>]) argue that;</p> <p>"... the structure of language is, in particular, strongly affected by a severe limitation on human memory: the Now‐or‐Never bottleneck. Sequential information, at many levels of analysis, must rapidly be recoded to avoid being interfered with or overwritten by the deluge of subsequent material. To cope with the Now‐or‐Never bottleneck, the language system chunks new material as rapidly as possible at a range of increasingly abstract levels of representation. As a consequence, Chunk‐and‐Pass processing induces a multilevel structure over linguistic input," p. 18.</p> <p>Written language, operating under the same processing constraints as spoken language, also obliges now‐or‐never, chunk‐and‐pass processing in reading, creating a nested hierarchy of units beginning, in the case of alphabets and abjads, with sub‐lexical elements such as letters, sub‐syllabic letter combinations, and (in some orthographies) syllables that are combined into morphemes, morphemes into words, words into phrases, phrases into clauses, clauses into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into text, and so on. Graphic devices that facilitate chunking are a ubiquitous feature of writing systems, primarily but not exclusively at the lexical level (Kessler &amp; Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib305" id="ref129">305</reflink>]). At the lexical level, these aids to unitization, interalia, include interword spacing and other word demarcation devices such as dots or dividing lines, allographs such as word‐initial forms (e.g., capital letters), word‐initial vowel forms in Indic scripts, word‐boundary allographs—both word‐initial and word‐final forms of letters in Arabic and Greek, head‐strokes in many Indic scripts, and vertical reset in Urdu. At the supra‐lexical level, there is sentence‐initial capitalization, phrase, clausal and sentence punctuation, paragraph indentation and spacing, section and chapter headings, subheadings and numbering, book, volume and issue numbering, and beyond. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that these devices, in particular word spacing, facilitate reading (Blythe et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref130">61</reflink>]; Rayner et al., [<reflink idref="bib493" id="ref131">493</reflink>]; S. Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib341" id="ref132">341</reflink>]; Zang et al., [<reflink idref="bib726" id="ref133">726</reflink>]) and when disrupted or obscured impair reading (e.g., Christofalos et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref134">116</reflink>]; Drieghe et al., [<reflink idref="bib171" id="ref135">171</reflink>]; Epelboim et al., [<reflink idref="bib194" id="ref136">194</reflink>]; Fischer‐Baum &amp; Englebretson, [<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref137">200</reflink>]; Hermena, [<reflink idref="bib267" id="ref138">267</reflink>]; Perea &amp; Acha, [<reflink idref="bib444" id="ref139">444</reflink>]; Rayner et al., [<reflink idref="bib493" id="ref140">493</reflink>]; Sheridan et al., [<reflink idref="bib575" id="ref141">575</reflink>]; Yang &amp; McConkie, [<reflink idref="bib723" id="ref142">723</reflink>]). The few orthographies that do not have inter‐word spacing (<emph>scripta continua</emph>), such as Thai and Burmese, have other (mainly phonological) devices that signal word division (Butskhrikidze, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref143">80</reflink>]). But even in scripta continua, adding spaces facilitates reading (in Japanese Hirigana, Sainio et al., [<reflink idref="bib524" id="ref144">524</reflink>], in Chinese, Hsu &amp; Huang, [<reflink idref="bib279" id="ref145">279</reflink>], and Thai, Kohsom &amp; Gobet, [<reflink idref="bib317" id="ref146">317</reflink>]; Winskel et al., [<reflink idref="bib712" id="ref147">712</reflink>]).</p> <p>Human sensory organs do not boast any special capabilities as regards visual or auditory acuity; indeed, they are little different from and frequently inferior to those of many animals. Neither is the human vocal tract able to produce a greater range of sounds than most primates. Yet this nested hierarchy of combinable units is the genius of human language—providing limited means to unlimited ends. And precisely because written language represents meaning via the medium of language and not directly, writing follows in the footsteps of speech. A limited inventory of elementary graphic sub‐symbolic features (easily discriminated and easily produced) are combined into a limited and hence learnable (and teachable) set of characters[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref148">5</reflink>]—letters, aksharas, syllabograms, and even Chinese character components, which make up the morphemes and words of the particular orthography. Other non‐linguistic notational systems such as music, Labanotation (choreography), and, in some cases, sign language, exploit the potential of vision for the simultaneity of information processing, but not writing systems, hence the same severe processing strictures apply. Successive combinatorial (rule‐governed) chunking of increasingly higher‐order units in a nested hierarchy is a universal feature of writing systems: each level in the hierarchy with its unique set of demarcation devices serving to highlight the relevant chunks. Only by encapsulating strings of elements into a nested hierarchy of successively higher‐order units can the reader overcome the now‐or‐never bottleneck of human processing limitations.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-8">Linguistics</hd> <p>Writing first and foremost represents language (Apel, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref149">20</reflink>]; Coulmas, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref150">130</reflink>]; Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref151">139</reflink>]; DeFrancis, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref152">159</reflink>]; Gnanadesikan, [<reflink idref="bib232" id="ref153">232</reflink>]; Sampson, [<reflink idref="bib527" id="ref154">527</reflink>]; Seidenberg, [<reflink idref="bib541" id="ref155">541</reflink>]; Shankweiler &amp; Fowler, [<reflink idref="bib550" id="ref156">550</reflink>]; Sproat, [<reflink idref="bib599" id="ref157">599</reflink>]; Woods et al., [<reflink idref="bib719" id="ref158">719</reflink>])—both sound <emph>and</emph> meaning (Bowers &amp; Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref159">66</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Helder, [<reflink idref="bib447" id="ref160">447</reflink>]; Rastle, [<reflink idref="bib481" id="ref161">481</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib484" id="ref162">484</reflink>]; Seymour, [<reflink idref="bib543" id="ref163">543</reflink>]; Sproat, [<reflink idref="bib600" id="ref164">600</reflink>]; Unger, [<reflink idref="bib660" id="ref165">660</reflink>]; Venezky, [<reflink idref="bib677" id="ref166">677</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref167">6</reflink>] Brain imaging shows that learning to read involves connecting the visual system to the spoken language system (Peterson &amp; Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib460" id="ref168">460</reflink>]; Preston et al., [<reflink idref="bib468" id="ref169">468</reflink>]; Pugh et al., [<reflink idref="bib474" id="ref170">474</reflink>]; Richlan et al., [<reflink idref="bib500" id="ref171">500</reflink>]; Rueckl et al., [<reflink idref="bib512" id="ref172">512</reflink>]; Shaywitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib572" id="ref173">572</reflink>]; Tan et al., [<reflink idref="bib621" id="ref174">621</reflink>]; Yeatman &amp; White, [<reflink idref="bib724" id="ref175">724</reflink>]). Spoken language skills in preschool (alongside early literacy knowledge such as knowing letter names) are the strongest predictors of later reading ability in school (Lonigan &amp; Shanahan, [<reflink idref="bib355" id="ref176">355</reflink>]; Whitehurst &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib700" id="ref177">700</reflink>]), and the close association between reading difficulties and disordered processing of speech, hearing, and language (Adlof et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref178">11</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib256" id="ref179">256</reflink>]; Snowling et al., [<reflink idref="bib591" id="ref180">591</reflink>]; Vellutino et al., [<reflink idref="bib676" id="ref181">676</reflink>]) confirms the symbiosis of written and spoken language. Writing systems do not and cannot bypass language and directly encode meaning or concepts (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref182">139</reflink>]; Morin, [<reflink idref="bib400" id="ref183">400</reflink>]). Chinese is a <emph>morphosyllabary</emph>, not an ideography or even logography: only a tiny fraction of characters are truly iconic—directly encoding meaning (Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref184">626</reflink>]). A non‐linguistic semasiography that directly encodes conceptual meaning is a non‐sequitur (as Abraham Lincoln astutely observed) and exists only in very restricted communicative contexts, incapable of achieving the full expressive power of human language (Coulmas, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref185">130</reflink>]; Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref186">139</reflink>]; DeFrancis, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref187">159</reflink>]; Gnanadesikan, [<reflink idref="bib232" id="ref188">232</reflink>]; Morin, [<reflink idref="bib400" id="ref189">400</reflink>]; Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib510" id="ref190">510</reflink>]; Shankweiler, [<reflink idref="bib549" id="ref191">549</reflink>]; Unger, [<reflink idref="bib659" id="ref192">659</reflink>]). In contrast to numerical notational systems such as Arabic numerals which directly symbolize numerical concepts (compare the written digit 2 which is language‐<emph>independent</emph> to written language‐dependent forms such as <emph>two</emph>, दो, or שתיים), there can never be a "universal" writing system as long as different languages continue to exist. All writing, therefore, represents a <emph>particular</emph> language (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref193">141</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref194">142</reflink>]). The profound difficulties a child experiences learning to read in a language or dialect that is not the child's L1 affirms the linguistic bedrock of literacy (Brown et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref195">72</reflink>]; Gatlin &amp; Wanzek, [<reflink idref="bib220" id="ref196">220</reflink>]; Myhill, [<reflink idref="bib405" id="ref197">405</reflink>]; Saiegh‐Haddad et al., [<reflink idref="bib521" id="ref198">521</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib563" id="ref199">563</reflink>]). The study of language is therefore crucial for a global science of reading. Each orthography must reflect the particular phonology, morphology, lexicon, and syntax and, for well‐established orthographies, the history of the language. Yet another proof of the essentially linguistic nature of writing is the profound changes that often take place when a writing system is adapted to a new language such as Sumerian cuneiform to Akkadian, the Phoenician abjad to Greek, and morpho‐syllabic Chinese to Japanese and Korean. But even for children learning to read their native tongue, there are often significant differences between the language of the written text and the spoken vernacular in vocabulary, syntax, morphology, and even phonology. A living language is constantly changing, more or less slowly, but orthographies are rarely altered, reformed, or in some cases replaced. If not realigned, pronunciation drifts further and further away from spelling over time (Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref200">144</reflink>]). Thus, almost all orthographies exhibit, in varying degrees, <emph>linguistic distance</emph>. Learning to read, therefore, is learning new forms of language even for native speakers. Above all, learning to read is making language visible.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-9">The Study of Writing Systems 7</hd> <p>Although writing represents language, it is not merely a clone of language (Olson, [<reflink idref="bib427" id="ref201">427</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib428" id="ref202">428</reflink>]; Meletis, [<reflink idref="bib388" id="ref203">388</reflink>]; Vachek, [<reflink idref="bib664" id="ref204">664</reflink>]/Vachek, [<reflink idref="bib665" id="ref205">665</reflink>]) but a distinct and unique variety of language. And because writing systems, like spoken languages, differ in many ways (see Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref206">144</reflink>]), these differences profoundly affect the course of reading acquisition (Frost, [<reflink idref="bib216" id="ref207">216</reflink>]; McBride, [<reflink idref="bib377" id="ref208">377</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Harris, [<reflink idref="bib455" id="ref209">455</reflink>]; Rastle, [<reflink idref="bib482" id="ref210">482</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref211">544</reflink>]; Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib730" id="ref212">730</reflink>]).</p> <p>Not only do different orthographies pose different challenges for the learner (Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref213">102</reflink>]; Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref214">144</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Harris, [<reflink idref="bib455" id="ref215">455</reflink>]; Vasudevan et al., [<reflink idref="bib673" id="ref216">673</reflink>]), but on the global stage, they are not a constant in the literacy‐learning equation. This statement will strike most monolingual English speakers as surprising. This is because English represents a classic case of spelling "fossilization," having changed very little over the past five centuries (apart from some minor reforms in American spelling in the 18th century) despite dramatic sound changes in the spoken language such as the Great English Vowel Shift. The choice (or invention) of an orthography for previously unwritten or endangered languages is a pressing issue for the majority of the world's languages (Eaton, [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref217">176</reflink>]). Reform of existing orthographies is a hotly debated issue in many parts of the world, with the question of learnability for the novice often a major concern. And the wholesale replacement of one orthography with another in times of social upheaval is by no means a rare event. The Roman alphabet replaced the Chinese script in Vietnam, Arabic in Turkey, the Ge'ez script in parts of Ethiopia, and Cyrillic in a number of members of the former Soviet Union including Kazakhstan, Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan. Even in societies with a long tradition of literacy, the sense of immutability associated with the written word is illusory (Scragg, [<reflink idref="bib540" id="ref218">540</reflink>]). Although written language is inherently more conservative than spoken language, it too is a living, breathing organism that ceases to change only when it becomes extinct. Every writing system must adapt to the ever‐changing needs of its users, their culture and technology of communication (Sampson, [<reflink idref="bib528" id="ref219">528</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref220">8</reflink>] The notion of <emph>the</emph> ideal or optimal orthography is a myth (Share, [<reflink idref="bib559" id="ref221">559</reflink>]), especially the common but pernicious belief that the alphabet is a universally superior system (Share, [<reflink idref="bib560" id="ref222">560</reflink>]) which ideally represents the surface phonetics of the language. In short, an understanding of the learning challenges posed by different writing system architectures is essential to a theory of learning to read. This essay places special emphasis on the writing systems perspective in learning to read.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-10">Social–Cultural–Historical Studies</hd> <p>Because writing is a cultural creation, constrained by biology but not a built‐in biological given of human brain architecture (Liberman, [<reflink idref="bib346" id="ref223">346</reflink>]; McCandliss et al., [<reflink idref="bib383" id="ref224">383</reflink>]), the social, cultural, and historical context of reading, writing, and literacy is also fundamental to understanding the broader context of learning to read (Manguel, [<reflink idref="bib364" id="ref225">364</reflink>]; Olson, [<reflink idref="bib428" id="ref226">428</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib429" id="ref227">429</reflink>]; Wolf &amp; Potter, [<reflink idref="bib715" id="ref228">715</reflink>]). Writing and literacy are often touted as the fount of social and economic progress, but only when coupled with the right sociopolitical conditions, are new cultural, social, and economic modes possible (Coulmas, [<reflink idref="bib130" id="ref229">130</reflink>]; Olson, [<reflink idref="bib430" id="ref230">430</reflink>]).</p> <p>Literacy can be used to empower or to disempower. In Imperial China, the attainment of literacy in Chinese characters was only accessible to a privileged few able to invest the time and effort in mastering a complex writing system necessary to enter the bureaucratic elite. This helped ensure that literacy and the power it afforded resided solely in the hands of the ruling elite, leaving the masses disenfranchised. This was a colossal learning task even for native Chinese literati, but for Koreans, it was also a foreign language. And precisely owing to the relative inaccessibility of literacy in Chinese characters in 15th‐century pre‐Hangul Korea, King Sejong saw fit to invent a more accessible and easily decipherable script (Hangul) that would empower the Korean masses (Pae, [<reflink idref="bib436" id="ref231">436</reflink>]). Much the same (and contemporaneous) tale can be told when the Catholic Church decreed as heresy the translation of the Latin Bible and liturgy into the spoken vernaculars of their faithful (such as English, German, and Czech) during the Reformation.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-11">What Does it Mean to Acknowledge that Reading Is a Skill?</hd> <p>Reading is a skill, one that takes time, effort, and practice—years of daily practice (Castles et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref232">96</reflink>]; Nation, [<reflink idref="bib418" id="ref233">418</reflink>]; Stanovich &amp; West, [<reflink idref="bib606" id="ref234">606</reflink>]); it does not come "for free" (Liberman, [<reflink idref="bib346" id="ref235">346</reflink>]). Like other skills, such as learning to play the piano, it rarely develops spontaneously simply by seeing and hearing others read, like spoken language. Unlike spoken language, reading is not universal. In many developing countries, and especially in the many primarily oral societies in Africa, the Amazon, and Papua New Guinea, most children either are non‐readers or read reluctantly, haltingly, and laboriously (Roberts &amp; Walter, [<reflink idref="bib508" id="ref236">508</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib563" id="ref237">563</reflink>]). Even in the most literate societies in the world, substantial numbers of individuals struggle to learn to read (Fletcher, [<reflink idref="bib204" id="ref238">204</reflink>]; Lyon et al., [<reflink idref="bib357" id="ref239">357</reflink>]; Shaywitz &amp; Shaywitz, [<reflink idref="bib573" id="ref240">573</reflink>]; Snowling, [<reflink idref="bib590" id="ref241">590</reflink>]; Snowling et al., [<reflink idref="bib591" id="ref242">591</reflink>]).</p> <p>Because it has no evolutionary roots, reading is in a sense "unnatural" (Gough &amp; Hillinger, [<reflink idref="bib243" id="ref243">243</reflink>]). Unlike biologically primary abilities such as auditory localization or depth perception, which are universal and exhibit little variation across populations, learning to read is biologically secondary (Geary, [<reflink idref="bib222" id="ref244">222</reflink>]) and like other learned skills, such as playing golf or the flute, is characterized by enormous diversity resulting mainly from instructional, environmental, and cultural variation.[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref245">9</reflink>]</p> <p>Reading is a very recent cultural innovation, a technology (Sproat, [<reflink idref="bib600" id="ref246">600</reflink>]). In the two million years or so of human evolution, a mere five millennia since the invention of writing represents little more than the blink of an eye. Biologically, the brain of <emph>Homo sapiens</emph> is no different than it was some 50,000–60,000 years ago, hence writing and reading have no evolutionary basis. Reading is a neural hitchhiker, retooling structures evolved for other purposes (DeHaene, [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref247">160</reflink>]). But neuroplasticity makes reading and writing possible by "recycling" structures for new functions such as reading (DeHaene, [<reflink idref="bib160" id="ref248">160</reflink>]; Rapp, [<reflink idref="bib480" id="ref249">480</reflink>]). The brain does not come "wired" to read, it requires explicit instruction and plenty of practice, like all skills. The classic "10,000 hours of practice" required to attain expertise in a specific skill (Ericsson &amp; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib195" id="ref250">195</reflink>]) is probably applicable to learning to read.</p> <p>To say that reading is a learned skill requiring explicit instruction (Castles et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref251">96</reflink>]; Ehri et al., [<reflink idref="bib183" id="ref252">183</reflink>]) does not mean that teachers teach children to read—they only supply children with the tools needed to teach themselves (Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref253">553</reflink>])—by exploiting the combinatorial logic of the writing system. In the Anglophone and alphabetic literature, the notion of combinatorial logic can be equated with letter knowledge and phonemic awareness which have been labeled the "twin co‐requisites" (Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref254">553</reflink>]) or "co‐determinants" (Bowey, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref255">68</reflink>]) of beginning reading. In the classroom, this means explicitly teaching beginners that the letter ⟨s⟩ makes the sound /s/ at the beginning of words like <emph>sit</emph>, <emph>sand</emph>, and <emph>sing</emph> (National Reading Panel, [<reflink idref="bib421" id="ref256">421</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref257">10</reflink>] This, however, is too narrow for a broader universal theory of learning to read because the basic building blocks of writing are not always (alphabetic or abjadic) letters, but can also include diacritics, multi‐phonemic units such as Indic aksharas, syllabograms (in syllabaries), and morphograms (in morpho‐syllabaries). Cross‐linguistically, not only the construct of letter knowledge, but also phonemic awareness is too narrow and alphabetocentric (see Share, [<reflink idref="bib560" id="ref258">560</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib562" id="ref259">562</reflink>]) and needs broadening to include awareness of phonological units both larger and, in some cases, smaller than the phoneme. These include supra‐phonemic units such as sub‐syllabic consonant‐vowel (CV) units, rimes, and whole syllables, as well as tone awareness and even sub‐phonemic feature‐level units (such as voicing). A less alphabetocentric term for the awareness of the phonological units mapped by an orthography—any orthography—is phonological awareness. But sound alone is not the whole story. Orthographies map meaning as well as sound. Understanding how graphic units such as letters are combined to produce morphemes and words is also an essential aspect of writing system combinatoriality which, of course, is language‐specific and orthography‐specific. To illustrate, at some point (precisely <emph>when</emph> is still the subject of debate in the Anglophone literature) the reader/writer will need to appreciate morphemic regularities that often override phonology such as the invariable spelling of the English noun plural and third‐person verb suffix ⟨s⟩ even though the sound alternates between /s ~ z/ (e.g., ⟨runs⟩, not * ⟨runz⟩, in contrast to Dutch ⟨huis/huizen⟩, "house(s)").</p> <p>Even in Indic akshara‐based writing systems (see Nag, [<reflink idref="bib406" id="ref260">406</reflink>]) and Chinese (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref261">17</reflink>]; McBride &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib380" id="ref262">380</reflink>]; Shu &amp; Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib578" id="ref263">578</reflink>]), which are popularly misconstrued as systems that can only be learned via massive rote memorization, akshara‐by‐akshara, character‐by‐character, it has been shown that the more successful readers understand and exploit the underlying combinatorial logic of their writing system and apply it independently and productively to expand and refine their word reading skill. "<emph>Research has found that children do not memorize characters as a whole in learning to read [Chinese]; they decompose characters into sublexical units</emph>" (Shu, [<reflink idref="bib577" id="ref264">577</reflink>], p. 276). Once they have the "tools of the trade," readers in every orthography need practice, practice, and more practice—that is, reading volume (Cunningham &amp; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib134" id="ref265">134</reflink>]; Nation, [<reflink idref="bib418" id="ref266">418</reflink>]; Verhoeven et al., [<reflink idref="bib686" id="ref267">686</reflink>]). Many literacy learners in developing societies have never had the opportunities or motivation to read widely owing to limited access to reading material, and/or little opportunity to read in their native tongue (Share, [<reflink idref="bib563" id="ref268">563</reflink>]; Trudell &amp; Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib648" id="ref269">648</reflink>]). When reading remains slow and effortful, fluency may never reach the level of efficiency that allows readers to reap the many benefits that reading proficiency affords (Cunningham &amp; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref270">133</reflink>]; Huettig &amp; Hulstijn, [<reflink idref="bib282" id="ref271">282</reflink>]; van Bergen et al., [<reflink idref="bib669" id="ref272">669</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-12">The Combinatorial Model of Learning to Read</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184680247-13">Why Combinatoriality?</hd> <p>Owing to the severe information processing limitations discussed earlier, speed of access to word identity is paramount. To overcome the now‐or‐never processing bottleneck, speed is best achieved when groups of elements are combined into higher‐order chunks that can be rapidly processed as single units—this is the essence of writing system combinatoriality. Ideally, these chunks coincide with units of meaning such as morphemes or whole (monomorphemic or polymorphemic) words. The notion of multiple nested levels of chunked information—a universal feature of writing systems—mimics the patterning of spoken language (Christiansen &amp; Chater, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref273">115</reflink>]; Damera et al., [<reflink idref="bib136" id="ref274">136</reflink>]; Hockett, [<reflink idref="bib276" id="ref275">276</reflink>]). The acoustic input from speech is re‐packaged into phonemic chunks which in turn are combined into syllables, syllables into morphemes, morphemes into polymorphemic words, words into phrases/clauses/sentences, and so on. The human visual system onto which the reading system piggybacks also exemplifies the combinatorial principle. A nested hierarchy of multiple posterior‐to‐anterior layers, which extends forward from region V1 at the back of the visual cortex along the ventral occipito‐temporal pathway, codes increasingly larger and more complex units beginning with elementary visual features such as lines, through line conjunctions, and, in the case of alphabets, abjads, and alphasyllabaries, single symbols, symbol combinations such as letter bigrams, through to morphemes and short words in the Visual Word Form Area (VWFA). Each layer pools the lower‐level input into larger (and more abstract and invariant) chunks (DeHaene et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref276">162</reflink>]; Vinckier et al., [<reflink idref="bib689" id="ref277">689</reflink>]). Infinite ends via finite means (von Humboldt, 1836/von Humboldt, [<reflink idref="bib690" id="ref278">690</reflink>]). Written language, too, exploits these processing hierarchies by re‐tooling the pre‐existing neural architecture of the visual system for recognizing objects and faces to serve letter perception. It seems reasonable to extend the perception of letters to the perception of simple CV aksharas and complex aksharas, syllabograms (e.g., Japanese kana), and Chinese stroke combinations which all combine elementary visual features such as lines and curves into higher‐order graphic units which are further combined into symbol combinations and combinations of combinations. For the developing reader, the most critical junction in this hierarchy is the combination of meaningless units into meaningful units—morphemes and words. These (mostly) meaningless units are the phoneme‐level units (letters and diacritics) in alphabets and abjads, aksharas and vowel matras in alphasyllabaries, whole (sub‐morphemic) syllables in syllabaries, and sub‐morphemic stroke combinations in component radicals (semantic and phonetic) in Chinese.</p> <p>At each level of the hierarchy, chunks of every size—from single symbols to entire texts—are highlighted for the reader via demarcation devices such as letter separation (a near‐universal feature of writing, Tolchinsky, [<reflink idref="bib636" id="ref279">636</reflink>]), word boundary marking, phrasal and sentence punctuation, paragraph indentation, section or chapter numbers and/or headings, and, in the case of scholarly publications, issue, and volume numbers. At every level, unitization is designed to condense potentially overwhelming quantities of information for the reader. Even the construction of a mental model of a text (Kintsch, [<reflink idref="bib311" id="ref280">311</reflink>]) is essentially another chunking operation. From the point of view of the foveal "spotlight," it is the elementary meaning‐bearing units—morphemes and words—that are critical, marking the crucial shift from meaningless building blocks to meaningful units. And since the structure of the human eye dictates more or less word‐by‐word or morpheme‐by‐morpheme reading, it is natural that a writing system packages meaningful units into foveal‐sized units—words or characters in the case of Chinese characters, Japanese Kanji—the content or meaning‐supplying characters in Japanese, and Korean hancha. Thus, the word (monomorphemic or polymorphemic) and character (simple or compound) are, literally, the center of attention in most writing systems—the fulcrum on which comprehension succeeds or fails.</p> <p>Paradoxically, the immediate goal for the novice reader is to compile a "sight vocabulary,"[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref281">11</reflink>] a mental logography (Unger, [<reflink idref="bib659" id="ref282">659</reflink>]) of direct orthography–meaning connections that can each be processed as a single word‐specific unit (Perfetti &amp; Verhoeven, [<reflink idref="bib449" id="ref283">449</reflink>]). This can only be achieved non‐logographically—that is, combinatorially by processing orthographic detail via exhaustive or near‐exhaustive symbol‐to‐sound translation (so‐called "phonological recoding" or simply "decoding"[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref284">12</reflink>]) or feature‐by‐feature or stroke‐by‐stroke writing. This ensures that the reader attends to and memorizes the minimal differences between words that may differ by as little as a mere dot (Arabic باب /ناب, Turkish kil/kıl) yielding precise orthographic representations in the mental lexicon (Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib451" id="ref285">451</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib454" id="ref286">454</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref287">553</reflink>]). By virtue of the combinatoriality principle and humans' penchant for dendrophilia (i.e., tree‐like structures) in language, music, and more, (Fitch, [<reflink idref="bib201" id="ref288">201</reflink>]; Fitch &amp; Martins, [<reflink idref="bib202" id="ref289">202</reflink>]), writing systems can exploit finite means for infinite ends as succinctly communicated in Abraham Lincoln's 1859 lecture (see epigraph). Humans cannot simply learn large numbers of words holistically but must process and memorize orthographic detail (Davis, [<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref290">146</reflink>]; Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref291">179</reflink>]; Grainger, [<reflink idref="bib245" id="ref292">245</reflink>]; Pelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib442" id="ref293">442</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib451" id="ref294">451</reflink>]; Whitney, [<reflink idref="bib701" id="ref295">701</reflink>]; Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib729" id="ref296">729</reflink>]) either by decoding or encoding (writing/spelling).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-14">Reading Development: The Reading Tree and Knowledge Arborization</hd> <p>The notion of reading development as a sequence of stages, waves, or phases has dominated reading research since the post‐war rebirth of cognitive psychology. Anyone who has witnessed a child's reading progress can attest to obvious qualitative changes over time. But stage‐based approaches often imply that each succeeding stage or phase <emph>replaces</emph> the previous one, as opposed to <emph>adding</emph> new layers in an evolving accumulation and refinement of literate knowledge. In Ehri's phase theory (1995, 2005), for example, an initial visual or pre‐alphabetic phase is replaced by partial alphabetic reading[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref297">13</reflink>] which in turn is replaced by the full alphabetic phase, and so on. In contrast, the combinatorial model proposes an <emph>additive</emph> layer‐on‐layer version of the stage/phase notion of reading development, one that does not assume that later stages replace earlier stages.</p> <p>As an alternative to traditional stage/phase‐based theories of reading development, the combinatorial model can be likened to a growing tree. Borrowing the neurobiological account of learning as dendritic <emph>arborization</emph> (Cline &amp; Haas, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref298">120</reflink>]; Vaughn, [<reflink idref="bib674" id="ref299">674</reflink>]), the quasi‐hierarchical structure of leaves, twigs, branches, and trunk aligns well with the notion of multiple nested levels of knowledge emerging partly as a result of explicit instruction but primarily as the result of massive implicit or statistical learning. If reading development is a continuous and ongoing process extending over the entire literate lifespan, expanding, and refining knowledge of the regularities of the world of writing at every level from letters to text, then the metaphor of a growing tree (which, like reading, takes years to mature) is useful. Evolving from the very first sprout of a seedling to a young sapling and then eventually maturing into a sturdy tree better captures the idea of a hierarchical multi‐layered structure constantly branching up and out, becoming increasingly diversified ("arborized") at all levels. Reading growth is not merely the addition of new layers—such as a morpho‐lexical level on top of a sub‐lexical level—but the ongoing refinement of knowledge about written language at each and every level. This growth is entirely contingent on the interplay between the quantity and quality of literate experiences (reading and writing)—<emph>how</emph> the developing reader processes orthographic detail, which will depend on their cognitive‐linguistic profile, reading style, and the way s/he was taught to read.</p> <p>Most trees grow in two planes simultaneously: both outwards (more or less horizontally) and upwards (vertically)—gaining both breadth and height. On the horizontal plane, branches thicken (knowledge consolidation) and become increasingly elaborate and diversified ("arborization"). At the level of individual symbols and their mapping to sound, an initially oversimplified conception of symbol–sound correspondence gradually becomes refined over the course of print exposure, diversifying (like synaptic dendrites) into a more elaborate network of increasingly accurate and sophisticated knowledge (mostly unconscious and unintentional) at all levels[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref300">14</reflink>] from knowledge (both explicit and implicit) about single written symbols—their various forms, frequencies, positional and contextual patterning, multi‐letter combinations, morphemes, and polymorphemic words.</p> <p>To illustrate, beginning readers of English are often (and wisely) first taught an oversimplified deterministic "rule" that the letter <emph>a</emph> (as in <emph>cat</emph>) makes the sound /æ/. Consider this as the first shoot of the seedling. This bit of information is not discarded as the reader grows, but it is gradually refined into a more nuanced context‐conditioned probabilistic (primarily implicit) understanding that this correspondence works well as a general default decoding (especially in short monosyllabic words such as <emph>cat</emph>, <emph>bag</emph>, and <emph>stand</emph>), but has other sounds depending on position and context (<emph>take</emph>, <emph>call</emph>, <emph>care</emph>, <emph>wand</emph>, <emph>farm</emph>, <emph>team</emph>, <emph>play</emph>, <emph>boat</emph>, etc). Knowledge of each of these variations relies on probabilistic patterns that characterize an entire neighborhood of words (<emph>care</emph>, <emph>share</emph>, <emph>fare</emph>, etc.), some almost entirely consistent like the <emph>‐are</emph> rime (which therefore can be formulated as a teachable "rule"), others less consistent: ‐aCe, the "long <emph>a</emph>" or "magic (or "silent") <emph>e"</emph> rule, which includes the influential high‐frequency but recalcitrant <emph>have</emph> yet is still very productive and therefore lends itself to explicit instruction (see Section Linguistics). Less productive is the digraph <emph>ea</emph> /i:/, which has a very diverse neighborhood—<emph>great, head</emph>, <emph>heard</emph>, <emph>heart</emph>, <emph>bear</emph>, etc., which requires a set for variability[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref301">15</reflink>] (Edwards et al., [<reflink idref="bib178" id="ref302">178</reflink>]; Gibson, [<reflink idref="bib228" id="ref303">228</reflink>]; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib532" id="ref304">532</reflink>]; Steacy et al., [<reflink idref="bib607" id="ref305">607</reflink>]; Tunmer &amp; Chapman, [<reflink idref="bib655" id="ref306">655</reflink>]) supported by a good vocabulary (Ricketts et al., [<reflink idref="bib502" id="ref307">502</reflink>]), and sentence context as a supplementary source of disambiguation.</p> <p>My point here is that the <emph>a</emph> = /æ/ starting point does not disappear, it just loses its monopoly and assumes its true proportions, becoming one (albeit the main one) of a number of new (horizontal) branches, each encapsulating one of an array of context‐dependent probabilities (Gombert, [<reflink idref="bib236" id="ref308">236</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib237" id="ref309">237</reflink>]). Over time—years of reading experience, indeed a lifetime of reading—this diversification/arborization process comes to approximate the true and typically untaught statistics of the particular orthography.</p> <p>Turning from the outward horizontal growth to the upward vertical growth of our reading tree, it is important to point out that most of the research into reading development has either (i) examined predictors and correlates of reading; (ii) undertaken laboratory‐style experimental studies designed to determine whether a particular variable (e.g., length, regularity, frequency) influences reading times and/or accuracy at specific points in development; or (iii) aimed to elucidate which areas or pathways in the brain are active or underactive during reading. A far smaller body of work has looked more closely at individual children actually reading in naturalistic settings—<emph>how</emph> they decode as reading grows: their errors (Biemiller, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref310">58</reflink>]; Harding et al., [<reflink idref="bib252" id="ref311">252</reflink>]; Savage et al., [<reflink idref="bib533" id="ref312">533</reflink>]; Weber, [<reflink idref="bib696" id="ref313">696</reflink>]), eye movements (Blythe, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref314">60</reflink>]), or even hand movements (Marzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib373" id="ref315">373</reflink>]). Precious few studies (see, e.g., Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref316">431</reflink>]) have followed developing readers using more fine‐grained qualitative methods. Yet again, almost all this work has been undertaken in English and one or two other Roman‐script Western European languages. Because we still know very little about reading acquisition beyond English, the model I sketch below is, as the term <emph>blueprint</emph> in the title of this paper implies, only an agenda for future efforts aimed at developing a more fully specified model.</p> <p>The tree metaphor also exemplifies the dual nature of the combinatorial model. The leaves can be thought of as the stored orthographic representations of complete words and morphemes (the orthographic lexicon or sight vocabulary) that make possible instant word recognition. The roots, trunk, branches, and twigs of a tree which supply the essential nutrients for leaf growth can be likened to the mechanisms for identifying (deciphering) and internalizing novel words. I return to the dual nature of the combinatorial model after sketching the infrastructure (trunk, branches, and twigs) that makes possible the growth of the orthographic lexicon (the leaves).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-15">The (1) + 3‐Phase Combinatorial Model: One Non‐Obligatory Non‐combinatorial Phase and Three C...</hd> <p>The combinatorial model postulates one non‐combinatorial phase[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref317">16</reflink>] and three combinatorial phases of learning to read: an initial, <emph>sub‐morphemic</emph> phase (often mislabeled <emph>sub‐lexical</emph>), a morpho‐lexical phase, and a supra‐lexical phase. In accordance with the additivity idea, previously acquired knowledge (in most cases) does not disappear as children progress to more advanced phases. In the sub‐morphemic phase, the ability to decode the <emph>ea</emph> digraph in monomorphemic words such as <emph>eat</emph>, <emph>steal</emph>, and <emph>please</emph> does not disappear when children move into the morpho‐lexical phase. Nor is this knowledge abandoned when the speed and automaticity of word reading enable the learner to advance to the supra‐lexical phase.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-16">One (Non‐obligatory) Non‐combinatorial Phase</hd> <p>Almost all models of English reading acquisition posit an initial phase or stage of learning to read, variously referred to as <emph>logographic</emph> or <emph>visual</emph> or <emph>pre‐alphabetic</emph> (Chall, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref318">98</reflink>]; Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref319">181</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref320">182</reflink>]; Frith, [<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref321">212</reflink>]; Gough et al., [<reflink idref="bib244" id="ref322">244</reflink>]; Gough &amp; Hillinger, [<reflink idref="bib243" id="ref323">243</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref324">257</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib371" id="ref325">371</reflink>]; Rack et al., [<reflink idref="bib476" id="ref326">476</reflink>]; Stuart &amp; Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib612" id="ref327">612</reflink>]) in which learning is unsystematic and non‐combinatorial; hence reading is unproductive in that a child is unable to read novel words. In the absence of combinatoriality, the curious pre‐literate child, as yet unaware of the combinatorial logic of print, often learns to identify various commercial labels (so‐called "environmental print"), as well as non‐commercial writing such as personal names—each memorized as best as possible with the aid of mnemonics and context. As Ehri and others (e.g., Masonheimer et al., [<reflink idref="bib375" id="ref328">375</reflink>]; Share &amp; Gur, [<reflink idref="bib567" id="ref329">567</reflink>]) have noted, this is often more "reading the context" than reading the print: if contextual information is removed, identification typically fails; hence there is little likelihood of a child deciphering or even guessing a novel word on their own (see Jorm &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib291" id="ref330">291</reflink>], pp. 153–154). Any successful word identification (such as reading their own name) will depend on help from literate adults or siblings. Non‐combinatorial "reading" or "pseudo‐reading" is epitomized in attempts to read and write using referential elements such as the two "eyes" in the word <emph>look</emph>, the "tail" at the end of the word <emph>doɡ</emph>, visual cues such as word length (e.g., <emph>hippopotamus</emph>), or an arbitrary visual cue (Chinese 潭 and 谰 are treated as homophones because they share a dot at the upper left corner (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref331">108</reflink>]). Studies of preschool writing have also revealed many similar phenomena in Roman‐script European languages (Ferreiro &amp; Teberosky, [<reflink idref="bib199" id="ref332">199</reflink>]; Gombert &amp; Fayol, [<reflink idref="bib238" id="ref333">238</reflink>]; Pontecorvo &amp; Zucchermaglio, [<reflink idref="bib463" id="ref334">463</reflink>]) and in Hebrew (Shatil et al., [<reflink idref="bib571" id="ref335">571</reflink>]; Tolchinsky‐Landsmann &amp; Levin, [<reflink idref="bib638" id="ref336">638</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib639" id="ref337">639</reflink>]), such as producing (in the case of writing) enlarged (pseudo‐)letters for writing <emph>elephant</emph> or adding a sixth letter to a child's first (5‐letter) name on their sixth birthday. Almost immediately, however, this strategy runs into insurmountable difficulties generating unique cues for each word, rapidly leading the learner up a blind and very short alley (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref338">180</reflink>]; Frith, [<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref339">212</reflink>]; Gough et al., [<reflink idref="bib244" id="ref340">244</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib371" id="ref341">371</reflink>]; Share &amp; Gur, [<reflink idref="bib567" id="ref342">567</reflink>]). These data explain why learning words via purely whole‐word non‐combinatorial look‐and‐say methods never allows children to learn more than a small set of words. This "stage" is often disparagingly referred to as Stage 0, or <emph>pre‐reading</emph>, implying that this is not real reading and hence has little value, but it is important to acknowledge that pre‐literate children are also learning about the conventions and functions of print (so‐called "print concepts" (Clay, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref343">117</reflink>]; Levy et al., [<reflink idref="bib338" id="ref344">338</reflink>]) or "print learning" (Conrad &amp; Deacon, [<reflink idref="bib129" id="ref345">129</reflink>])), such as the peculiarly two‐dimensional world of writing (and book illustrations) as well as the concepts and vocabulary of literate discourse such as <emph>author</emph>, <emph>page</emph>, <emph>word</emph>, <emph>letter</emph>, (Indic) <emph>akshara</emph>, (Eritrean) <emph>fidel, (Korean) jamo, (Chinese) zi</emph><sups><emph>4</emph></sups>, etc. A child exposed to a literacy‐rich environment, and, above all, shared story‐book reading (and shared or joint writing) will be enriching their vocabulary, their knowledge of language patterning (and especially literate language forms), as well as their knowledge of the world (Whitehurst &amp; Lonigan, [<reflink idref="bib700" id="ref346">700</reflink>]). This knowledge will serve children well when formal reading instruction begins and for future reading comprehension and written expression, but it does not supply the combinatorial key to decoding (deciphering) the written word—the <emph>sine qua non</emph> (Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref347">553</reflink>]) that will launch the child on their journey to literacy (Share &amp; Gur, [<reflink idref="bib567" id="ref348">567</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is worth adding that the prevalence of these non‐combinatorial phenomena among preliterates depends a great deal on cultural practices, hence the disclaimer that this phase is non‐obligatory. Some cultures, such as Austria, frown on literacy‐related practices prior to school entry and formal reading instruction (Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib328" id="ref349">328</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Hummer, [<reflink idref="bib706" id="ref350">706</reflink>]), whereas Anglophone countries actively encourage exposure to and experimentation with print and writing.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-17">Three Combinatorial Phases: Sub‐morphemic, Morpho‐lexical, and Supra‐lexical</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184680247-18">Sub‐Morphemic Phase 17</hd> <p>The first and foremost task in learning to read is mastering the basic units or building blocks of the specific orthography the child is learning. These are the finite means to infinite ends—the infinite expressive capabilities of written language. This is why the strongest predictor of early individual differences in learning to read across all orthographies (often alongside phonological awareness) is a child's knowledge of the foundational graphic units. These are the letters in alphabets (Share et al., [<reflink idref="bib568" id="ref351">568</reflink>]) and abjads (Abu Ahmad et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref352">4</reflink>]; Shatil &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib570" id="ref353">570</reflink>]), the aksharas in alphasyllabaries (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref354">140</reflink>]; Nag, [<reflink idref="bib407" id="ref355">407</reflink>]; Wijaythilake et al., [<reflink idref="bib704" id="ref356">704</reflink>]), and the semantic radicals and phonetic components in Chinese (Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref357">581</reflink>]). In what Nag refers to as "contained" orthographies (Nag, [<reflink idref="bib407" id="ref358">407</reflink>]) such as alphabets, abjads, and most syllabaries, the inventory of symbols is small and typically mastered within the first year of formal reading instruction (Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib374" id="ref359">374</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref360">544</reflink>]). In more "extensive" systems such as abugidas/alphasyllabaries and morphosyllabaries, the symbol set runs into the hundreds (Nag, [<reflink idref="bib407" id="ref361">407</reflink>]; Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref362">626</reflink>]) and requires a significant degree of rote memorization and extensive writing and copying—at least for the basic (inherent vowel) aksharas and (simple) Chinese characters—semantic radicals and phonetics (see Section Two ways to learn to read words: Writing, not just reading).[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref363">18</reflink>] Nonetheless, learning to read abugidas/alphasyllabaries[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref364">19</reflink>] and morphosyllabaries also depends on exploiting combinatoriality. In the case of Indic abugidas/alphasyllabaries, Nag ([<reflink idref="bib407" id="ref365">407</reflink>]) writes that "<emph>the component phonemic markers in an akshara allow for learning about combinatorial principles. ... This facility is clearly more economical than learning the several hundred akshara one by one by one as global, undifferentiated units</emph>," (p. 77). In Chinese, "<emph>Research has found that children do not memorize characters as a whole in learning to read; they decompose characters into sublexical units</emph>" Shu, [<reflink idref="bib577" id="ref366">577</reflink>], p. 276.</p> <p>However, even though users of alphabets and abjads tend to think that there are only 20–30 letters to be learned in their writing systems, letter learning can be a major challenge for beginners because almost all alphabetic and abjadic scripts have allographic variants. Even ignoring wide font variation and cursive forms, children must learn both uppercase and lowercase forms (which are not always similar (A/a) as well as the most common non‐systematic variants (a/ɑ, g/ɡ)). Whereas most alphabets have word‐initial allography ("capital" letters), the Arabic abjad has from two‐to‐four positional variants for every letter—initial, medial, final, and separate/cardinal forms (e.g., ﻫ ﻬ ﻩ ﻪ /h/; Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; Henkin‐Roitfarb, [<reflink idref="bib519" id="ref367">519</reflink>]; Tibi et al., [<reflink idref="bib631" id="ref368">631</reflink>]). And unlike English, yet again an outlier orthography in this regard, most alphabets, and all abjads also have diacritics. As for alphasyllabaries, in addition to the several dozen simple (inherent vowel) CV aksharas, there are hundreds of complex aksharas; moreover, vowels have distinct word‐initial and post‐initial forms. In Malayalam, for example, the long vowel /a:/ is written as ആ in the word‐initial position but as</p> <p>GRAPH</p> <p>in the post‐consonantal position. Furthermore, consonant conjuncts often have reduced and unfamiliar forms (क /ka/ + ष /ṣa/ = क्ष /kṣa/; ക /ka/ + ക /ka/ = ക്ക /kka/, Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref369">140</reflink>]). In the Chinese morphosyllabary, not only are there 214 semantic radicals and, in school Chinese, 650 phonetics (Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref370">581</reflink>]), there are reduced or truncated ("bound") characters to be mastered as well. The simple stand‐alone Chinese character for "water" 水 "often takes the truncated form氵in compound characters (e.g., 汁/zhī/ 'juice')".</p> <p>The sub‐morphemic phase not only requires learners to identify <emph>and</emph> learn to write the symbols of a particular orthography (a non‐trivial task for the beginning reader), but also to master the much bigger challenge of learning the symbol–sound correspondences, or more generally, the relationships between orthography and phonology. Since most of the the world's orthographies are phonologically transparent (at least from symbol to sound), the sub‐morphemic phase is primarily a matter of learning the single sounds of single letters[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref371">20</reflink>] but in almost every orthography, both new and old, there are exceptions. For example, in highly transparent Arabic, the word لَعِبوا "they played" is pronounced /laʕibu<emph>/</emph>. The detached alif (ا) at the end of the word (on the left) is a silent letter. If pronounced purely on the basis of one‐to‐one letter‐to‐sound correspondence, it would be pronounced /laʕibuwa<emph>/</emph>, which is both incorrect and meaningless.</p> <p>There are at least two broad levels of sub‐morphemic mapping complexity—that is, departures from the one‐to‐one "ideal" (from the point of view of decipherability for the learner). Both are sub‐morphemic because they are situated above the one‐to‐one symbol‐to‐sound level but below the level of the morpheme.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-19">Level 1 sub‐morphemic complexity</hd> <p>Many orthographies (both shallow and deep) have "regular" many‐to‐one mappings when two or more symbols reliably correspond to one sound such as the English digraph ⟨sh⟩ which, morpheme‐internally, has one and only one sound /ʃ/ (but, notably, two distinct sounds when straddling morpheme boundaries, e.g., <emph>mishap</emph>). This category includes digraphs: in English <emph>ph, ee</emph>, and Danish <emph>sj</emph> /ʃ/; and trigraphs in French <emph>eau /</emph>o/, and German <emph>sch</emph> /ʃ/. In Danish, Finnish, and many Sub‐Saharan African languages, long vowels and consonants are marked by letter doubling: <emph>uu</emph> /u:/, <emph>tt</emph> /t:/. Doubly (i.e., simultaneously) articulated Niger‐Congo and Nilo‐Saharan labiovelar stops <emph>kp</emph>, /kp͡/, <emph>gb</emph> /gb͡/ (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib141" id="ref372">141</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref373">142</reflink>]), West and Central African implosives ('<emph>b 'd</emph> /ɓ ɗ/) and Ethiopian ejectives <emph>p' t'</emph> /p' t'/, also exemplify regular two‐to‐one mappings (Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib506" id="ref374">506</reflink>]). In this first Level 1 category we can add regular mappings such as single letters that correspond to a multi‐phoneme sequence (<emph>x</emph> /ks/ in English), Hebrew and Italian affricates <emph>צ</emph> /ts/ and <emph>z</emph> /ts/ respectively, as well as the non‐sequentiality in many akshara scripts (e.g., in Devanagari, several vowel matras are pronounced <emph>after</emph> the consonant but appear <emph>before</emph> the consonant sign, णि /ṇi/. All these diverge from the one‐to‐one ideal but have one and only one phonological correspondence (at least within single morphemes) and hence are relatively amenable to explicit instruction and should not pose major obstacles for the developing reader.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-20">Level 2 sub‐morphemic complexity</hd> <p>Variable correspondences that depend on orthographic context or positional constraints are a different story and include the notoriously variable one‐to‐many mappings that are so common among English vowels and which pose a major obstacle for beginning readers. Letter patterns such as the "magic e" in English (‐VCe <emph>rate</emph>, <emph>kite</emph>, <emph>hope</emph>), consonant doubling to indicate a preceding "short" or "tense" vowel (English <emph>latter</emph>, <emph>later</emph>; Dutch <emph>bomen 'trees,' bommen 'bombs'</emph>). If sufficiently productive, as in the case of the "magic <emph>e</emph> rule," this level of complexity would appear amenable to explicit instruction (Kearns &amp; Cooper Borkenhagen, [<reflink idref="bib303" id="ref375">303</reflink>]). As productivity declines and a "rule" applies to fewer and fewer words/morphemes, or has numerous high‐frequency exceptions, the costs will outweigh the benefits. At the extreme of this continuum, the pronunciation of the infamous ‐<emph>ough</emph> of English can only be acquired on a word‐by‐word basis.</p> <p>With rare exceptions (e.g., Deacon et al., [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref376">153</reflink>]; Elbro, [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref377">190</reflink>]), this levels‐of‐complexity approach has yet to be applied in models of decoding development.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-21">The onset of combinatoriality at the sub‐morphemic phase</hd> <p>Since most alphabetic orthographies, fully voweled abjads, and abugidas/alphasyllabaries are phonologically transparent (at least from symbol to sound), combinatorial reading typically is largely a matter of exhaustive (and often exhausting!) sequential letter‐by‐letter or akshara‐by‐akshara phonological conversion. This is the case in German (Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib328" id="ref378">328</reflink>]), Welsh (Ellis &amp; Hooper, [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref379">193</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref380">544</reflink>]; Spencer &amp; Hanley, [<reflink idref="bib594" id="ref381">594</reflink>]), Italian (Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref382">431</reflink>]; Zoccolotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib739" id="ref383">739</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib738" id="ref384">738</reflink>]), Dutch (Verhoeven, [<reflink idref="bib679" id="ref385">679</reflink>]), Russian (Kerek &amp; Niemi, [<reflink idref="bib304" id="ref386">304</reflink>]; Rakhlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib477" id="ref387">477</reflink>]), Finnish (Aro, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref388">26</reflink>]) abugidic/alphasyllabic Malayalam (Haridas, personal communication, 2024), and abjadic Hebrew (Share &amp; Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib564" id="ref389">564</reflink>]) and Arabic (Saiegh‐Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib518" id="ref390">518</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref391">21</reflink>] Compared to deep orthographies such as English, Danish, and French, word length and spelling regularity effects in transparent orthographies such as German, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Arabic, and Hebrew are stronger while lexicality (words versus pseudowords) and familiarity effects (high familiarity words vs. low familiarity words) are weaker (Goswami et al., [<reflink idref="bib242" id="ref392">242</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib240" id="ref393">240</reflink>]; Landerl et al., [<reflink idref="bib329" id="ref394">329</reflink>]; Patel et al., [<reflink idref="bib440" id="ref395">440</reflink>]; Saiegh‐Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib518" id="ref396">518</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref397">544</reflink>]; Share &amp; Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib564" id="ref398">564</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib705" id="ref399">705</reflink>]). Transparent orthographies elicit a higher incidence of neologisms—mispronunciations resulting in nonwords (e.g., Ellis &amp; Hooper, [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref400">193</reflink>]). In contrast, beginning readers of deep orthographies (including Chinese) are prone to produce overgeneralizations (also referred to as <emph>regularizations</emph>; e.g., pronouncing French <emph>femme</emph> /fɑm/ as /fɛm/, Sprenger‐Charolles et al., [<reflink idref="bib598" id="ref401">598</reflink>]) or to overgeneralizing the dominant pronunciation in a semi‐regular phonetic in Chinese (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref402">107</reflink>]), whole‐word guesses (e.g., <emph>shoe</emph> for <emph>school</emph>; Ellis &amp; Hooper, [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref403">193</reflink>]; Frith et al., [<reflink idref="bib213" id="ref404">213</reflink>]; Geva &amp; Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib227" id="ref405">227</reflink>]; Landerl et al., [<reflink idref="bib329" id="ref406">329</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref407">544</reflink>]; Spencer &amp; Hanley, [<reflink idref="bib594" id="ref408">594</reflink>]; Thaler et al., [<reflink idref="bib628" id="ref409">628</reflink>]; Thorstad, [<reflink idref="bib630" id="ref410">630</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib705" id="ref411">705</reflink>]), with frequent nonresponses or outright refusals (Ellis &amp; Hooper, [<reflink idref="bib193" id="ref412">193</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib544" id="ref413">544</reflink>]; Spencer &amp; Hanley, [<reflink idref="bib594" id="ref414">594</reflink>]). Furthermore, these findings align with eye‐movement studies (e.g., Hutzler &amp; Wimmer, [<reflink idref="bib285" id="ref415">285</reflink>]; Zoccolotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib739" id="ref416">739</reflink>]) and brain imaging studies (e.g., Paulesu et al., [<reflink idref="bib441" id="ref417">441</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unlike deep orthographies such as English (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref418">181</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref419">182</reflink>]) and Danish (Elbro, [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref420">190</reflink>]), there is no partial alphabetic phase in transparent orthographies such as German; (Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib327" id="ref421">327</reflink>]; Mannhaupt et al., [<reflink idref="bib366" id="ref422">366</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Hummer, [<reflink idref="bib706" id="ref423">706</reflink>]), Italian (Job et al., [<reflink idref="bib290" id="ref424">290</reflink>]), Greek (Porpodas, [<reflink idref="bib464" id="ref425">464</reflink>]), or abugidic/alphasyllabic Kannada (Karanth &amp; Prakash, 1996, cited in Karanth, [<reflink idref="bib302" id="ref426">302</reflink>]; see also Footnote 13). On the contrary, there are reports of strategies that appear to be unique to transparent orthographies, such as children who successfully decode all elements but are unable to blend these elements into a recognizable pronunciation (especially in longer words; Grigorenko, [<reflink idref="bib246" id="ref427">246</reflink>]; Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref428">431</reflink>]), children translating non‐linear sequences in Indic abugidas/alphasyllabaries (see Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref429">144</reflink>], Dimension II) in a strictly left‐to‐right (but incorrect) sequence (Vasudevan et al., [<reflink idref="bib673" id="ref430">673</reflink>]), and the so‐called <emph>kamats‐patax kibaon</emph> (Share &amp; Blum, [<reflink idref="bib565" id="ref431">565</reflink>]) and <emph>fatḥa</emph> phenomena (Taouka &amp; Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib623" id="ref432">623</reflink>]) in Hebrew and Arabic respectively whereby children initially decode all CV units (the basic phonic building blocks of Semitic abjads) using only the default /ɑ/ vowel which accounts for around half of all Semitic vowels.</p> <p>Early sequential symbol‐by‐symbol decoding is conspicuously "bottom‐up," typically slow and effortful, leaving little or no cognitive reserves for processing meaning or for word‐to‐text integration.[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref433">22</reflink>] If all mental effort is expended on decoding, many children are liable to evince poor comprehension.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref434">23</reflink>] In this sub‐morphemic phase, when other more proficient readers advance to morpho‐lexical reading, the weaker readers often remain letter‐by‐letter decoders as in Finnish (Eklund et al., [<reflink idref="bib187" id="ref435">187</reflink>]), Italian (Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref436">431</reflink>]), and Malayalam (Vasudevan et al., [<reflink idref="bib673" id="ref437">673</reflink>]).</p> <p>In pointed Hebrew—a near‐perfectly phonologically transparent orthography (from the reader's perspective; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib489" id="ref438">489</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref439">561</reflink>]), Gur ([<reflink idref="bib250" id="ref440">250</reflink>]) found that Grade 1 children revealed no difference in reading accuracy or speed between real words, morphologically legal pseudowords, and morphologically illegal pseudowords—that is, there was no evidence of the influence of either lexical familiarity or morphology.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref441">24</reflink>] In addition, measures of explicit morphological awareness correlated with second‐ but not first‐grade reading. This is consistent with studies that have found reliable evidence of orthographic learning among Hebrew readers in late Grade 2 (Share, [<reflink idref="bib554" id="ref442">554</reflink>]) but not in first grade or early Grade 2 (Share &amp; Shalev, [<reflink idref="bib569" id="ref443">569</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is now no secret that decoding acquisition is more protracted in deep orthographies and that reading <emph>accuracy</emph> continues to discriminate individual and developmental differences at almost all skill levels. In contrast, accuracy reaches an asymptote very early in transparent orthographies (even among dyslexics, Wimmer &amp; Schurz, [<reflink idref="bib709" id="ref444">709</reflink>]), hence reading <emph>rate</emph> and <emph>fluency</emph> are the more discriminating measures (as is the case of adult compensated dyslexics in English (Bruck, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref445">73</reflink>]; Lefly &amp; Pennington, [<reflink idref="bib332" id="ref446">332</reflink>])).</p> <p>Consistent with these three levels of sub‐morphemic symbol‐to‐sound mappings (one‐to‐one, many‐to‐one, and one‐to‐many), stage models in Danish (Elbro, [<reflink idref="bib190" id="ref447">190</reflink>]) and French (Deacon et al., [<reflink idref="bib153" id="ref448">153</reflink>]; Sprenger‐Charolles et al., [<reflink idref="bib596" id="ref449">596</reflink>]) propose that productive and reliable one‐to‐one symbol–to‐sound mappings are acquired first, then, in additive fashion, multi‐letter units such as digraphs (Danish <emph>sj</emph> /ʃ/), then variable one‐to‐many context‐dependent correspondences such as the "hard" and "soft" <emph>c</emph> and <emph>g</emph> in English.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-22">The morpho‐lexical phase</hd> <p>As experience with written language accumulates and sub‐morphemic symbol‐to‐sound decoding becomes more efficient, a growing and more interconnected (more densely arborized) orthographic lexicon (or "sight vocabulary"), provides the resources for an expanding influence of word‐level morphological and lexical factors.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref450">25</reflink>] Repeated encounters with common units such as stems (<emph>start</emph>, <emph>starting</emph>, <emph>startup</emph>, <emph>headstart</emph>, <emph>restart</emph>), prefixes (<emph>undone</emph>, <emph>unable</emph>, <emph>unfair</emph>, <emph>unlock</emph>), and suffixes (<emph>goodness, thickness, weakness</emph>) sensitizes the developing reader to orthography–meaning regularities that increasingly facilitate reading at this phase (Carlisle &amp; Katz, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref451">89</reflink>]; Carlisle &amp; Stone, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref452">90</reflink>]). For example, English‐speaking readers in the second and third grades read suffixed words such as <emph>hilly</emph> faster than matched pseudo‐suffixed words such as <emph>silly</emph>. It is widely agreed that this occurs only after the "basics" of symbol‐sound decoding at the level of single letters and (sub‐morphemic) combinations of letters such as digraphs have been mastered. However, sensitivity to some super‐high‐frequency morphemes such as the English plural <emph>‐s</emph> suffix and the past tense <emph>‐ed</emph>, which each have multiple allomorphs depending on the stem morpheme, is surely acquired near the outset of reading.</p> <p>Alongside diminishing word length effects (Burani et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref453">78</reflink>]; Hautala et al., [<reflink idref="bib262" id="ref454">262</reflink>]; Hawelka et al., [<reflink idref="bib263" id="ref455">263</reflink>]; Marinus &amp; de Jong, [<reflink idref="bib370" id="ref456">370</reflink>]; Spinelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib595" id="ref457">595</reflink>]; Zoccolotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib739" id="ref458">739</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib738" id="ref459">738</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib737" id="ref460">737</reflink>]) and spelling regularity effects (especially for familiar high‐frequency words that are becoming increasingly well unitized), frequency effects become stronger (Burani et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref461">78</reflink>]; Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref462">431</reflink>]; Zoccolotti et al., [<reflink idref="bib737" id="ref463">737</reflink>]) not only for whole words (so‐called "surface frequency") but also for sub‐morphemic units such as English rimes (Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib173" id="ref464">173</reflink>]). Likewise, Pacton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib434" id="ref465">434</reflink>]) found that from Grade 1 to Grade 5, French children become increasingly sensitive to the frequency of doubled consonants and to the fact that vowels are seldom doubled.</p> <p>Neighborhood consistency effects also appear in this phase (Content, 1993, cited in Jaffré &amp; Fayol, [<reflink idref="bib288" id="ref466">288</reflink>]; Tzeng et al., [<reflink idref="bib657" id="ref467">657</reflink>]; Zinna et al., [<reflink idref="bib734" id="ref468">734</reflink>]). In Chinese, pronunciation of an unfamiliar (compound) character has been shown to be increasingly affected by phonetic regularity and neighborhood consistency (Chan &amp; Nunes, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref469">101</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref470">104</reflink>]; Ho et al., [<reflink idref="bib275" id="ref471">275</reflink>]; Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib579" id="ref472">579</reflink>]; Tzeng et al., [<reflink idref="bib657" id="ref473">657</reflink>]) in the upper elementary grades (3 to 6). Likewise, Shu and Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib578" id="ref474">578</reflink>]) found that Chinese third graders, but not first graders, were able to identify an unfamiliar morphologically transparent character by exploiting the meaning of a familiar radical (see also Ho et al., [<reflink idref="bib275" id="ref475">275</reflink>]); and in Italian, a growing corpus of familiar words are now pronounced as a single unit, without evidence of sounding out (Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref476">431</reflink>]). In addition to the lexicality and morphological effects emerging in the pointed Hebrew abjad by the end of second grade (Gur, [<reflink idref="bib250" id="ref477">250</reflink>]), overall knowledge of Hebrew vowel points actually <emph>declines</emph> between Grade 1 and Grade 3 as reading skill advances and the reader relies to a greater extent on higher‐order, word‐level lexical and morphological information (see also Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib488" id="ref478">488</reflink>]; Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib551" id="ref479">551</reflink>]). In a similar vein, Bar‐On and Ravid ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref480">41</reflink>]) reported a dramatic increase between the beginning and end of Grade 2 in the probability of reading an unpointed (unvoweled) pseudoword using a legal morphological pattern as opposed to an illegal (non‐existent) pattern.</p> <p>Correct stress assignment (when unmarked in an orthography) is another feature of the morpho‐lexical phase because it depends on sensitivity to either morphological (and morpho‐syntactic) or lexical knowledge in English (Arciuli &amp; Paul, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref481">25</reflink>]), Greek (Protopapas &amp; Gerakaki, [<reflink idref="bib472" id="ref482">472</reflink>]), Russian (Grigorenko, [<reflink idref="bib246" id="ref483">246</reflink>]), and Italian (Orsolini et al., [<reflink idref="bib431" id="ref484">431</reflink>]). Likewise, Ricketts et al. ([<reflink idref="bib502" id="ref485">502</reflink>]) found that English lexical knowledge (vocabulary) correlates with irregular word reading but not with regular word reading in readers aged 8–9 years.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-23">Supra‐lexical</hd> <p>There are various aspects of word identification that depend on factors beyond the boundaries of the word. These include (i) heterophonic homography (<emph>tear</emph> (n.) / <emph>tear</emph> (v.))—rare in English, but extremely common in unpointed (partially vocalized) Hebrew and non‐<emph>mashkūl</emph> (partially vocalized) Arabic, (ii) homophonic homography (<emph>bank</emph> 'land alongside a river,' <emph>bank</emph> 'type of financial institution'), (iii) unmarked stress assignment, e.g., English presént (v.) présent (n.), (iv) tone[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref486">26</reflink>] assignment (common in many African languages (Roberts et al., [<reflink idref="bib507" id="ref487">507</reflink>]; Roberts &amp; Walter, [<reflink idref="bib508" id="ref488">508</reflink>]), and (v) prosody).</p> <p>The supra‐lexical phase requires the reader to take into account semantic and syntactic information in the surrounding context. The evidence is clear that, over and above morphological and lexical factors, readers of deep orthographies such as English often resort to supra‐lexical or extra‐lexical information to resolve decoding ambiguity and to compensate for poor decoding skills (e.g., Bowey, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref489">68</reflink>]; Nation, [<reflink idref="bib417" id="ref490">417</reflink>]; Nation &amp; Snowling, [<reflink idref="bib419" id="ref491">419</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib420" id="ref492">420</reflink>]; Ricketts et al., [<reflink idref="bib502" id="ref493">502</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref494">553</reflink>]; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib602" id="ref495">602</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib605" id="ref496">605</reflink>]; Tunmer &amp; Chapman, [<reflink idref="bib652" id="ref497">652</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib653" id="ref498">653</reflink>]; Woollams et al., [<reflink idref="bib720" id="ref499">720</reflink>]). In the same vein, syntactic knowledge has been found to contribute to reading unpointed (phonologically underspecified) Hebrew text, which is the default version after Grade 3 and the version containing rampant homography (Bentin et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref500">48</reflink>]; Deutsch &amp; Bentin, [<reflink idref="bib163" id="ref501">163</reflink>]). Syntactic knowledge does not contribute to the highly transparent pointed Hebrew that children are taught in the early grades, and which has no homography (Geva &amp; Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib227" id="ref502">227</reflink>]; Leikin et al., [<reflink idref="bib333" id="ref503">333</reflink>]; Shatil &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib570" id="ref504">570</reflink>]). And the same pattern of findings has been reported in studies comparing the role of context in reading non‐<emph>mashkūl</emph> (phonologically underspecified) and (transparent) <emph>mashkūl</emph> script in Arabic (Abu‐Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref505">7</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref506">8</reflink>]; Abu‐Rabia &amp; Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref507">9</reflink>]), Persian (Baluch &amp; Besner, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref508">39</reflink>]), and Hebrew (Allon, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref509">13</reflink>]; Benuck &amp; Peverly, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref510">50</reflink>]). Bar‐On and Ravid ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref511">41</reflink>]) found that the ability to benefit from supportive (supra‐lexical) context when reading unpointed Hebrew homographs develops more gradually and over a longer period than the previous morpho‐lexical phase. The authors suggested that, compared to morpho‐lexical identification, morpho‐syntactic identification makes greater demands on integrative top‐down contextual processing. Reading ability in relatively transparent Greek, which has few homographs and marks stress, is not associated with syntactic abilities (Nikolopoulos et al., [<reflink idref="bib424" id="ref512">424</reflink>]).</p> <p>Studies of lexical ambiguity resolution in English have reported that readers as young as 9 or 10 years of age are relatively insensitive to sentence context, whereas 12‐year‐olds show evidence of contextual integration (Booth et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref513">62</reflink>]; Khanna &amp; Boland, [<reflink idref="bib306" id="ref514">306</reflink>]). It seems reasonable to assume that young readers, who allocate most of their attentional resources to the deciphering process and word identification, have little to spare for contextual processing, whereas more skilled readers, who access written words more rapidly and relatively effortlessly, can better allocate their attentional resources to process the top‐down information needed to resolve lexical ambiguity. Bar‐On et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref515">40</reflink>]) investigated the pronunciation of unpointed Hebrew homographs, each embedded in either a garden‐path (syntactically misleading) sentence or a non‐garden‐path sentence in readers ranging in age from early Grade 2 to adults. By Grade 4, children were able to allocate sufficient attentional resources to higher‐order supra‐lexical information to effectively resolve lexical ambiguity in the regular non‐garden‐path sentences. With garden‐path sentences, only in the upper elementary grades (between Grades 4 and 7) were readers able to recover, but then only partially, from the misleading prior context by deploying online error repair processes that exploited information from subsequent context.</p> <p>It seems plausible that reaching the supra‐lexical phase depends on a critical level of word recognition speed and automaticity. Sabatini and colleagues have identified a critical word reading <emph>accuracy</emph> threshold for English readers in Grades 5 to 10 (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib695" id="ref516">695</reflink>]; White et al., [<reflink idref="bib699" id="ref517">699</reflink>]), which is not dissimilar to what is typically referred to by educators as a child's "instructional" level of reading accuracy (around the 95 ± 2% level). Students who fell below this accuracy threshold did not make any reliable progress in their reading comprehension in the following 3 years but their peers who scored above this threshold did. However, it is more likely that reading <emph>rate</emph> and <emph>automaticity</emph> (especially in transparent scripts) are more critical than accuracy. Here, however, there is less consensus regarding a critical threshold, with figures ranging from 45 to 60 words per minute (wpm; Abadzi, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref518">2</reflink>]) to close to 90 wpm (Sabatini, personal communication, February, 24, 2024). Clearly, however, this wpm threshold will vary considerably across languages (Abadzi, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref519">2</reflink>]; see also Footnote 3) and might be better calculated in terms of phonemes, syllables, or even morphemes per minute. As is the case with slow, effortful word decoding which leaves few resources for word‐level (morpho‐lexical) processing, the same "limited capacity" argument can be applied to the supra‐lexical word‐to‐text level (LaBerge &amp; Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib325" id="ref520">325</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref521">450</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Adlof, [<reflink idref="bib445" id="ref522">445</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Hart, [<reflink idref="bib456" id="ref523">456</reflink>]).</p> <p>The ability to read with prosody (phrasing, intonation, and expressiveness) is supra‐lexical processing <emph>par excellence</emph>. Phrasing and intonation require the reader to chunk groups of words into meaningful units (syntactic parsing) as a means of facilitating the listener's comprehension. Unfortunately, the literature on prosody is still meager, has employed diverse measures, and has yet to yield converging findings other than the fact that prosodic competence is reliably associated with reading ability including word reading (Deacon et al., [<reflink idref="bib154" id="ref524">154</reflink>]; Godde et al., [<reflink idref="bib235" id="ref525">235</reflink>]; Wade‐Woolley et al., [<reflink idref="bib692" id="ref526">692</reflink>]; Wolters et al., [<reflink idref="bib717" id="ref527">717</reflink>]). In their review of the few studies investigating the development of prosody, Godde et al. ([<reflink idref="bib235" id="ref528">235</reflink>]) emphasized its multifaceted nature, noting that some aspects of prosody, such as phrasing, begin to develop soon after Grade 1 (once decoding efficiency and automaticity have been attained); other aspects, such as rising intonation at the end of English interrogative phrases, appear around Grade 3, whereas features such as pre‐pausal lengthening and falling sentence‐final pitch in declaratives only begin developing at the fifth grade and continue evolving in secondary school.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-24">Building the Orthographic Lexicon ("Sight Vocabulary")</hd> <p>The Combinatorial model is a dual‐process model (as I elaborate in the following section)—distinguishing the process of figuring out the identity of a novel word (word <emph>identification</emph>), from the process of immediate or direct recognition of a familiar word (word <emph>recognition</emph>). From the moment novice readers begin their journey towards literacy, they begin to accumulate, one word at a time, a sight vocabulary. This is primarily an item‐based process that enables words and morphemes to be recognized instantly and with minimal effort. Like reading, this is a life‐long process because even highly literate readers encounter new words almost every time they read. These sight words, as proposed by Ehri ([<reflink idref="bib181" id="ref529">181</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref530">179</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref531">182</reflink>]), are not likely to be acquired in an all‐or‐none fashion—every symbol correctly ordered—but initially are likely to be less than fully specified (Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib451" id="ref532">451</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Hart, [<reflink idref="bib456" id="ref533">456</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several studies have reported reliable orthographic learning among beginning readers (Ehri &amp; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib184" id="ref534">184</reflink>]; Ehri &amp; Saltmarsh, [<reflink idref="bib185" id="ref535">185</reflink>]; Ehri &amp; Wilce, [<reflink idref="bib186" id="ref536">186</reflink>]; Reitsma, [<reflink idref="bib497" id="ref537">497</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib498" id="ref538">498</reflink>]) but other studies have reported mixed results (Share &amp; Shalev, [<reflink idref="bib569" id="ref539">569</reflink>]; Tucker, [<reflink idref="bib651" id="ref540">651</reflink>]). In addition, some earlier studies (reviewed in Jorm &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib291" id="ref541">291</reflink>]) showed that beginning readers (of English) are able to read at least some highly familiar words via "direct" visual recognition rather than phonological assembly (serial symbol‐sound decoding). This usually begins with a child's own name and the most common words in print (which are often function words). However, the timing of this process is likely to differ across orthographies (see, e.g., van Daal &amp; Wass, [<reflink idref="bib670" id="ref542">670</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regardless of when exactly novice readers begin to compile a sight vocabulary of familiar words, the distinction between the processing of familiar and unfamiliar words is fundamental to the combinatorial model. Moreover, I claim that this familiar‐unfamiliar (unitized‐ununitized) dualism is not only fundamental but also universal in visual word learning, applying to all words in all possible orthographes (Share, [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref543">556</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-25">The Combinatorial Model and the Developmental Unfamiliar‐to‐Familiar/Novice‐to‐Expert Dualism</hd> <p>Over a century ago, the linguist de Saussure (1916/de Saussure, [<reflink idref="bib150" id="ref544">150</reflink>]), stated that "<emph>We read in two ways; the new or unknown word is scanned letter after letter, but a common word is taken in at a glance"</emph> (translated 1983: 34). At different times over the last century, linguists, educators, psychologists, and neuroscientists have all "rediscovered" this same familiar/unfamiliar dualism. Forster and Chambers ([<reflink idref="bib206" id="ref545">206</reflink>]), Baron and Strawson ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref546">43</reflink>]) and Coltheart ([<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref547">126</reflink>]) were among the first cognitive psychologists to take up this idea.[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref548">27</reflink>] Among educators, the concept of a "sight" word or "sight" vocabulary in the sense of unhesitating, instant holistic recognition of a familiar word or corpus of words is a well‐worn concept (e.g., Dolch, [<reflink idref="bib169" id="ref549">169</reflink>]; Gates, [<reflink idref="bib219" id="ref550">219</reflink>]) and, even today, by no means outworn (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref551">179</reflink>]; Pace Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib392" id="ref552">392</reflink>]; Morris &amp; Perney, [<reflink idref="bib401" id="ref553">401</reflink>]; Rawlins &amp; Invernizzi, [<reflink idref="bib491" id="ref554">491</reflink>]; Zipoli Jr, [<reflink idref="bib736" id="ref555">736</reflink>]). Contemporary standardized tests of word reading ability (e.g., Woodcock‐Johnson, WRAT, TOWRE, and RISE) are also dualist, typically consisting of a list of real words as well as a list of pseudowords (e.g., Jastak &amp; Jastak, [<reflink idref="bib289" id="ref556">289</reflink>]; Sabatini et al., [<reflink idref="bib514" id="ref557">514</reflink>]; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib640" id="ref558">640</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib641" id="ref559">641</reflink>]; Woodcock et al., [<reflink idref="bib718" id="ref560">718</reflink>]). Furthermore, the distinction between decoding unfamiliar words and whole‐word recognition of familiar "sight" words can be found in standard reading assessment practices in other orthographies (e.g., Danish; Poulsen et al., [<reflink idref="bib466" id="ref561">466</reflink>], Dutch; Brus &amp; Voeten, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref562">74</reflink>]; van den Bos et al., [<reflink idref="bib671" id="ref563">671</reflink>], Hebrew; Shany et al., [<reflink idref="bib552" id="ref564">552</reflink>]). More recently, neuroscientists have also identified separate brain pathways for decoding versus whole‐word recognition (Cohen et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref565">121</reflink>]; Danelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref566">137</reflink>]; Das et al., [<reflink idref="bib145" id="ref567">145</reflink>]; Glezer et al., [<reflink idref="bib231" id="ref568">231</reflink>]; Preston et al., [<reflink idref="bib468" id="ref569">468</reflink>]; Pugh et al., [<reflink idref="bib474" id="ref570">474</reflink>]; Richlan, [<reflink idref="bib499" id="ref571">499</reflink>]; Sandak et al., [<reflink idref="bib529" id="ref572">529</reflink>]; Schlaggar &amp; McCandliss, [<reflink idref="bib536" id="ref573">536</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib627" id="ref574">627</reflink>]; Wimmer &amp; Ludersdorfer, [<reflink idref="bib708" id="ref575">708</reflink>]; Yeatman &amp; White, [<reflink idref="bib724" id="ref576">724</reflink>]).</p> <p>Almost all these theorists—linguists, educators, cognitivists, and neuroscientists—emphasized word <emph>familiarity</emph>, and the distinction between slower, serial, letter‐by‐letter processing in the case of unfamiliar words versus rapid, holistic, one‐step or single‐chunk processing for familiar words or morphemes. And (with the exception of the educators) the focus has typically been on the skilled reader. The focus of the combinatorial model of learning to read is developmental—the path to acquiring this remarkable skill.</p> <p>Placing the unfamiliar/familiar dualism in a developmental context, I emphasize a <emph>within</emph>‐item transition from unfamiliar <emph>to</emph> familiar and not merely the conventional <emph>between</emph>‐item contrast between unfamiliar <emph>versus</emph> familiar words. <emph>Every</emph> printed word is unfamiliar at one point, even a child's own name. Thus, the reader must have at his/her disposal a means for independently identifying words and morphemes encountered for the first time (Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref577">553</reflink>]). I maintain that this is true for <emph>every</emph> orthography; alphabets, abjads, abugidas/alphasyllabaries, syllabaries, and even morpho‐syllabaries (see, e.g., Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref578">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref579">16</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib340" id="ref580">340</reflink>]; Li Y. &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib342" id="ref581">342</reflink>]; Li Y. et al., [<reflink idref="bib345" id="ref582">345</reflink>]; Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib721" id="ref583">721</reflink>]). The ability to identify novel written words is crucial for both the novice and the expert reader because most words are infrequent in natural context and are, therefore, rarely, if ever, encountered even by skilled readers.[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref584">28</reflink>] In contrast, the reader must eventually be able to achieve a high degree of unitization or "chunking" of strings of letters, aksharas, syllable blocks, stroke patterns, or character compounds to enable the rapid, parallel, and near‐effortless recognition of familiar words and morphemes perceived as whole units via a fast, efficient direct memory‐retrieval mechanism (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref585">16</reflink>]; Ans et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref586">19</reflink>]; Kwok &amp; Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib323" id="ref587">323</reflink>]; LaBerge &amp; Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib325" id="ref588">325</reflink>]; Logan, [<reflink idref="bib351" id="ref589">351</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib352" id="ref590">352</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref591">450</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Helder, [<reflink idref="bib447" id="ref592">447</reflink>]; Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib459" id="ref593">459</reflink>]; Pritchard et al., [<reflink idref="bib470" id="ref594">470</reflink>]; Torgesen et al., [<reflink idref="bib641" id="ref595">641</reflink>]; Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib732" id="ref596">732</reflink>]).</p> <p>The overarching goal of this familiarization process is speed and effortlessness (often labeled "fluency" or "automaticity"[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref597">29</reflink>])—the quintessence of reading skill (LaBerge &amp; Samuels, [<reflink idref="bib325" id="ref598">325</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref599">450</reflink>]). Accuracy is a prerequisite for reading fluency, but speed is the more discriminating marker of developmental and individual differences in reading skills across writing systems (Breznitz, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref600">69</reflink>]; Doehring, [<reflink idref="bib166" id="ref601">166</reflink>]; Logan, [<reflink idref="bib351" id="ref602">351</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref603">556</reflink>]; Wolf &amp; Katzir‐Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib714" id="ref604">714</reflink>]), and, furthermore, the <emph>sine qua non</emph> of rapid, silent, private, reflective reading—the greatest dividend of the technology of writing and the literate cultures it empowers.</p> <p>How is this accomplished?</p> <p>Following in the footsteps of prominent theories of both skilled reading (Coltheart et al., [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref605">127</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref606">128</reflink>]; Forster, [<reflink idref="bib205" id="ref607">205</reflink>]; Forster &amp; Chambers, [<reflink idref="bib206" id="ref608">206</reflink>]; Grainger, [<reflink idref="bib245" id="ref609">245</reflink>]) and reading development (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref610">180</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref611">179</reflink>]; Frith, [<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref612">212</reflink>]; Gibson, [<reflink idref="bib228" id="ref613">228</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref614">257</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib372" id="ref615">372</reflink>]; Seymour, [<reflink idref="bib543" id="ref616">543</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref617">553</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref618">557</reflink>]), I argue simply that readers gradually build a visual word recognition system (the educator's <emph>sight</emph> vocabulary, the psycholinguist's <emph>orthographic lexicon</emph> and probably also the neuroscientist's <emph>Visual Word Form Area</emph>) word by word and/or morpheme by morpheme. This instance‐based (Logan, [<reflink idref="bib351" id="ref619">351</reflink>]) or item‐based learning process (Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref620">553</reflink>]) proceeds one item at a time; it is not a stage‐oriented model (see Jorm &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib291" id="ref621">291</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref622">553</reflink>]). And because separate morphemes (in most well‐established orthographies) necessarily have distinct visual/orthographic forms (adhering to the principle of <emph>morpheme distinctiveness</emph>—Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib509" id="ref623">509</reflink>], elaborated below in Section Unitizability for the Expert Via Morpheme Transparency), each must be individually learned as a unique visual configuration of the limited set of symbols that constitute the building blocks of the particular orthography. It is attention to <emph>orthographic detail</emph> and their systematic mappings to sound <emph>and</emph> meaning that induces the unitization process necessary for rapid reading and accurate spelling (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref624">182</reflink>]; Grainger, [<reflink idref="bib245" id="ref625">245</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref626">553</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref627">557</reflink>]). Despite the oft‐lamented spelling inconsistencies of English, the letter <emph>t</emph>, like most consonants, almost always symbolizes the phoneme /t/, and the <emph>‐ed</emph> suffix added to verbs such as <emph>looked, timed, waited</emph> almost always denotes the past tense morpheme in spite of its three allomorphs /−t ‐d ‐ɪd/. Similarly, in Chinese, the semantic radical denoting "tree" 木 consistently signals morphemes with meanings related to the concept "tree" and the phonetic 马 /mă/ (operating on the rebus principle) reliably symbolizes the sound of many homophones with unrelated meanings.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-26">Productive and Reproducible Combinatoriality</hd> <p>Because these connections between symbols and sounds as well as symbols and meanings are <emph>systematic</emph> (or at least quasi‐systematic) and non‐arbitrary, they are productive (in the sense of a general learning or self‐teaching mechanism) and can be applied to new words unfamiliar to the reader/writer (as well as newly coined or borrowed words that are constantly entering any living language). This combinatorial systematicity is not only productive but also reproducible, because a spelling can often be regenerated if forgotten. This non‐arbitrary <emph>bonding</emph> (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref628">180</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref629">182</reflink>]) of characters to units of sound and meaning ("orthographic mapping") ensures well‐specified and durable connections between orthography, sound, and meaning as elaborated in the <emph>lexical quality hypothesis</emph> (Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib454" id="ref630">454</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Hart, [<reflink idref="bib456" id="ref631">456</reflink>]). In the absence of combinatoriality as in the mythical case of a pure logography, or the common reality of the curious but naïve pre‐literate child, each word or morpheme must be learned anew and memorized as best as possible with the aid of mnemonics. This is true <emph>logographic</emph> reading (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref632">180</reflink>]; Ferreiro &amp; Teberosky, [<reflink idref="bib199" id="ref633">199</reflink>]; Frith, [<reflink idref="bib211" id="ref634">211</reflink>]; Harris &amp; Coltheart, [<reflink idref="bib257" id="ref635">257</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib372" id="ref636">372</reflink>]) (see Section One non‐obligatory non‐combinatorial phase). It is here that truly non‐orthographic <emph>visual</emph> abilities may come into play (see, e.g., Yin &amp; McBride, [<reflink idref="bib725" id="ref637">725</reflink>]). As already noted earlier, this non‐productive learning leads the learner up a blind alley (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib180" id="ref638">180</reflink>]; Frith, [<reflink idref="bib211" id="ref639">211</reflink>]; Gough et al., [<reflink idref="bib244" id="ref640">244</reflink>]; Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib371" id="ref641">371</reflink>]; Share &amp; Gur, [<reflink idref="bib567" id="ref642">567</reflink>]) facing a task little different from trying to memorize thousands of phone numbers—a feat few are capable of, yet it is precisely this type of learning that is often and erroneously claimed to be how Chinese children learn to read (see, e.g., Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib730" id="ref643">730</reflink>], p. 13). These observations explain why no writing system, not even Chinese, contains more than a handful of iconic characters such as pictograms (e.g., 木 "tree") or ideograms (e.g., 二 "two") that directly convey meaning (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref644">139</reflink>]; DeFrancis, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref645">159</reflink>]; Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref646">626</reflink>]).</p> <p>The compilation of unitized words and morphemes does not occur in one go, at a particular phase or stage of reading (although there are stage‐like aspects to the process, as discussed in Section Unitizability for the Expert Via Morpheme Transparency) but one by one, item by item, probably beginning at or near the very outset of reading development (in many cases with a child's name), and continuing throughout the entire reading lifespan. Like Zipf's power law of word frequency, encounters with novel written words decline steadily over the years but never cease simply because most words are rare, appearing once or twice (if ever) in a million words of running text (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref647">92</reflink>]; Zeno et al., [<reflink idref="bib727" id="ref648">727</reflink>]; Zipf, [<reflink idref="bib735" id="ref649">735</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-27">Word Identification for Unfamiliar Items; Word Recognition for Familiar Words</hd> <p>It is useful to reserve the term <emph>word identification</emph> for the initial process of determining the identity of an unfamiliar word—figuring out a match between the written word and a known word or a word that is novel both in written and spoken form. In the first two phases of development (sub‐morphemic and morpho‐lexical) this is a deliberate, problem‐solving task because the written word rarely supplies (nor needs to supply) exhaustive and unambiguous phonological information owing to factors such as unmarked stress (présent/presént), unmarked tone, homography (<emph>wind</emph>, /waɪnd/ (v.) /wɪnd/ (n.)), but above all, the "distance" between the spoken word in the reader's dialect and the "careful" or canonical written form that is typically idealized as the "correct" pronunciation but is actually one of a family of pronunciations that differ across individuals, speech context, speech rate, speech communities and time (Elbro, [<reflink idref="bib189" id="ref650">189</reflink>]; Elbro et al., [<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref651">192</reflink>]; Steacy et al., [<reflink idref="bib607" id="ref652">607</reflink>]). When ambiguity arises owing to an unpredictable ("irregular") or corrupt spelling or to incomplete mastery of the relevant spelling–sound relations, additional sources of information must be recruited to help resolve the ambiguity (Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib602" id="ref653">602</reflink>]). These include both lexical and morphological (Bar‐On &amp; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref654">41</reflink>]; Cho &amp; Lee, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref655">110</reflink>]; Elbro &amp; Arnbak, [<reflink idref="bib191" id="ref656">191</reflink>]; Ricketts et al., [<reflink idref="bib502" id="ref657">502</reflink>]; Steacy et al., [<reflink idref="bib607" id="ref658">607</reflink>]) as well as supra‐lexical factors, primarily semantic and syntactic context (Elbro, [<reflink idref="bib189" id="ref659">189</reflink>]; Pritchard et al., [<reflink idref="bib470" id="ref660">470</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref661">553</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib556" id="ref662">556</reflink>][<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref663">557</reflink>]; Tunmer, [<reflink idref="bib654" id="ref664">654</reflink>]; but see Deacon &amp; Kieffer, [<reflink idref="bib155" id="ref665">155</reflink>]).</p> <p>Word identification is not only identifying (deciphering/decoding) a new word, but the key means for <emph>establishing</emph> a new unitized (primarily orthographic) representation in memory. A sizeable body of empirical evidence in alphabetic, abjadic, and morphosyllabic scripts (reviewed in Li &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib344" id="ref666">344</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref667">557</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib558" id="ref668">558</reflink>], Castles &amp; Nation, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref669">95</reflink>]) supports the idea that the process of decoding novel words functions as a self‐teaching mechanism whereby new orthographic representations become rapidly established in memory (so‐called "orthographic learning") providing the basis for fast efficient unitized word recognition. Self‐teaching occurs unintentionally simply because the process of deciphering a novel word obliges attention to the constituent elements in the word, their identity and order (for linear scripts[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref670">30</reflink>]) and, literally, seeing how these elements map to sound ("orthographic mapping," Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref671">182</reflink>]), that is, making pronunciations visible.</p> <p>The self‐teaching process (Jorm &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib291" id="ref672">291</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref673">553</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref674">557</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib558" id="ref675">558</reflink>]) exploits the <emph>finite</emph> and therefore learnable number of combinable elements to enable the reader to identify a potentially <emph>infinite</emph> number of words <emph>on their own</emph> in the course of independent reading (Hockett, [<reflink idref="bib276" id="ref676">276</reflink>]; de Boer et al., [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref677">148</reflink>]; Sandler, [<reflink idref="bib530" id="ref678">530</reflink>]; Shankweiler, [<reflink idref="bib549" id="ref679">549</reflink>]; Stokoe, [<reflink idref="bib609" id="ref680">609</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref681">31</reflink>] This is the same combinatorial principle common to human language in all its forms (spoken, written, signed, and, tactile (Braille); Abler, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref682">3</reflink>]; Fischer‐Baum &amp; Englebretson, [<reflink idref="bib200" id="ref683">200</reflink>]; Sandler, [<reflink idref="bib530" id="ref684">530</reflink>]; Stokoe, [<reflink idref="bib609" id="ref685">609</reflink>]; Studdert‐Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib614" id="ref686">614</reflink>]), as well as the human visual and auditory systems (DeHaene et al., [<reflink idref="bib162" id="ref687">162</reflink>]; Vinckier et al., [<reflink idref="bib689" id="ref688">689</reflink>]) and other hierarchical systems such as complex molecular structures (e.g., DNA) and music (Fitch &amp; Martins, [<reflink idref="bib202" id="ref689">202</reflink>]; Lerdahl &amp; Jackendoff, [<reflink idref="bib334" id="ref690">334</reflink>]; Orwin et al., [<reflink idref="bib433" id="ref691">433</reflink>]). Once again, infinite expression achieved via finite means.</p> <p>The decipherability/learnability afforded by writing system combinatoriality is fundamental and universal. Although deterministic one‐to‐one symbol‐sound mapping can be found in some emerging orthographies developed for previously unwritten languages (Eaton, [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref692">176</reflink>]; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib506" id="ref693">506</reflink>]), in the case of well‐established orthographies, spelling‐sound correspondence is more often probabilistic and approximative for at least two reasons (see also Footnote 10). Although there exist seemingly exhaustive compilations of all the spelling–sound "rules" even for a deep orthography such as English[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref694">32</reflink>], these usually only cover the subset of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. This paints a misleadingly rosy picture of decipherability in English—one that completely overlooks morphology. The pronunciation of polymorphemic words, which constitute the majority of words in English, is a very different story and depends a great deal on morphemic parsing. Consider, for example, <emph>restroom/restart</emph>, <emph>hothouse/brother, uninteresting/university</emph>. Few orthographies are fully transparent phonologically owing to the demands of morphemic transparency and the fact that, once an orthography has been created, pronunciations typically change faster than writing systems (Daniels &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref695">144</reflink>]). Even Korean, often hailed as the most perfect (alphabetic) orthography ever invented, now makes concessions for the sake of morphological transparency at the expense of phonological transparency (King, [<reflink idref="bib310" id="ref696">310</reflink>]; Pae, [<reflink idref="bib436" id="ref697">436</reflink>], chapter 6). No orthography needs to be fully transparent; it only needs to be sufficiently transparent to be functionally decipherable. Not only is stress often unmarked (as in English), but tone too (most of the world's languages have lexical and/or grammatical tone, Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib505" id="ref698">505</reflink>]). And (heterophonic) homography exists in almost all orthographies in varying degrees (it is endemic, for example, in the standard unpointed/non‐mashku:l version of Semitic abjads, Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; Henkin‐Roitfarb, [<reflink idref="bib519" id="ref699">519</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref700">561</reflink>]). This creates a degree of ambiguity in almost every orthography and invokes the need for excellent language skills, especially phonologically well‐specified lexical representations (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref701">17</reflink>]; de Jong &amp; Elbro et al., [<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref702">192</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib454" id="ref703">454</reflink>]). Additional sources of information regarding pronunciation, meaning, and syntax are, therefore, needed to <emph>supplement</emph> (not <emph>supplant</emph>) deciphering processes (Steacy et al., [<reflink idref="bib607" id="ref704">607</reflink>]). For longer words, working memory constraints are likely to degrade or distort the integrity of the decoded elements. When tackling long polysyllabic words, many children are apt to corrupt the deciphered string by omitting or adding extraneous elements. For less phonologically transparent orthographies (e.g., English, Danish, unpointed Hebrew and Arabic, Thai, Chinese), the role of these lexical, morphological, and supra‐lexical factors will be greater (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref705">17</reflink>]; McBride‐Chang et al., [<reflink idref="bib382" id="ref706">382</reflink>]; Ricketts et al., [<reflink idref="bib502" id="ref707">502</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref708">561</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib693" id="ref709">693</reflink>]). The point is that no "regular" orthography (with the possible exception of some syllabaries such as Japanese kana) ever delivers a complete and unambiguous symbol string—all orthographies are (phonologically) imprecise to some degree, especially when we take dialect and register variation into account.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-28">Two Ways to Learn New Words; Writing, Not Just Reading</hd> <p>Deciphering novel words by translating graphic units into sound (with varying degrees of lexical‐morphological and supra‐lexical support) is not the only way to learn new words. Writing is also a powerful tool for learning individual symbols and their configurations in words and morphemes (Bhide, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref710">57</reflink>]; Chen &amp; Pasquarella, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref711">106</reflink>]; Cunningham &amp; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref712">133</reflink>]; Guan et al., [<reflink idref="bib248" id="ref713">248</reflink>]; Hulme, [<reflink idref="bib283" id="ref714">283</reflink>]; Liu et al., [<reflink idref="bib350" id="ref715">350</reflink>]; Longcamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib354" id="ref716">354</reflink>]; Nag, [<reflink idref="bib407" id="ref717">407</reflink>]; Naka, [<reflink idref="bib414" id="ref718">414</reflink>]; Shahar‐Yames &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib545" id="ref719">545</reflink>]; Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib721" id="ref720">721</reflink>]), especially for Chinese characters, Japanese kanji, and Korean hancha (Naka, [<reflink idref="bib414" id="ref721">414</reflink>]; Naka &amp; Naoi, [<reflink idref="bib415" id="ref722">415</reflink>]; Uno et al., [<reflink idref="bib663" id="ref723">663</reflink>]). Compared to the burgeoning literature on the role of reading/deciphering in orthographic learning (see Li &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib344" id="ref724">344</reflink>], for a review), the role of writing has received scant attention and, furthermore, has less consistent findings. Nevertheless, the bulk of this work suggests that the motor‐kinesthetic production of written symbols, one by one in linear scripts, like the strict order of stroke formation in morpho‐syllabaries makes an important contribution to orthographic learning (Cunningham &amp; Stanovich, [<reflink idref="bib133" id="ref725">133</reflink>]; Hulme, [<reflink idref="bib283" id="ref726">283</reflink>]; Hulme et al., [<reflink idref="bib284" id="ref727">284</reflink>]; Kalindi et al., [<reflink idref="bib300" id="ref728">300</reflink>]; Longcamp et al., [<reflink idref="bib353" id="ref729">353</reflink>]; Perfetti et al., [<reflink idref="bib446" id="ref730">446</reflink>]; Schubert et al., [<reflink idref="bib539" id="ref731">539</reflink>]; Shahar‐Yames &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib545" id="ref732">545</reflink>]; Tan et al., [<reflink idref="bib622" id="ref733">622</reflink>]; Zilberman‐Shoam, [<reflink idref="bib733" id="ref734">733</reflink>]). According to Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib721" id="ref735">721</reflink>]), the typical routine for learning characters in the People's Republic of China involves pronouncing the new character, discriminating it from other characters, writing it "in the air," rehearsing the correct order of strokes, analyzing the structure, and explaining the meaning (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib721" id="ref736">721</reflink>], p. 578). Classroom dictation of characters has a central place in the curriculum, and homework for Chinese children is mostly repeated copying of characters (Chen &amp; Pasquarella, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref737">106</reflink>]).</p> <p>It is noteworthy that there is a long and venerated tradition of multi‐sensory teaching in English remedial reading instruction which emphasizes the importance of tactile‐kinesthetic information in the process of writing as a technique for remediating <emph>reading</emph> difficulties (Fernald, [<reflink idref="bib198" id="ref738">198</reflink>]; Gillingham &amp; Stillman, [<reflink idref="bib229" id="ref739">229</reflink>]; Hulme, [<reflink idref="bib283" id="ref740">283</reflink>]; Montessori, [<reflink idref="bib397" id="ref741">397</reflink>]; Orton, [<reflink idref="bib432" id="ref742">432</reflink>]). Writing, which places greater processing demands on the reader/writer than reading/deciphering character strings (Bosman &amp; Van Orden, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref743">63</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib452" id="ref744">452</reflink>]), obliges exhaustive attention to the distinctive sub‐symbolic features of graphic units as well as the visual/orthographic configuration of these symbols in individual words and morphemes. In the process of spelling unfamiliar words in linear phoneme‐based orthographies, the writer must comprehensively segment the spoken form into its component phonemes. Given the fact that most orthographies tend to have more ways of spelling phonemes (spelling or "feedback" inconsistency) than ways of sounding out individual letters (reading or "feedforward" inconsistency; Daniels &amp; Bright, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref745">143</reflink>]), spelling requires more attention to letter form, identity, and order. Furthermore, when spelling an unfamiliar string, the writer must process every letter. Although the first reading/deciphering encounter with an unfamiliar word is likely to be exhaustive or near‐exhaustive, for most polysyllabic and polymorphemic words, provided the word is in the reader's spoken vocabulary, word identity is often attainable <emph>before</emph> the reader reaches the last letter in the word (consider <emph>Wikipe</emph>... <emph>improvem</emph>...). Furthermore, subsequent occurrences, especially in connected text, maybe even less exhaustively attended to (Holmes &amp; Carruthers, [<reflink idref="bib277" id="ref746">277</reflink>]). In spelling, on the other hand, every written production obliges the writer to process the complete character array.</p> <p>These observations also explain why whole‐word, look‐and‐say instruction will never get children very far, because it does not oblige attention to orthographic <emph>detail—</emph>that is, to letter‐level or feature‐level orthographic information that maps sound and/or meaning. This also explains why no pure word‐based writing system (logography) has ever existed in either ancient or modern times (Daniels, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref747">139</reflink>]; DeFrancis, [<reflink idref="bib159" id="ref748">159</reflink>]; Gelb, [<reflink idref="bib225" id="ref749">225</reflink>]; Gnanadesikan, [<reflink idref="bib232" id="ref750">232</reflink>]; Joyce, [<reflink idref="bib297" id="ref751">297</reflink>]; Unger &amp; DeFrancis, [<reflink idref="bib661" id="ref752">661</reflink>]): it would simply be unlearnable given the sheer quantity of logograms and unproductive when a written form is needed for new words entering the language (Mattingly, [<reflink idref="bib376" id="ref753">376</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-29">Word Recognition for Familiar Words</hd> <p>In contrast to <emph>word identification—</emph>initial encounters with new words—I reserve the term <emph>recognition</emph> for just that: the <emph>re</emph>cognition of a familiar or partly familiar word. The distinction between the identification of unfamiliar words and the recognition of familiar words should not be interpreted as a simple dichotomous either‐or issue, but more as two poles on a continuum of increasing familiarity. Even "familiar" words vary in degree of familiarity depending on frequency and recency of exposure. Nonetheless, in the initial learning encounters with novel letter strings, the learning process is both rapid and robust (Share, [<reflink idref="bib555" id="ref754">555</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref755">557</reflink>]).</p> <p>The heart of word recognition is orthographic—that is, recognition of elements with systematic links to sound and meaning (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib179" id="ref756">179</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib182" id="ref757">182</reflink>]; Frith, [<reflink idref="bib212" id="ref758">212</reflink>]) as opposed to the non‐systematic, non‐phonological, visual‐logographic cues used by pre‐literates in the (non‐obligatory) non‐combinatorial phase. This instant recognition of familiar (unitized) word‐specific and morpheme‐specific configurations of orthographic constituents (linear or non‐linear) is accompanied and assisted by the universal activation of phonology and meaning (Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib453" id="ref759">453</reflink>]; Perfetti &amp; Tan, [<reflink idref="bib457" id="ref760">457</reflink>]) even in the case of Japanese Kanji (Joyce, [<reflink idref="bib297" id="ref761">297</reflink>]; Saito et al., [<reflink idref="bib525" id="ref762">525</reflink>]).</p> <p>Ironically, all accomplished readers ultimately build up something like a mental logography (or, more precisely, morphography), namely, a large repository of whole‐morpheme or whole‐word units (Ans et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref763">19</reflink>]; Morton, [<reflink idref="bib402" id="ref764">402</reflink>]; Perry et al., [<reflink idref="bib459" id="ref765">459</reflink>]; Pritchard et al., [<reflink idref="bib470" id="ref766">470</reflink>]; Ziegler et al., [<reflink idref="bib732" id="ref767">732</reflink>]). Each of these units is a unique, integrated chunk comprising combinations of letters, aksharas, or characters recognized in parallel via direct one‐step retrieval from memory. In this respect, there is little difference between learning to read an alphabetic orthography—even a highly regular one—and non‐alphabetic Chinese because each unique word‐specific or morpheme‐specific configuration must be learned (unitized) one at a time. The distinctiveness of these orthographic configurations may rest on little more than the presence (or absence) or location of a single dot (e.g., Arabic باب /ba:b/ 'door' ناب /na:b/ '(canine) tooth'; Turkish <emph>kil</emph> /kil/ 'clay' <emph>kıl</emph> /kɨl/ 'hair'; French <emph>où</emph> 'where,' <emph>ou</emph> 'or.'[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref768">33</reflink>]</p> <p>Summarizing the main unfamiliar‐<emph>to</emph>‐familiar argument, I propose that word identification triggers a process of item‐by‐item compilation of a lexicon of unitized orthographic representations each fused into a single unified chunk with systematic and reproducible links to units of sound and meaning, thereby permitting instant, accurate, and near‐effortless word recognition.[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref769">34</reflink>] As already noted, this is not a stage or phase of reading development but an incremental and ongoing process starting from the moment the learner begins to appreciate the combinatorial logic of the writing system and systematically connect symbols with sounds and meanings.</p> <p>But aren't there simply too many words for this unending item‐by‐item compilation to be realistic?</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-30">How Many Words Are Needed in the Reader's Orthographic Lexicon?</hd> <p>There are hundreds of thousands of words (counting inflected forms) in any natural language, although many of these are typically combinations of two or more morphemes. Even these families of morphemes often number in the tens of thousands. In English, Nagy and Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib412" id="ref770">412</reflink>]) counted 88,000 families. No one knows all or even most of these words. Treiman ([<reflink idref="bib643" id="ref771">643</reflink>]) estimated that native English speakers are familiar with only around 3000 of the 8000 English monosyllabic words, and the latter tend to have higher frequencies and hence are likely to be more familiar than polymorphemic words.</p> <p>In any language, a small, indeed <emph>very</emph> small number of (mostly function) words are very common (e.g., in English <emph>the, a, is, have, to, in</emph>, etc.), whereas the vast majority of words, as noted earlier, are rarely if ever encountered. It appears that approximately 100 words account for around half of all tokens in English (Solity &amp; Vousden, [<reflink idref="bib593" id="ref772">593</reflink>]; Stuart et al., [<reflink idref="bib613" id="ref773">613</reflink>]; Zeno et al., [<reflink idref="bib727" id="ref774">727</reflink>]), German (Berkling, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref775">53</reflink>]), and Chinese (Kao et al., [<reflink idref="bib301" id="ref776">301</reflink>]). So, the real issue is how many are <emph>needed</emph>?</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-31">The magical number 2500 ± 500</hd> <p>Several intriguing threads of evidence from different languages suggest that a reader needs to recognize somewhere between 2000 and 3000 words (actually morphemes) to be able to comprehend a written text. Hiebert et al. ([<reflink idref="bib271" id="ref777">271</reflink>]) reported that 2451 morphological families accounted for 97% of the total words in a set of English texts in Kindergarten and Grade 1. In the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) literature, Hirsch and Nation ([<reflink idref="bib272" id="ref778">272</reflink>]) examined (unsimplified) novels written for teenagers and younger readers and found that 2000 words provide 90% coverage and 2600 words 96%—a figure considered by many educators to be satisfactory for independent reading (Miles et al., [<reflink idref="bib392" id="ref779">392</reflink>]; Treptow et al., [<reflink idref="bib645" id="ref780">645</reflink>]). "A [print] vocabulary size of 2000‐3000 words provides a very good basis for language use" (Hirsch and Nation, p. 10). There are currently 2136 official Kanji—the content or meaning‐supplying characters in Japanese (Joyce et al., [<reflink idref="bib299" id="ref781">299</reflink>]). In the People's Republic of China, 2570 characters are expected to be learned by the end of Grade 6 (Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref782">581</reflink>]), and in Taiwan 2678 (Lee, [<reflink idref="bib331" id="ref783">331</reflink>]). This compares to 1800 Hancha in South Korea that are taught in secondary school (Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib694" id="ref784">694</reflink>]). Taylor and Taylor ([<reflink idref="bib625" id="ref785">625</reflink>], p. 54; citing Tajima, 1989) note that the 2400 most common Chinese characters (morphemes) account for 99% of the characters in "typical text" (see also Mair, [<reflink idref="bib363" id="ref786">363</reflink>]). Taylor and Taylor suggest that 2000 are required for limited literacy, and 3500 for "common use or functional literacy". Cheung and Ng ([<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref787">109</reflink>]) maintain that 2500 foundational characters are required to support proficient Chinese reading.</p> <p>These figures align well with the figure of 2570 characters cited by Shu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref788">581</reflink>]) that children in China are expected to learn during the 6 years of elementary school. Ravid ([<reflink idref="bib489" id="ref789">489</reflink>]) estimates that modern Hebrew has between 2000 and 3000 roots—the tri‐consonantal skeletons that bear the basic meaning of almost all Semitic content words.</p> <p>Two inferences seem warranted. The fact that the figures of 2000–3000 keep turning up in different languages and writing systems may be entirely coincidental, but a more interesting, albeit speculative, interpretation is that this stems from a universal property of human languages: that most texts contain a common core of heavy‐duty high‐frequency words (in both speech and writing); hence a limited orthographic lexicon is often sufficient for text comprehension. If so, a relatively finite and attainable corpus of sight words (around 2500 ± 500) will sustain the skilled reader through most texts at a level of coverage that provides reasonable understanding as well as sufficient context to support new learning with only the occasional stoppage for deciphering novel words.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-32">The Dual Nature of Writing</hd> <p>This universal "unfamiliar‐to‐familiar" dualism (from an item‐based perspective) or "novice‐to‐expert" dualism (from the reader's perspective) also converges with the dual nature of an efficient orthography. Specifically, an efficient orthography must balance the competing needs of the novice and the expert reader (Berg &amp; Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref790">51</reflink>]; Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib509" id="ref791">509</reflink>]; Sampson, [<reflink idref="bib528" id="ref792">528</reflink>]; Unger, [<reflink idref="bib659" id="ref793">659</reflink>]; Venezky, [<reflink idref="bib678" id="ref794">678</reflink>]). This orthographic dualism might be termed the <emph>learnability/unitizability</emph> criterion.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-33">Learnability/Decipherability for the Novice Via Phonological Transparency in Alphabets, Abjad...</hd> <p>An effective orthography must provide the reader with a means for identifying new words <emph>independently</emph> (Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref795">553</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref796">557</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib558" id="ref797">558</reflink>]). This appblies equally to the novice and to the skilled reader, both of whom are constantly encountering novel unfamiliar words, as discussed previously (see Section Reading Development: The Reading Tree and Knowledge Arborization). Furthermore, and this is crucial to skill learning in all domains, the slower and more effortful process of identifying a novel word, akshara, or character must lay the foundations for the more efficient and faster direct‐retrieval mechanism. This is possible only if the learning process capitalizes on the combinatorial structure of the writing system.</p> <p>In alphabets, abjads, abugidas/alphasyllabaries and syllabaries, the symbol set (letters, diacritics, aksharas, and syllabograms) provides the necessary decipherability even if the symbol‐to‐sound mappings are only quasi‐regular, as in English, owing to the availability of supplemental sources of information (lexical, morphological, and supra‐lexical) that, in most cases, permit successful word identification.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref798">35</reflink>] Even morphosyllabic Chinese offers ample decipherability via the combinatorial principle. This is because the overwhelming majority of Chinese characters are compounds containing combinable (sub‐lexical) elements or components indicating meaning (around 200 semantic radicals) and 800+ phonetic components, although school Chinese (Grades 1 to 6) only expects children to learn 124 radicals and 563 phonetics (Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref799">581</reflink>]). As noted earlier, however, and like most languages, a much smaller number of components account for the vast majority of all Chinese words (which are overwhelming bimorphemic two‐character compounds), with many components rarely if ever encountered in written text. But even if most of the components are needed, the total inventory is finite and hence learnable. The key question regarding decipherability in Chinese is not so much the large number of components, but the reliability of the morphographic and phonographic correspondences.</p> <p>Although a great deal of discussion has centered around the question of the utility of symbol–sound and symbol–meaning connections in Chinese, even "irregular" or "semi‐regular" phonetics as well as semi‐transparent radicals provide potentially usable information for identifying novel characters[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref800">36</reflink>] Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref801">107</reflink>]) maintain that frequency‐weighted phonetic consistency[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref802">37</reflink>] of Chinese characters introduced in the fourth grade and beyond averages more than 60%. This means that the strategy of naming an unfamiliar compound character according to the dominant pronunciation of the phonetic family of which it is a member has a 60% or greater chance of success. The same goes for phonetic regularity,[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref803">38</reflink>] with 39% of phonetics considered regular (same syllable with same or different tone), 26% semi‐regular sharing either the onset or the rime (same or different tone), together accounting for 65% of all compounds (Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref804">581</reflink>]). As regards the semantic radical, Shu et al.'s analysis of the complete corpus of characters in School Chinese classified 58% as transparent and another 30% as semi‐transparent. But do learners exploit this potential when faced with an unfamiliar compound?</p> <p>The accumulated evidence suggests that both semantic and phonetic information (and, sometimes, semantic and semantic information, e.g., 木 "tree," 森 "forest") has been shown to be productive for the developing Chinese reader (Anderson et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref805">17</reflink>]; Chan &amp; Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref806">99</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref807">107</reflink>]; Ho et al., [<reflink idref="bib275" id="ref808">275</reflink>]; Ho &amp; Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib273" id="ref809">273</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib274" id="ref810">274</reflink>]; Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib339" id="ref811">339</reflink>]; Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref812">581</reflink>]; Tzeng et al., [<reflink idref="bib657" id="ref813">657</reflink>]). The evidence includes, inter alia, correlations between character reading and phonological awareness (tone awareness, sub‐morphemic onset–rime awareness, and syllabic awareness), the association between character reading and pseudo‐character naming, phonetic regularity and phonetic consistency effects, as well as reading errors such as overgeneralizations. These findings collectively suggest that the phonetic information in semantic–phonetic compounds plays a significant role in compound character reading and learning and supports the claim that even Chinese is combinatorial, offering the reader a measure of decipherability, although it must be acknowledged that classroom instruction (contrary to the research findings) relies almost exclusively on rote holistic memorization (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref814">107</reflink>]; Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref815">581</reflink>]). Furthermore, about 28% of the characters introduced in elementary school are not phonetic compounds (Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref816">581</reflink>]) and therefore do not contain any information about pronunciation, so a significant degree of rote whole‐compound memorization is indispensable. Nonetheless, those readers with a superior knowledge of the combinatorial principles of Chinese semantic–phonetic compounds are the more advanced readers (Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref817">107</reflink>]; Shu &amp; Anderson, [<reflink idref="bib578" id="ref818">578</reflink>]).</p> <p>For example, Anderson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref819">17</reflink>]) taught children in Grades 2 and 4 the pronunciations of unfamiliar semantic–phonetic compounds containing familiar phonetics that were either regular, semi‐regular (same onset and rime but different tone), onset‐different (same rime), or unknown (baseline). Both groups performed best with regular characters (58% success), followed by semi‐regular tone‐different (36%), onset‐different (14%), compared to unknown (baseline) phonetics (9%).</p> <p>Shu and Anderson ([<reflink idref="bib578" id="ref820">578</reflink>]) showed that third graders, but not first graders, are able to independently identify novel (compound) morphologically transparent characters by exploiting the information from a familiar radical. Identification of transparent characters with a familiar radical was higher (50%) than either transparent characters with unfamiliar radicals (35%) or opaque characters (32%). Significantly, in a related study of word learning in independent out‐of‐school reading, Shu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib580" id="ref821">580</reflink>]) found that children who reported reading extensively were much more likely to learn the meaning of a previously unfamiliar word simply by reading a text containing that word.</p> <p>Of course, in the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, the supplementary alphabetic scripts that supply the pronunciation of unfamiliar characters for beginning readers (<emph>pinyin</emph> in China and <emph>zhu‐yin‐fu‐yao</emph> ("bopomofo") in Taiwan) would appear to offer a self‐teaching mechanism <emph>par excellence</emph>, although it remains to be established whether the fact that both these supplementary scripts adhere to a different (alphabetic) logic, and do not necessarily draw attention to the uniquely Chinese stroke structure of characters, helps or hinders memorization of the characters (see Li L. et al., [<reflink idref="bib340" id="ref822">340</reflink>]). Summarizing the research into how children learn to read Chinese, Shu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref823">581</reflink>]) concluded that "<emph>children do not memorize characters as a whole in learning to read; they decompose characters into sublexical units</emph> "(p. 276).[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref824">39</reflink>] The same conclusion was drawn in Tzeng's ([<reflink idref="bib656" id="ref825">656</reflink>]) review of the evidence from skilled Chinese readers[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref826">40</reflink>] and by Chen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref827">107</reflink>])[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref828">41</reflink>] in their review of the developmental evidence. Nag ([<reflink idref="bib407" id="ref829">407</reflink>]) also reached the same conclusion in her review of learning to read Indic abugidas/alphasyllabaries, which also contain an extensive set of several hundred aksharas.[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref830">42</reflink>]</p> <p>This "do‐it‐yourself" or "self‐teaching" function of orthographic learnability (Jorm &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib291" id="ref831">291</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib553" id="ref832">553</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib557" id="ref833">557</reflink>]) supplies a means for identifying and memorizing new words and characters and establishing the detailed orthographic representations on which rapid, fully unitized skilled word recognition is founded.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-34">Unitizability for the Expert Via Morpheme Transparency</hd> <p>In addition to providing decipherability/learnability for the novice, an efficient orthography must also serve the needs of the expert‐to‐be by providing morphemic transparency—that is, distinctive word‐specific (and/or morpheme‐specific) orthographic configurations required for unitizing word recognition. Morpheme transparency depends on two dimensions of morpheme representation. Each morpheme ideally has one and only one representation—morpheme (spelling) "constancy" (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib509" id="ref834">509</reflink>]) (also refered to as "uniformity" (Berg &amp; Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref835">51</reflink>]))[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref836">43</reflink>] with different morphemes spelled differently (English; <emph>pair/pear/pare</emph>; German, <emph>wider</emph> 'against' <emph>wieder</emph> 'again'; Hebrew, מכר/מחר /maxaʁ/ 'he sold'/'tomorrow'; Spanish, <emph>baya</emph> 'seed,' <emph>vaya</emph> 'go,' <emph>valla</emph> 'fence'). This second aspect of morpheme transparency has been labeled morpheme "distinctiveness" (Rogers, [<reflink idref="bib509" id="ref837">509</reflink>]) or morpheme "uniqueness" (Berg &amp; Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref838">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>In well‐established orthographies with widespread literacy and an extensive literature such as English, spelling reforms that preserve morpheme constancy or uniformity often take precedence over reforms that promote the competing decipherability/learnability principle (Daniels &amp; Bright, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref839">143</reflink>]; Grigorenko, [<reflink idref="bib246" id="ref840">246</reflink>]; Landerl, [<reflink idref="bib328" id="ref841">328</reflink>]; Pae, [<reflink idref="bib436" id="ref842">436</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib453" id="ref843">453</reflink>]; Sampson, [<reflink idref="bib528" id="ref844">528</reflink>]; Venezky, [<reflink idref="bib678" id="ref845">678</reflink>]) although there are notable exceptions such as Serbo‐Croatian (Lukatela et al., [<reflink idref="bib356" id="ref846">356</reflink>]) and Spanish (Defior &amp; Serrano, [<reflink idref="bib158" id="ref847">158</reflink>]). For example, in Korean <emph>hangul</emph>, the verb root 먹다 "<emph>eat"</emph> /mək.dɑ/ is pronounced /mə.ɡət.dɑ/ in the past tense but is written 먹었다, preserving the root as an integral (syllable) unit 먹 rather than 머겄다, which would be faithful to sound (hence more phonologically transparent) but would disrupt the morphemic integrity (constancy) of the root (Pae, [<reflink idref="bib436" id="ref848">436</reflink>], p. 162).</p> <p>Morpheme constancy/uniformity dictates that a morpheme is spelled the same way despite phonological changes (<emph>soft/soften</emph>, the inflectional suffix ‐<emph>ed</emph> /t/ (<emph>missed</emph>), /d/,(<emph>saved</emph>) /əd/ (<emph>waited</emph>)). Spelling constancy highlights spelling‐meaning regularities essential for unitization but at the expense of decipherability (as well as prolonged spelling acquisition). Aronoff and colleagues (Aronoff et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref849">27</reflink>]; Berg &amp; Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref850">51</reflink>]) have shown that the English inflectional suffixes <emph>‐ed</emph> and <emph>‐s</emph> have high morphemic uniqueness (distinctiveness). Berg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref851">52</reflink>]) found that the English past tense suffix uniquely signals the past tense, whereas monomorphemic words ending in /əd/ that could be spelled with <emph>‐ed</emph> are consistently spelled with an alternative spelling (<emph>salad, horrid, method</emph>; Berg &amp; Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref852">51</reflink>]). Derivational suffixes such as <emph>‐ous, −ic, −al</emph>, and <emph>‐y</emph> also appear to be morphemically unique. For example, many (spoken) words end in the phonological sequence /əs/ (e.g., <emph>nervous, office, tennis, fortress</emph>, etc.), but only <emph>nervous</emph> contains the adjectival suffix <emph>‐ous</emph>. Berg and Aronoff ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref853">51</reflink>]) found a total of 346 <emph>‐ous</emph> words in the CELEX corpus; all were adjectives or could be used as adjectives. Moreover, 320 other /əs/ words were found that could potentially be spelled with <emph>‐ous</emph>, but are not (e.g., <emph>bonus</emph>, <emph>tennis, menace, office</emph>)—only six of them were adjectives. Ulicheva et al. ([<reflink idref="bib658" id="ref854">658</reflink>]) have now shown this to be a general property of English derivational suffixes—namely, particular suffix spellings tend to be reserved for particular meaningful functions. Furthermore, this form of systematicity between spelling and meaning was found to influence skilled readers' reading, spelling, and eye movements, with the magnitude of behavioral effects mirroring the strength of spelling‐to‐meaning regularities in the orthography.</p> <p>The spelling of the past tense verb <emph>missed</emph> would be more phonologically transparent if spelled the way it sounds, *<emph>mist</emph> (as most spelling reformers have advocated throughout (English) history); but for rapid access to the correct meaning (<emph>missed</emph> the verb and not <emph>mist</emph> the noun), and to the morphological family members (<emph>miss, missing, missingness</emph>), the less child‐friendly spelling <emph>missed</emph> is more informative. Rastle ([<reflink idref="bib481" id="ref855">481</reflink>]) notes that English spelling, much more than spoken English, makes spelling‐meaning links visible and thereby not only helps readers identify meaning but also derive meanings of novel morphologically related words. This is not just a feature of English spelling. For example, in Nzema, an Akan sub‐family of Niger‐Congo languages spoken in Ghana, the <emph>r</emph> in /raalɛ/ "woman" becomes silent when the plural morpheme (the prefix /<emph>m−/</emph>) is affixed but is retained in the spelling mraalɛ /maalɛ/ "women" (Trudell &amp; Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib648" id="ref856">648</reflink>]). In contrast, some languages, such as Spanish, prioritize phonological transparency, often at the expense of morphemic transparency. For example, in verbs ending in <emph>‐ger</emph> or <emph>‐gir</emph> (<emph>escoger</emph>, <emph>corrigir</emph>) the letter <emph>g</emph> is replaced by the letter <emph>j</emph> when followed by <emph>o</emph> or <emph>a</emph> as in <emph>escojo</emph> or <emph>corrija</emph>. The letter ⟨<emph>c ⟩</emph> (/k/ in vaca ('cow')) changes to qu (also pronounced /k/) when followed by a front vowel in derived words such as <emph>vaqueria</emph> ("dairy") or <emph>vaquero</emph> ("cowboy"). It remains to be seen to what extent modifications to morpheme spellings can be tolerated by readers before identification is compromised.</p> <p>Although English is often characterized as a morphophonemic script, there are clearly varying degrees of morphological transparency ranging from classic suppletion (<emph>go/went</emph>) through minor morpheme‐internal spelling (typically vowel) changes (<emph>shake/shook</emph>) through to fully preserved morpheme spellings (<emph>help/helped</emph>). This topic has been largely overlooked in the reading research literature, although a small but growing number of studies indicate that the extent to which morpheme spelling is constant/uniform across derivations and inflections benefits readers (Apel et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref857">22</reflink>]; Carlisle &amp; Stone, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref858">90</reflink>]; Deacon et al., [<reflink idref="bib157" id="ref859">157</reflink>]; Lázaro et al., [<reflink idref="bib330" id="ref860">330</reflink>]; Ulicheva et al., [<reflink idref="bib658" id="ref861">658</reflink>]; Verhoeven et al., [<reflink idref="bib688" id="ref862">688</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref863">44</reflink>] This advantage accrues even when derivations are not perfectly isomorphic to the base morpheme, owing to a missing <emph>e</emph>, as in <emph>adorable/adore</emph>, a shared <emph>e</emph>, as in <emph>writer/write</emph>, or a reduplicated consonant, as in <emph>metal</emph>/<emph>metallic</emph> (McCormick et al., [<reflink idref="bib385" id="ref864">385</reflink>], but see Verhoeven et al., [<reflink idref="bib688" id="ref865">688</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref866">45</reflink>] For example, Apel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref867">22</reflink>]) found that among children in Grades 3 to 6, the probability of a correct response was greater on oral and written morphological awareness tasks in which inflected or derived words were fully transparent with their base word (e.g., <emph>friend &gt; friendly</emph>) compared to items in which there was a shift in both the phonological and the orthographic form of the base word (e.g., <emph>attend &gt; attention</emph>; see also Goodwin &amp; Ahn, [<reflink idref="bib239" id="ref868">239</reflink>]; To et al., [<reflink idref="bib635" id="ref869">635</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Hebrew abjad also provides a fine example of morpheme transparency, spelling phonologically distinct allomorphs consistently. Indeed, the orthography highlights the consonants of the root (the main meaning‐bearing unit in most Hebrew content words) by transforming the phonologically discontinuous spoken root into an orthographically continuous unit which is easily unitized as an integral (linear) morpho‐orthographic representation (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib489" id="ref870">489</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref871">561</reflink>]). Consider the following derivations from the common tri‐consonantal root K.T.V denoting the concept of "writing." The listener hears /katav/ ("he wrote"), /jixtov/ ("he will write"), /ktiva/ ("writing"), /ktuba/ ('marriage contract'), and so on. These spoken words often have little in common phonologically (/jixtov/ and /ktuba/ share only a single phoneme!) but appear in print as follows, <bold>י</bold><bold>כ</bold><bold>ת</bold><bold>ו</bold>ב/<bold>כ</bold><bold>ת</bold><bold>ו</bold><bold>ב</bold><bold>ה</bold>, with the three root letters (in bold) appearing as a continuous or near‐continuous string: only the relatively unobtrusive vowel letters VAV ו and YOD י are interpolated between the root letters. It remains to be seen to what extent morpheme uniformity is common or perhaps even near‐universal across writing systems (but see Schmidt, [<reflink idref="bib538" id="ref872">538</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref873">46</reflink>]</p> <p>Another aspect of morpheme transparency is the issue of morpheme density. When a number of morphemes are strung together in a polymorphemic word (e.g., <emph>indistinguishably, unreasonableness, misrepresentation</emph>), extracting the constituent morphemes can be a challenge for young readers.[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref874">47</reflink>] This problem is particularly acute in agglutinating languages such as Finnish,[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref875">48</reflink>] Hungarian, Japanese many South Indian languages including Malayalam, and also sub‐Saharan African languages such as isiXhosa, where a single word can stretch across an entire line of text (see Vasudevan et al., [<reflink idref="bib673" id="ref876">673</reflink>], figure 11). (Consider the implications for assessing reading fluency if measured in <emph>words per minute</emph>.)[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref877">49</reflink>] The problem is compounded when morphophonemic changes (sandhi) occur at word‐internal morpheme boundaries during affixation (e.g., <emph>in + perfect → imperfect</emph>) and at word‐external boundaries during compound word formation (Haridas et al., [<reflink idref="bib253" id="ref878">253</reflink>], Section  Word Recognition for Familiar Words; Probert, [<reflink idref="bib471" id="ref879">471</reflink>]; Roberts, [<reflink idref="bib504" id="ref880">504</reflink>]; Trudell &amp; Schroeder, [<reflink idref="bib648" id="ref881">648</reflink>]). Furthermore, owing to pervasive allography in Arabic (letter forms that differ in initial, medial, and final positions), the same base morpheme can vary quite considerably across different derivations.</p> <p>بلغ /ballaɣa/ "he notified,"</p> <p>بلاغ /bala:ɣ/ "notification,"</p> <p>مبالغة /muba:laɣa/ "exaggeration"</p> <p>Morpheme <emph>uniqueness</emph> (Berg &amp; Aronoff, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref882">51</reflink>]; Rogers' ([<reflink idref="bib509" id="ref883">509</reflink>]) <emph>distinctiveness</emph>)—unique spellings for different morphemes—may also be crucial for the unitization of word recognition in languages with many homophones or near‐homophones. The name <emph>Beatles</emph> was not just a play on words, but also a distinctive spelling denoting a unique band of musicians. Its not that the <emph>w</emph> in <emph>two</emph> is essential for maintaining morpheme uniformity and thereby revealing morphemic (and semantic) relatedness (e.g., <emph>twelve, twenty, twice, etc</emph>.)—a highly doubtful assumption for the developing reader—rather this etymological quirk provides a distinctive spelling for potentially confusable homophones (<emph>too/two/to</emph>). Historically, conscious efforts were often made by English spelling reformers to avoid homophones becoming homographs and thereby minimize ambiguity (Carney, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref884">91</reflink>], chapter 7; Scragg, [<reflink idref="bib540" id="ref885">540</reflink>], chapter 4). It also seems likely that morphemic spellings are better able to accommodate dialectal variation and change. It may be that the pervasive homophony in both contemporary spoken Chinese and Japanese made non‐phonological morphemic characters (Chinese semantic radicals and Japanese Kanji respectively) indispensable, not only to bridge extreme (and often mutually unintelligible) dialect differences in Chinese. The resilience of the Chinese writing system, which has endured for at least three millennia and possibly much longer (Tsou, [<reflink idref="bib649" id="ref886">649</reflink>]) may well be due to its de‐emphasis or loss of phonological transparency in favor of morphemic transparency. And this, of course, aligns with the central role of morphological awareness in learning to read Chinese (McBride, [<reflink idref="bib378" id="ref887">378</reflink>]).</p> <p>An orthography that primarily serves the needs of skilled readers, such as traditional (i.e., unsimplified) Chinese characters (and in many respects, English orthography, see Chomsky &amp; Halle, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref888">112</reflink>]), will pose major (but <emph>not</emph> insurmountable) challenges for novices.[<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref889">50</reflink>] Conversely, scripts that deliver maximum decipherability for novices, such as the highly regularized English pedographies (e.g., the <emph>initial teaching alphabet</emph> (i.t.a.; Chasnoff, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref890">103</reflink>]; Downing, [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref891">170</reflink>])), Korean <emph>hangul</emph>, or Japanese <emph>kana</emph>, will often fail, as a stand‐alone script, to meet the needs of skilled readers, primarily owing to the failure to distinguish homophones. Purely phonemic scripts such as <emph>pinyin</emph> (People's Republic of China) and <emph>bopomofo</emph> (Taiwan), as well as syllabic/moraic scripts such as Japanese kana, Vai, and Cherokee appear to be remarkably easy to learn to decipher (e.g., Asfaha et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref892">31</reflink>]; Mason et al., [<reflink idref="bib374" id="ref893">374</reflink>]; McCarthy, [<reflink idref="bib384" id="ref894">384</reflink>]; Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref895">626</reflink>]), but if extensive homophony exists in the spoken language, such scripts will contravene the morphemic transparency principle and prove problematic without supplementary morpheme‐based characters (as in the case of Japanese Kanji used alongside the syllabic kana) or other orthographic devices (such as capitalization: Sue/sue) which provide more transparent links to morpheme identity. By the same token, <emph>i.t.a</emph>. was never destined to supplant conventional English orthography because it ignores the morphemic principle. Conversely, highly morphemic scripts such as Chinese characters served the needs of a literate elite in Imperial China very well, but today require the novice to invest extraordinary amounts of time and effort in learning to read (Hoosain, [<reflink idref="bib278" id="ref896">278</reflink>]; Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref897">581</reflink>]; Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref898">626</reflink>]). It is noteworthy that Chinese characters are claimed to be more easily acquired by the novice (and the general populace) when supplemented by decipherable phonological (phonemic or sub‐syllabic) scripts such as pinyin (Siok &amp; Fletcher, [<reflink idref="bib588" id="ref899">588</reflink>]; Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref900">626</reflink>] but see Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib340" id="ref901">340</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-35">Many Orthographies Have Dual Versions</hd> <p>Balancing the divergent decipherability–unitizability needs of novice and expert readers, many orthographies have dual versions—a more phonologically transparent version taught to beginners, and a more morphemically transparent and therefore unitizable version (but often less phonologically transparent) for skilled readers. Among these are the pointed (fully vocalized) and unpointed (incompletely vocalized) variants of Hebrew (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib489" id="ref902">489</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref903">561</reflink>]), <emph>mashkūl</emph> and <emph>non‐mashkūl</emph>[<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref904">51</reflink>]Arabic (Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; Henkin‐Roitfarb, [<reflink idref="bib519" id="ref905">519</reflink>]; Tibi &amp; Kirby, [<reflink idref="bib633" id="ref906">633</reflink>]), Farsi/Persian (Baluch &amp; Besner, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref907">38</reflink>]; Mohseni &amp; McBride, [<reflink idref="bib396" id="ref908">396</reflink>]), Urdu, and Pashto (Mirdehghan, [<reflink idref="bib394" id="ref909">394</reflink>]; Rao et al., [<reflink idref="bib479" id="ref910">479</reflink>]). For example, unpointed Hebrew (the standard form of writing for skilled readers) includes four vowel letters that provide a partial (incomplete and inconsistent) representation of vowels. A second, historically later‐developing system of vertically arrayed extra‐linear vowel signs was developed in post‐exilic times when Hebrew was disappearing as a spoken language and today is retained to teach children to read (Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib489" id="ref911">489</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref912">561</reflink>]). These diacritic‐like signs (dots and dashes) provide complete and consistent vowel representation turning a vocalically opaque script into a highly transparent one (at least for reading) with near‐perfect symbol‐to‐sound correspondence. This fully vocalized system is rapidly mastered by the beginning reader (Feitelson, [<reflink idref="bib197" id="ref913">197</reflink>]; Share, [<reflink idref="bib561" id="ref914">561</reflink>]; Shatil &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib570" id="ref915">570</reflink>]) but quickly becomes superfluous as the developing reader relies increasingly on higher‐order morphological and lexical knowledge to supply the missing vowel information (Bar‐On et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref916">42</reflink>]; Bar‐On &amp; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref917">41</reflink>]; Frost, [<reflink idref="bib214" id="ref918">214</reflink>]; Gur, [<reflink idref="bib250" id="ref919">250</reflink>]; Ravid, [<reflink idref="bib488" id="ref920">488</reflink>]; Share &amp; Bar‐On, [<reflink idref="bib564" id="ref921">564</reflink>]). By Grade 3, vowel points are typically discarded, and barely noticed by the maturing reader. A similar situation exists in Arabic although the phonemic short vowel signs of <emph>mashkūl</emph> script are phased out starting in Grade 4, somewhat later than for Hebrew (Bar‐On et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref922">42</reflink>]; Saiegh‐Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib517" id="ref923">517</reflink>]).</p> <p>In China, decipherability is aided by an auxiliary system of Roman alphabetic letters, <emph>pinyin</emph>, which is taught in the first 10 weeks of school, and then used to assist the learning of Chinese characters (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib340" id="ref924">340</reflink>]; Liu, [<reflink idref="bib349" id="ref925">349</reflink>]; Shu et al., [<reflink idref="bib581" id="ref926">581</reflink>]; Siok &amp; Fletcher, [<reflink idref="bib588" id="ref927">588</reflink>]; Taylor &amp; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib626" id="ref928">626</reflink>]). As in the case of Hebrew and Arabic vowel diacritics, pinyin is gradually phased out (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib721" id="ref929">721</reflink>]) and eventually forgotten.</p> <p>In Japan, the highly consistent and rapidly acquired syllabic kana are used (<emph>furigana</emph>) to teach the morpho‐syllabic Kanji. Like diacritics, in furigana, kana appear (in early‐learning materials) above the kanji character multiple times before being dropped when they are no longer needed. Kana are usually employed as a similar deciphering aid alongside or above unfamiliar Kanji characters such as the Joyo Kanji, those not among the 2000 official Kanji presumed to be familiar to skilled readers. In Hebrew, too, even texts for skilled readers will add the occasional vowel point to disambiguate an unpointed homograph[<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref930">52</reflink>].</p> <p>English, too, has a long history of script innovations and pedagogical practices designed to boost phonological transparency for the beginning reader. These include diacritical marks of the type seen in pronouncing dictionaries (e.g., ā "long" vowel; ă "short" vowel), phonetically simplified spellings such as i.t.a. (Chasnoff, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref931">103</reflink>]; Downing, [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref932">170</reflink>]), and beginning texts restricted to vocabulary with regular spellings—so‐called "decodable texts" (Hiebert, [<reflink idref="bib270" id="ref933">270</reflink>]; Mesmer, [<reflink idref="bib390" id="ref934">390</reflink>])—Dr. Seuss (Theodore Seuss Geisel, 1904–1991) being the best‐known author of such texts, beginning with <emph>The Cat in the Hat</emph>. The research on methods for altering (regularizing) traditional English spellings ("respelling") such as i.t.a. consistently shows that beginning readers learn to decode more quickly than traditional orthography (see, e.g., Chasnoff, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref935">103</reflink>]; Downing, [<reflink idref="bib170" id="ref936">170</reflink>]), but soon lose any advantages when the child is required to transition to standard English orthography. On the other hand, comprehensive diacritical systems of the type found in pronouncing dictionaries when added to standard <emph>unaltered</emph> English spelling (e.g., TIPS, Silverzweig, [<reflink idref="bib584" id="ref937">584</reflink>]) may have the potential to eliminate the phonological opacity of English while retaining morphemic transparency.</p> <p>The dual nature of writing systems also comes to light in situations where pronunciation precision is paramount, especially in religious contexts that require oral recitation of sacred texts, as already seen in post‐exilic Hebrew vowels and the text of the Qur'ān, and other liturgical works in languages no longer spoken. For example, the Avesta, the sacred book of the Zoroastrian religion, adopted a fully vocalized, 51‐character alphabet after the Avestan language (an Iranian language) had been extinct for centuries. When Islam spread to non‐Arabic‐speaking countries, more precision was needed for correctly pronouncing sacred texts, hence, diacritic‐like signs (<emph>tashkīl</emph>) were added for short vowels. For the same reasons, the pitch accent was added to Greek by Alexandrian scholars during Hellenistic times when many non‐Greek‐speaking peoples (following Alexander's conquests) began learning Greek.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-36">What Exactly Gets Unitized?</hd> <p>Understandably, the main (and often exclusive) focus of unitization among reading researchers is the word, if only for the banal reason that words in almost all scripts are clearly bounded by word separation devices such as inter‐word spaces, dots, lines, allographic devices such as capitalization, finalization, head‐strokes (in Indic scripts) and more. Nonetheless, the characteristics of individual words (whether monomorphemic or polymorphemic) such as frequency, length, regularity, and more are major factors in word, sentence, and text reading speed, accuracy, eye movements, and cognitive effort (Barton et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref938">44</reflink>]; Kuperman et al., [<reflink idref="bib322" id="ref939">322</reflink>]; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib450" id="ref940">450</reflink>]; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref941">492</reflink>]; Shechter &amp; Share, [<reflink idref="bib574" id="ref942">574</reflink>]). However, the concept of a word as the string of letters between visible boundaries is not only arbitrary (see Footnote 49) but problematic as a description of a unit of meaning suitable for unitization not only in English but across languages (Aronoff &amp; Fudeman, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref943">28</reflink>]; Eaton, [<reflink idref="bib176" id="ref944">176</reflink>]). Is/are the word/s <emph>son‐in‐law</emph> three words or one? There is no dispute that there are three morphemes here. Is it <emph>loving‐kindness</emph>, <emph>lovingkindness</emph>, or <emph>loving kindness</emph>? According to Kilgarriff et al. ([<reflink idref="bib308" id="ref945">308</reflink>]), all three spellings are equally common. Again, the number of morphemes is unambiguous (<emph>love + ing + kind + ness</emph>). It is telling that Chinese, a strongly morphemic writing system, has little use for the notion of a "word" (the same goes for "letter"). Nonetheless, it is clear, at least in many scripts, and especially in alphabets and abjads, that words are important unitization units (Perfetti &amp; Stafura, [<reflink idref="bib448" id="ref946">448</reflink>]; Rayner, [<reflink idref="bib492" id="ref947">492</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref948">53</reflink>]</p> <p>In addition to whole words, the basic units of meaning—morphemes—are also central to the unitization process. Since the goal of reading is access to word meaning, morphemes are the natural units for unitization. Furthermore, in many well‐established writing systems, such as English, the spelling of morphemes is often quite consistent (morpheme transparency), providing the reader with a degree of regularity between spelling and meaning in precisely those situations when lower‐order letter‐level spelling‐sound mappings are unreliable (Rastle, [<reflink idref="bib484" id="ref949">484</reflink>]; Ulicheva et al., [<reflink idref="bib658" id="ref950">658</reflink>]).</p> <p>Unfortunately, much of the literature investigating morphological processing has focused on so‐called "complex" words, that is, polymorphemic words,[<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref951">54</reflink>] conveying the misleading impression that the question of morphological processing only concerns a subset of the English lexicon. Admittedly, the overwhelming majority of English words are polymorphemic (Baayen et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref952">34</reflink>]), as are the majority of words learned from Grade 2 onwards (Hiebert et al., [<reflink idref="bib271" id="ref953">271</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref954">55</reflink>] However, not only do many languages have few if any monosyllabic monomorphemic words (e.g., Spanish and Arabic), it is often overlooked that almost all English monomorphemic content words—so‐called "free" or "unbound" morphemes—are typically the root morpheme in longer polymorphemic words and thus provide the infrastructure for entire families of inflected, derived, and compound words (<emph>read: reads, reading, reread, proofread, reader</emph>, <emph>readership</emph>, <emph>unreadable</emph>, and so on).[<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref955">56</reflink>] Furthermore, the frequency of the root word has been shown to have a powerful impact on the reading of derived words (knowing <emph>read</emph> helps the recognition of <emph>reader, readership</emph>, and <emph>unreadable</emph>, etc.; Apel et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref956">21</reflink>]; Carlisle &amp; Katz, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref957">89</reflink>]). And vice versa: the base form (even of simple first‐grade monosyllabic and monomorphemic words such as <emph>read</emph>) is also influenced by these kinship relationships referred to by Baayen et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref958">33</reflink>]) as "morphological connectivity". Even young readers are capable of generalizing knowledge of a root to a polysyllabic word containing that same root (knowing the pseudoword <emph>feep</emph> helps the recognition of <emph>refeep</emph>, Tucker et al., [<reflink idref="bib650" id="ref959">650</reflink>]).</p> <p>Additional factors accounting for the relative neglect of the morpheme by reading researchers, is that, until quite recently, almost all first‐ and often second‐generation computational models of word reading have been confined to monosyllabic and hence (almost exclusively) monomorphemic words (Coltheart et al., [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref960">128</reflink>]; Harm &amp; Seidenberg, [<reflink idref="bib255" id="ref961">255</reflink>]; Seidenberg &amp; McClelland, [<reflink idref="bib542" id="ref962">542</reflink>]), unwittingly conveying the false impression that morphology is only a matter concerning "complex" polymorphemic words (see also Frost, [<reflink idref="bib215" id="ref963">215</reflink>]; Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib730" id="ref964">730</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib731" id="ref965">731</reflink>]). Add to this the fact that most computational models have focused on reading aloud rather than meaning‐access tasks may also have helped sideline morphology (Sulpizio et al., [<reflink idref="bib615" id="ref966">615</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-37">Morphemes and Reading</hd> <p>Multiple lines of converging evidence indicate that morphemes are important units for skilled and developing readers across a wide variety of languages and orthographies (Amenta &amp; Crepaldi, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref967">15</reflink>]; Andrews et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref968">18</reflink>]; Apel &amp; Lawrence, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref969">23</reflink>]; Berthiaume et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref970">54</reflink>]; Caramazza, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref971">81</reflink>]; Carlisle &amp; Stone, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref972">90</reflink>]; Chen &amp; Pasquarella, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref973">106</reflink>]; Clin et al., [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref974">119</reflink>]; Crepaldi, [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref975">132</reflink>]; Deutsch &amp; Frost, [<reflink idref="bib164" id="ref976">164</reflink>]; Duncan et al., [<reflink idref="bib174" id="ref977">174</reflink>]; Kieffer et al., [<reflink idref="bib307" id="ref978">307</reflink>]; Kirby &amp; Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib313" id="ref979">313</reflink>]; Levesque et al., [<reflink idref="bib336" id="ref980">336</reflink>]; Muroya et al., [<reflink idref="bib404" id="ref981">404</reflink>]; Nagy et al., [<reflink idref="bib411" id="ref982">411</reflink>]; Rastle, [<reflink idref="bib481" id="ref983">481</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib482" id="ref984">482</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib483" id="ref985">483</reflink>]; Rastle &amp; Davis, [<reflink idref="bib485" id="ref986">485</reflink>]; Taft &amp; Forster, [<reflink idref="bib618" id="ref987">618</reflink>]; Taft &amp; Zhu, [<reflink idref="bib619" id="ref988">619</reflink>]; Verhoeven &amp; Carlisle, [<reflink idref="bib680" id="ref989">680</reflink>]; Verhoeven &amp; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib682" id="ref990">682</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib685" id="ref991">685</reflink>]; Wade‐Woolley &amp; Heggie, [<reflink idref="bib691" id="ref992">691</reflink>]; Yan et al., [<reflink idref="bib722" id="ref993">722</reflink>]). A substantial body of evidence from various tasks tapping implicit (online) morphological processing while reading shows that skilled readers of English (and a number of other European languages) "blindly" decompose polymorphemic words—the vast majority of words—into their constituent morphemes even when these units are incompatible with the meaning of the whole word (e.g., <emph>corner</emph> is a monomorphemic word, not someone who "corns," or a comparative adjective (*corn, *corner, *cornest; Amenta &amp; Crepaldi, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref994">15</reflink>]; Beyersmann &amp; Grainger, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref995">56</reflink>]; De Simone et al., [<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref996">151</reflink>]; Rastle, [<reflink idref="bib481" id="ref997">481</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib483" id="ref998">483</reflink>]; Rastle &amp; Davis, [<reflink idref="bib485" id="ref999">485</reflink>]; Verhoeven &amp; Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib685" id="ref1000">685</reflink>]). The same conclusion has been reached in research into skilled readers in Hebrew (Bentin &amp; Frost, [49]; Frost et al., [218]) and Arabic (Boudelaa, [64]; Boudelaa &amp; Marslen‐Wilson, [65]). A growing number of investigations have shown that developing readers, too, are sensitive to morphemes when reading polymorphemic words and pseudowords in European alphabets (Burani et al., [78], [77]; Carlisle &amp; Fleming, [88]; Carlisle &amp; Stone, [90]; Casalis et al., [94]; Colé et al., [123]; Dawson et al., [147]; Deacon et al., [157]; Hasenäcker et al., [259]; Kruk &amp; Bergman, [319]; Lázaro et al., [330]; McCutchen et al., [386]; Quémart et al., [475]) and in Semitic abjads (Schiff et al., [534]; Shalhoub‐Awwad, [546]; Shalhoub‐Awwad &amp; Leikin, [548]). In addition, explicit (off‐line) metalinguistic tasks tapping morphological knowledge and morphological awareness correlate well with reading ability in English (e.g., Chan et al., [100]; Deacon &amp; Kirby, [156]; Georgiou et al., [226]; Mahony et al., [362]; Nagy et al., [413]; Singson et al., [587]), in European languages (Spanish (Ramirez et al., [478]), Dutch (Rispens et al., [503]), Greek (Diamanti et al., [165]), and Portuguese (De Freitas et al., [149])), in Semitic scripts (Abu Ahmad et al., [4]; Ben‐Dror et al., [46]; Kirby et al., [314]; Ravid &amp; Schiff, [490]; Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; Taha, [523]; Schiff &amp; Saiegh‐Haddad, [535]; Shalhoub‐Awwad &amp; Cohen‐Mimran, [547]; Tibi &amp; Kirby, [632]; Vaknin‐Nusbaum et al., [668]), and in Chinese (Chen et al., [105]; McBride, [378]; Peng et al., [443]; Ruan et al., [511]). Most of this work, however, has focused on readers from Grade 2 and above. The data regarding beginning readers is mixed, although there is agreement that morphological awareness becomes more important as children progress in reading (Beyersmann et al., [55]; Carlisle, [85]; Cohen‐Mimran &amp; Share, [122]; Colé et al., [124]; Dawson et al., [147]; Deacon et al., [157]; Diamanti et al., [165]; El Akiki &amp; Content, [188]; Fleischhauer et al., [203]; Gur, [250]; Kuo &amp; Anderson, [321]; Manolitsis et al., [367]; Pittas &amp; Nunes, [461]; Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; Taha, [523]; Share &amp; Bar‐On, [564]; Wolter et al., [716]). Kindergarten morphological skills have also been shown to predict reading achievement in second grade and beyond in English (Carlisle, [85], [86]), Norwegian (Lyster et al., [359]), Greek (Diamanti et al., [165]), French (Casalis &amp; Louis‐Alexandre, [93]), Arabic (Abu Ahmad et al., [4]; Levesque et al., [337]), Hebrew, (Cohen‐Mimran &amp; Share, [122]), Finnish (Lyytinen &amp; Lyytinen, [360]), and Chinese (McBride, [378]). The most definitive evidence, of course, comes from experimental training studies. These have consistently demonstrated significant and substantial benefits of morphological awareness training on a variety of literacy skills, including word reading (Bowers et al., [67]; Chow et al., [113]; Goodwin &amp; Ahn, [239]; Lervag &amp; Hulme, [335]; Lyster et al., [358]; Meaux et al., [387]; Ruan et al., [511]; Vaknin‐Nusbaum et al., [667]; Vaknin‐Nusbaum, 2021; Zhou et al., [728]).</p> <p>Collectively, these data provide strong support for the idea that morphemes are important in the unitization process. However, they may not be the only basis for unitization.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-38">The Syllable: Another Chunkable Unit</hd> <p>Another often intermediate unit of chunking is the syllable. Unlike phonemes and whole <emph>spoken</emph> words in the speech stream, spoken syllables are easily detectable units even for illiterates (Morais et al., [399]) and preliterate children (Abu Ahmad &amp; Share, [5]; Liberman et al., [347]). Furthermore, when deciphering novel polysyllabic words, working memory demands are dramatically reduced when, compared to strings of individual phonemes, the to‐be‐blended elements are "large" multi‐phonemic units such as syllables or sub‐syllabic units (Abu Ahmad &amp; Share, [6]).[57] And even when alphabetically decoded (phoneme‐by‐phoneme), syllables offer a valuable intermediate sub‐lexical chunking unit that helps maintain previously decoded elements in memory. For these and other reasons, many writing systems make syllables salient for the reader. The evidence summarized below confirms that for many languages and writing systems, both alphabetic and non‐alphabetic, syllabic architectures are not merely a typographical convention but an important and highly chunkable unit in learning to read.</p> <p>Around two billion people in South and Southeast Asia are taught to read in one (or more) of the (16) Brahmi‐derived Indic abugidas/alphasyllabaries (Daniels, [140]). Although the popular label "alphasyllabic" is problematic (see Share &amp; Daniels, [566]), it does capture the fact that, in principle, this type of writing system allows both syllable‐based (<emph>akshara</emph>) and phoneme‐based (alphabetic) reading strategies (and teaching methods) because all individual consonants and, in many cases, also vowels are represented with distinguishable symbols. This configuration of a full‐sized core consonant with either an inherent default vowel or a marked non‐default vowel (<emph>matra</emph>) typically forms an integral syllabic (CV) unit (akshara) to which additional pre‐vocalic consonants can be added. These syllable‐like aksharas are taught to beginning readers as whole units without any analysis of the phonemic constituents (Joshi et al., [295]; Karanth, [302]; Nag, [407]; Wijaythilake et al., [704]). It follows that children's syllable awareness correlates well with their akshara knowledge and with reading performance across the primary school years (Nag, [406]; Nag &amp; Snowling, [409]; Nag‐Arulmani et al., [410]; Nakamura et al., [416]; Prakash et al., [467]; Tiwari et al., [634]); phoneme awareness, however, emerges only later when children are explicitly taught the phonemic makeup of complex aksharas (Karanth, [302]; Nag, [406]; Wijaythilake &amp; Parilla, [703]; Wijaythilake et al., [704]).</p> <p>In Eritrea, Amharic is also written in an abugidic/alphasyllabic script called Ge'ez, which is also taught syllabically (Asfaha et al., [31]). Of special interest is the fact that Asfaha et al. ([31]) compared the ease of learning to read in four Eritrean languages that use either abugidic/alphasyllabic Ge'ez (Tigrinya and Tigre) or alphabetic Roman‐based scripts (Kunama and Saho). All four languages share simple syllabic structures, rich morphologies, and a common national curriculum, and all four scripts are highly regular in either phoneme or CV correspondences. The CV‐based Ge'ez script was found to be much easier to learn than the phoneme‐based Roman script despite having more (<emph>fidel</emph>) symbols. Moreover, teaching alphabetic Saho with <emph>syllable‐based</emph> methods produced better results in Grade 1 than teaching alphabetic Kunama with phoneme‐based methods. In a follow‐up study, Asfaha et al. ([30]) observed the syllable advantage once again for spelling. In an experimental training study with (Palestinian) Arabic‐speaking preliterate children aiming to replicate Asfaha et al.'s findings, Abu Ahmad and Share ([6]) also found a clear syllable advantage for both reading (accuracy and speed) and spelling.</p> <p>Consistent with the above findings, a number of studies (reviewed in Share &amp; Daniels, [566]) demonstrate that Indic abugidas/alphasyllabaries in South and Southeast Asia depend more on syllable awareness than phoneme awareness in the initial stages of learning to read, with phoneme (consonant) awareness becoming increasingly important as readers encounter a growing number of complex and unfamiliar aksharas containing novel combinations of familiar phoneme‐level symbols (Joshi, [292]; Lai et al., [326]; Nag, [406]). In Thai, another Brahmi‐derived Indic abugida/alphasyllabary, both early and skilled readers frequently use syllable segmentation strategies and tone marking as salient cues. Formal reading instruction focuses on teaching children about correspondences between whole written and spoken syllables rather than about grapheme–phoneme correspondences (Winskel, [710]).</p> <p>Like these abugidic/alphasyllabic scripts, Semitic abjads such as Hebrew and Arabic also present the beginning reader with an integral CV syllable block (the so‐called <emph>tseruf</emph> or CV unit/core syllable) consisting of a consonant and (in most cases) a diacritic‐like vowel sign appended above or below the consonant letter (see also Maldivian Thaana, Gnanadesikan, [233]). These are often taught as indivisible CV units without decomposing them into separate consonants and vowels (Feitelson, [197]; Share, [561]). Furthermore, a survey of teaching methods in Israeli Hebrew–speaking first grade classrooms (Mizrachi, [395]) found that CV‐based teaching produced superior reading performance compared to phoneme‐based teaching. Turning to Arabic—the native tongue of some 300 million speakers[58]—the teaching of abjadic Arabic in Israel is both CV‐based and phonemic. In written or so‐called Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), words are typically polysyllabic with relatively simple syllable structures that all begin with a single consonant or glide followed by a vowel. CV (core) syllables are by far the most frequent in MSA (Ababneh, [1]; Al‐Shaieb, [14]). The CV unit also dominates in Arabic script (Daniels, [138], [139]; Ratcliffe, [486]). In beginning Arabic reading instruction, at least in Israel, and unlike Hebrew reading instruction, explicit teaching of the phonemic value of letters and vowel diacritics (<emph>tashkīl</emph>) precedes the teaching of the CV units. The three long vowels of Arabic (/a: u: i:/) are written as regular full‐sized in‐line letters, but the three short vowels (/a u i/), as well as the vowel nullification and consonant gemination signs, are marked with vertically arrayed extra‐linear diacritic‐like signs creating an integral CV block. A number of studies have found that the CV unit is the most salient phonological unit in speech and writing among native Arabic speakers (Abu Ahmad &amp; Share, [5]; Hende, [265]; Saiegh‐Haddad, [515], [516]; Saiegh‐Haddad et al., [522]; Taibah &amp; Haynes, [620]) as it is among Hebrew speakers (Ben‐Dror et al., [46]; Bentin, [47]; Kogan &amp; Saiegh‐Haddad, [316]; Share, [561]; Share &amp; Blum, [565]).</p> <p>Unlike Semitic abjads and Brahmi‐derived abugidas/alphasyllabaries, "pure" syllabaries such as Japanese kana, Vai, or Bamum, have no distinct phonemic elements that can be identified or taught. Here, the CV symbol is a single indivisible unit, hence syllable awareness alone is the crucial skill (Mann, [365]). In morphosyllabic Chinese, the basic characters represent monosyllabic morphemes—hence syllable and tone awareness rather than phonemic awareness are crucial for novice readers (Chen &amp; Pasquarella, [106]; McBride, [378]; McBride‐Chang, [381]; Pan et al., [438]; Shu et al., [582]; Taylor, [624]).</p> <p>The question of syllabic teaching in alphabetic writing systems, either as a sole instructional unit or as a bridge to phoneme instruction (Doignon‐Camus &amp; Zagar, [168]; Gleitman &amp; Rozin, [230]; Heß et al., [268]; Vazeux et al., [675]), has been the topic of discussion and debate (e.g., Abu Ahmad &amp; Share, [6]; Guo et al., [249]; Sargiani et al., [531]) ever since Noah Webster proposed teaching English syllabically via CV units. With the exception of most of the languages of Northern Europe, which all have complex syllable structures, a majority of languages employing alphabetic writing systems have simpler syllable structures (Maddieson, [361]), usually with clear syllable boundaries, phonologically transparent orthographies, and initial reading instruction that often emphasizes syllable structures (Cardoso‐Martins, [82], [83]; Tolchinsky &amp; Jisa, [637]). In their meta‐analysis, Míguez‐Alvarez et al. ([391]) found that the correlations between syllable awareness and reading in Spanish were stronger than for phonemic or intra‐syllabic awareness. This outcome has been attributed to the dominance of the syllable in speech and initial reading instruction, reinforced by the consistency of Spanish orthography (Defior &amp; Serrano, [158]). The same pattern of findings has also been reported by Cardoso‐Martins for Brazilian Portuguese (Cardoso‐Martins, [83]).</p> <p>Syllables are also salient units in the orthographies of many Roman‐script Southeast Asian languages. These include Malay and Indonesian that also feature simple syllable structures with distinct syllable boundaries (Rickard Liow &amp; Lee, [501]; Winskel &amp; Lee, [711]) and teaching methods that predominantly focus on teaching children the correspondences between whole spoken and written syllables rather than the correspondence between letters and phonemes (Winskel, [710]; Winskel &amp; Widjaja, [713]).</p> <p>The Korean alphabet—Hangul— much like the Indic abugidas/alphasyllabaries incorporates both phoneme‐level and syllable‐level representation, and nests phoneme‐level characters (consonants and vowels) in syllable blocks known as <emph>jamo</emph>. This requires both syllabic and phonemic awareness (Cho et al., [111]; Kim, [309])—another example of the principle of nested combinatorial hierarchies (Pae, [436]; Simpson &amp; Kang, [585]).</p> <p>Turning to European alphabets, there is also evidence for the role of syllables as reading units in languages with both more and less complex syllable structures, including French (Casalis et al., [94]; Cole et al., [45]; Doignon &amp; Zagar, [167]; Duncan et al., [172]; Plaza &amp; Cohen, [462]; Sprenger‐Charolles &amp; Siegel, [597]), Greek (Aidinis &amp; Nunes, [12]; Papadopoulos et al., [439]), German (de Simone et al., [152]; Hasenäcker et al., [260];Hasenäcker &amp; Schroeder, [258]; Hawelka et al., [264]; Müller et al., [403]), Finnish[59] (Aro, [26]; Häikiö et al., [251]; Hautala et al., [262]; Huemer et al., [280]), Russian (Grigorenko et al., [247]; Kerek &amp; Niemi, [304]), Turkish (Durgunoğlu, [175]), Italian (Orsolini et al., [431]; Tressoldi et al., [647]), Dutch (Marinus &amp; de Jong, [369]), and English (Ashby &amp; Rayner, [32]; New et al., [423]; Prinzmetal et al., [469]).</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-39">Conclusions</hd> <p>I have attempted to sketch some of the essential ingredients of a universal theory of reading acquisition, one that seeks to highlight commonalities while embracing the global diversity of languages and writing systems. As I have maintained in the past, an over‐reliance on any single language such as English (Share, [556], [562]), or any single writing system such as the Roman alphabet (Share, [560]) must come at a price. To better understand learning to read in any language, we must step back and gain a wider‐angle view that can only come by looking beyond our own native tongue. The Seymour et al. ([544]) study was a landmark in our field not merely because it encompassed an unusually large number of (European) languages, but because it shed new light on learning to read <emph>in English</emph>. Any theory of learning to read—whether universal or language‐specific—must be informed by the full range of language and writing system diversity acknowledging both the universal and the unique. I have also stressed the importance of taking into consideration insights from multiple disciplines, although this essay puts the major emphasis on a writing systems approach in order to gain a deeper understanding of probably the most complex and consequential skill that we ask of our children. Dialogue between disciplines is essential for this enterprise. Too often, disciplines compete for prominence rather than seeking complementary, interlocking levels of explanation.</p> <p>The overarching combinatorial approach adopted here maintains that children must learn how to combine and chunk a limited and learnable set of meaningless elements into a nested hierarchy of meaningful higher‐order units. This approach converges with linguists' insights into the combinatorial patterning of language in all its forms—spoken, signed, and tactile. Fundamentally dualist, too, an efficient orthography must meet the needs of both the novice for decipherability/learnability (via <emph>phonological transparency</emph>) and the expert for unitization/automatizability (via <emph>morphemic transparency</emph>). Richard Venezky ([677]) long ago pointed out that sound (phonology) <emph>and</emph> meaning (morphology) "<emph>share leading roles</emph>" in English orthography (see also Seidenberg &amp; McClelland, [542]; Sproat, [600]). I and others (Verhoeven &amp; Perfetti, [683], [684]) argue that both are universals in learning to read. Specifically, I build on the <emph>unfamiliar‐to‐familiar</emph> dualism introduced in Share ([556]), which highlights the developmental transition (common to all human skill learning) from slow, effortful, step‐by‐step (sequential), unskilled performance to rapid, near‐effortless, unitized, one‐step (parallel) skilled processing that allows the construction of a nested hierarchy of increasingly higher‐order units or chunks.</p> <p>I suggest likening the development of reading to a tree that grows both outward and upward. Vertical growth can be thought of as an additive version of a 3‐phase developmental model in which later‐developing phases do not replace earlier phases but are added in a nested combinatorial hierarchy. Outward growth is conceptualized as a process of knowledge <emph>arborization—</emph>ongoing refinement, elaboration, and diversification.</p> <p>Despite important advances (e.g., Lai et al., [326]; Li, Huang, et al., [343]; McBride et al., [379]; Reichle &amp; Yu, [496]; Verhoeven et al., [681]; Verhoeven &amp; Perfetti, [684]), our knowledge of learning to read in non‐European and non‐alphabetic systems is still in its infancy. Given the wealth and prestige of Anglophone reading research, it is natural that researchers beyond Europe and the English‐speaking world look first to the dominant Anglophone models and theories to inform their inquiry. On the downside, however, it is now widely recognized that English is not a typical alphabetic system and that this has focused a great deal of theorizing on issues that have limited relevance to learning to read in other languages and non‐Roman scripts (Blasi et al., [59]; Frost, [216]; Huettig &amp; Ferreira, [281]; Li, Huang, et al., [343]; Share, [556], [560], [562]). This means that issues such as homography, tone, diacritics, visual complexity, non‐linearity, linguistic distance, multilingualism, multiscriptism, and more are only now beginning to receive research attention. An appreciation of the unique features of the particular language and writing system a child is learning to read as well as the social, cultural, and historical context of literacy learning is crucial not only for an understanding of learning to read in a specific language but for a truly global non‐ethnocentric science of reading.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-40">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The author wishes to express his gratitude to the following individuals who provided invaluable assistance in bringing this enterprise to fruition: Peter T. Daniels, Dave Roberts, Sonali Nag, Peter de Jong, Catherine McBride, Jun Ren Lee, Linnea Ehri, Peter Bowers, Adi Shechter, Terry Joyce, Elinor Saiegh‐Haddad, Yasmin Shalhoub‐Awwad, Ehab Hermena, and Sivan Medina.</p> <hd id="AN0184680247-41">Funding Information</hd> <p>A number of the ideas in this paper grew out of research funded by the Israel Science Foundation (grants #1002/20 and #966/23).</p> <ref id="AN0184680247-42"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref61" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Even the spoken language is somewhat of an outlier among European languages with no noun gender, very few inflections or case markers, and no distinction between informal/formal pronouns.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref87" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> It must be conceded that the unbridled cross‐linguistic extrapolation of Anglophone findings is understandable given the wealth of English‐language research findings coupled with the international prestige of the English language and English‐language scientific publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref112" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Average word length varies widely across languages from monosyllabic languages such as (Ivorian) Dan and Vietnamese to polysynthetic languages such as Dravidian and Finnish where the term word is probably less apt than morpheme.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref116" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> This fact is often overlooked by experimental psychologists aiming to assess visual processes in reading but whose measures often rely on a uniquely "literate" and highly practiced pattern of eye movements, namely, successive sequences of regular horizontal saccades separated by line‐length return sweeps (DeHaene et al., [161]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref148" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Although the terms <emph>letter</emph> and <emph>grapheme</emph> have a virtual monopoly in the Anglophone literature, for many non‐alphabetic writing systems these terms are problematic. Different terms are used to describe the basic units of a writing system, including letters, graphemes, characters, glyphs, graphs, symbols, and more. Since most of these terms have quite language‐specific and/or orthography‐specific connotations, I adopt the relatively neutral terms <emph>character</emph> or <emph>symbol</emph> as far as possible, because both are reasonably familiar in the Anglophone/alphabetic literature as well as being acceptable in non‐alphabetic systems.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref167" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Graphic symbols representing sound and meaning were present in the very earliest known writing systems including Sumerian Uruk IV (Steinkeller, [608]), the earliest Chinese Oracle Bone inscriptions (Coulmas, [130]), and Mayan glyphs (Whittaker, [702]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref505" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Various terms have been coined to describe the study of writing systems including <emph>grammatology</emph>, <emph>graphonomy</emph>, <emph>grapholinguistics, graphemics, graphematics, philography</emph>, and more. At the time of writing, there is no consensus in this field (Meletis, [389]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref220" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Sampson ([528]) has argued "<emph>that orthographies evolve from being phonetically‐based when they are young, towards being lexically distinctive as they mature</emph> .... <emph>When a society is newly literate, almost everyone is a learner, and written documents play only a limited role in the life of the society: making the learner's task easy is worthwhile, while the precise degree of efficiency of the activity of fluent reading is a minor consideration. In advanced modern societies, on the other hand, almost everyone learns to read in early childhood, so that most individuals spend the bulk of their lives as relatively skilled readers, and the role of written material in such societies is much greater than before – so the overall balance of advantage must have shifted towards somewhat greater weight for the skilled reader's interests.,"</emph> p.2. If this claim is correct, it would seem to parallel the developmental shift in novice readers from initial reliance on phonology to a growing reliance on lexical‐morphological factors (Carlisle, [86], [87]; Orsolini et al., [431]; Rau et al., [487]; Share &amp; Bar‐On, [564], see also Section 6.3.2.2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref245" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> The history of psychological research into reading has seen a strong tradition of inquiry concerned with establishing universals of human behavior. Most experimental psychologists share the belief that the main goal of reading research is to develop theories that describe the fundamental and invariant phenomena of reading across orthographies (see Share, [559]). Elucidating the cognitive operations common to all readers, and, more generally, to human cognition, has always topped the experimentalist's agenda: Variability and individual differences (Huettig &amp; Ferreira, [281]) are of minor concern, often dismissed as trivial—the "noise" or "error variance" in the system. Precisely because reading is biologically secondary, variability belongs at the top of the research agenda.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simply knowing the symbol‐sound correspondences is not sufficient. Speed and efficiency (effortlessness) of decoding is also critical. A reader needs to become fast and efficient at (i) <emph>retrieving</emph> the relevant sounds (and for spelling, retrieving, and producing the letters) and (ii) <emph>synthesizing</emph> these elements into a candidate pronunciation. Speed of retrieval and working memory capacity are, therefore, critical factors in efficient alphabetic decoding but do not guarantee success (especially for irregular spellings and longer polysyllabic words). The reader also needs a "set for variability"—the ability to resolve or bridge the mismatch between an incompletely or incorrectly decoded form of a written word and the target pronunciation (Edwards et al., [178]; Elbro et al., [192]; Gibson, [228]; Savage et al., [532]; Share, [553]; Steacy et al., [607]; Tunmer &amp; Chapman, [655]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although the concept of a "sight word" is usually identified with localist/lexicalist dual route architectures (e.g., Coltheart et al., [128]; Pritchard et al., [470]; Ziegler et al., [732]), it is not incompatible with non‐localist/connectionist single process networks which claim to be able to simulate a functional sight vocabulary without any lexical apparatus (Harm &amp; Seidenberg, [254]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although the term <emph>phonological recoding</emph> (or <emph>decoding</emph>) has typically been interpreted in the Anglophone and alphabetic (developmental) literature to refer to letter by letter (or grapheme by grapheme) translation to sound, a broader more universal definition would be <emph>the ability to derive the pronunciation of a word from its orthographic form by exploiting the combinatorial infrastructure of the orthography</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Partial alphabetic reading (Ehri, [181], [182]) is not universal (see discussion in Share, [553], pp. 599–600) but seems to occur in situations of structural or functional opacity—when orthographic non‐transparency exists as in the case of English vowels, or when children have learned only some but not all the symbol–sound correspondences and are able to exploit some limited phonological awareness. Since transparent (alphabetic and abjadic) orthographies are usually taught via phonics approaches (which begin in Grade 1 with little or no explicit teaching of letters or emergent literacy in pre‐school), only in situations where a whole‐word approach to instruction has been adopted would partial decoding occur in a transparent script. Cardoso‐Martins ([84]), for example, found evidence of partial alphabetic reading among beginning readers of semi‐transparent Portuguese taught via a whole‐word method but not among a comparable group receiving phonics instruction.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> My earlier paper (Share, [553], pp. 158–160) adopted the term "lexicalization" to refer to the gradual refinement and growing sophistication of decoding knowledge. This has now been superseded by the popular but controversial concept of statistical learning (Arciuli, [24]; Frost et al., [217]; Schmalz et al., [537]; Treiman &amp; Kessler, [644]; van Witteloostuijn et al., [672]; West et al., [697]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> A reader's "set for variability" is typically defined as their ability to resolve or bridge the mismatch between an incompletely or incorrectly decoded form of a written word and the correct pronunciation (see also Elbro et al., [192]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> I avoid the term <emph>pre‐combinatorial</emph> because, as I explain below, I do not see this phase as a precursor or pre‐condition for the three genuinely combinatorial phases presented below. The same point has been made by Daniels ([141], [142]) with regard to the so‐called "forerunners of writing" (such as pictography) that preceded but were not a pre‐condition for "true" (language‐based) writing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Most reading researchers use the terms sub‐lexical (and lexical) to refer to developmental phases and/or reading strategies, routes, processes, or mechanisms at or below the level of the whole word. These are by far the most popular terms partly because words are more visually salient than morphemes in print. However, the term <emph>sub‐morphemic</emph> is more accurate because most words in most languages are polymorphemic, and regularities at the orthography–morphology level (<emph>react/reach</emph>, <emph>coop/cooperate</emph>, <emph>mean/meant</emph>) usually override lower‐order regularities given the importance of morphemic transparency.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although Westerners are often aghast at the number of supposedly "unique" Chinese characters – 50,000–60,000 (if we include all characters ever invented), this represents a misunderstanding of the linguistic unit represented. In fact, the number of distinct characters is much the same as the number of distinct morphemes in English (Nagy &amp; Anderson, [412]), and like English morphemes (which are combinations of more elementary typically meaningless phonological units), Chinese characters are also composed of a finite inventory of (meaningless) stroke patterns. Even at the level of characters, most Chinese characters are compounds consisting of combinations of a finite number of elementary characters—214 semantic radicals and probably a not‐dissimilar number of phonetics. It is often countered that there are some 650 phonetic radicals in school reading material (Shu et al., [581]), but I suspect that only a small proportion of these account for nearly all tokens encountered in print.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> These Brahmi‐derived Indic writing systems have been referred to both as abugidas (Daniels, 1990), and alphasyllabaries (Bright, [70]). To avoid taking sides I adopt the somewhat inelegant composite <emph>abugida/alphasyllabary</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Even in the many emerging and highly transparent alphabetic orthographies being developed for African languages, the one‐to‐one "ideal" is rare (Roberts, [506]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In some alphabetic systems (e.g., Russian, Grigorenko, [246], and Finnish, Aro, [26]), letter‐by‐letter decoding is followed by syllable‐by‐syllable decoding.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Although the concept of effort (and effortlessness) is ubiquitous in discussions of word reading (and even features in the DSM‐5 definition of reading disability), the operationalization of cognitive effort has relied almost exclusively on subjective measures, although pupillometry now offers an objective metric (Shechter &amp; Share, [574]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The solution here is not to abandon decoding for contextual guessing or to use whole‐word methods, but to increase decoding efficiency.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Almost all the word recognition literature has focused on the effect of <emph>lexicality</emph>—the difference between real words and pseudowords—but in the present developmental context, it is more accurate to refer to <emph>familiarity</emph>. The terms <emph>familiar</emph> and <emph>unfamiliar</emph> in the skilled word recognition literature are typically used when comparing high‐frequency and low‐frequency words. But every word, even high‐frequency words like <emph>the</emph> and <emph>to</emph> start out (in the novice reader's head) as an unfamiliar string of symbols. With reading experience and repeated exposure, they eventually become fully specified orthographic representations. Along this developmental continuum (unique to each reader, because no two readers have identical reading experiences), there is no functional difference between an unfamiliar letter string that is a true pseudoword and a string that has never been encountered. <emph>Bice</emph> and <emph>tringle</emph> are real English words, but few English readers (even highly literate ones) would be able to say whether these are pseudowords or real words. Pseudowords and unfamiliar real words are therefore functionally identical—the only difference being that with pseudowords the experimenter can be certain that the string is indeed unfamiliar.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In the developmental literature, this "stage" is commonly labeled "lexical," but for the reasons given in Footnote 34, I opt for the term "morpho‐lexical."</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In addition to lexical tone (as in Chinese), many African languages feature tonal processes (such as tone spread and downstep) that operate not only within but also across word boundaries (Roberts &amp; Walter, [508]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Contrary to Forster and Chambers' ([206]) (and de Saussure's) focus on word <emph>familiarity</emph>, Coltheart ([126]) shifted the focus from familiarity to spelling <emph>regularity</emph> and the distinction between regular versus exception (English) words (see Share, [556] for discussion).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Even in the case of monosyllabic English words, it has been claimed (Treiman, [643]) that the skilled reader is familiar with only around half of the spoken forms in the corpus of 8000 items. Printed word frequencies have been shown to follow a power law in which a small proportion of words are very common but many, indeed most, words are quite rare in natural contexts (Carroll et al., [92]; Zeno et al., [727]; Zipf, [735]). Put another way, "rare words are very common".</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The concept of automaticity is very problematic owing to disagreements over its definition and operationalization (see, for example, Moors &amp; De Houwer, [398]; Stanovich, [603]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The process of word identification in quasi‐linear aksharic or non‐linear syllabic and morpho‐syllabic scripts will also need to take into account stroke or feature patterns and their spatial arrangement.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neither contextual guessing alone nor direct instruction is adequate for identifying novel words, although both have useful <emph>supplementary</emph> roles in expanding the print lexicon (Jorm &amp; Share, [291]; Share, [553]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> We even have a complete computational set in English (Coltheart et al., [128]; Perry et al., [458]; Pritchard et al., [470]; Ziegler et al., [732]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> On what perhaps borders on an "orthographic" optical illusion, the pair of English words <emph>cat</emph> and <emph>eat</emph> do not strike the skilled reader of English as near‐identical because, as highly familiar words, they are well‐fused chunks indissolubly bound to very different sound forms and meanings yet physically are distinguished by nothing more than the short cross‐stroke added to the word‐initial arc (<emph>c</emph> vs. <emph>e</emph>).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Computational models of this process can be found in Ziegler et al. [732], Pritchard et al., [470], and Perry et al. ([459]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Decipherability in many long‐established phonographic orthographies, such as English, is not solely dependent on orthography–phonology relationships. The correct pronunciation of some extremely common bound morphemes, such as past tense <emph>‐ed</emph> and plural <emph>‐s</emph> depends on morphology. Consider the novice (native‐speaking) reader misidentifying the word‐final ‐<emph>s</emph> in <emph>peas</emph> not as /z/ but as /s/ as in 'peace'. Only morphological awareness will help the reader distinguish the correct pronunciation of the bound adjectival morpheme /əs/ ‐<emph>ous</emph> (e.g., <emph>nervous, famous, adventurous</emph>) from the usual sub‐morphemic pronunciation /aʊs/ (<emph>oust, house, mouse</emph>). And, as already noted, the pronunciation of most consonant and vowel digraphs in English (e.g., <emph>th, sh, ea, oa</emph>,) depends entirely on whether or not they straddle a morpheme boundary <emph>(both/hothead, shape/mishap, reach/react, boat/doable)</emph>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This situation parallels "irregular" English words, e.g., <emph>sword</emph>, <emph>bread</emph>, <emph>muscle</emph>, which are usually regular at the level of consonants which are the more numerous and more informative letters).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phonetic <emph>consistency</emph> in Chinese is defined as the degree of congruence in the pronunciations of the characters within a family sharing a common phonetic (Tzeng et al., [657]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phonetic <emph>regularity</emph> in Chinese is defined in terms of the contribution of a phonetic to the pronunciation of a compound character. It indicates how useful the phonetic is for pronouncing the character (Chen et al., [107]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> According to Wu et al. ([721]), the National Curriculum Guide stipulates that, from Grade 3, children are expected to learn new words <emph>independently</emph> and new characters from Grade 5 (Table 5, p. 578).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> "...<emph>children are able to grasp the principles of Chinese orthography and successfully acquire the knowledge of the orthography‐phonology correspondences which they use in naming real and novel characters, suggesting that when learning characters, children not only learn how to name characters but also acquire systematic orthographic knowledge that underlies the mapping between print and sound</emph>." Tzeng, p. 13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> "<emph>we argue that the overarching graphophonological insight in reading Chinese characters is "the phonetic principle"—the principle that the phonetic components of compound characters provide information about character pronunciation</emph>." Chen et al., p. 115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> "<emph>the component phonemic markers in an akshara allow for learning about combinatorial principles. ... This facility is clearly more economical than learning the several hundred akshara one by one by one as global, undifferentiated units"</emph> (Nag, [407]., p. 77).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The same concept has been referred to as the <emph>Isomorphism Principle</emph> (Verhoeven &amp; Perfetti, [682]) and the <emph>Identity Preservation Principle</emph> (Ryan, [513]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beyond the spellings of specific morphemes, there is the question of the extent to which the principle of morpheme constancy is applied consistently across the entire system.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Total morphological (spelling) uniformity, like phonological transparency, may not be necessary for readers. Fixed consonantal identity may suffice, since vowels are not only less informative (owing to their smaller number) but frequently fickle (Adams, [10]; Nazzi &amp; Cutler, [422]; Shimron, [576]), being subject to extensive synchronic (dialectal) and diachronic (historical) variation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> These observations about morpheme transparency have implications for the issue of English spelling reform. The history of English spelling reform has seen an almost exclusive focus on making the task of the novice reader easier by increasing phonological transparency while ignoring the issue of morphemic transparency. The guiding principle for reform should be to improve decipherability <emph>without</emph> disrupting morphological transparency. If preserving morphological links means retaining silent letters when there are clear and <emph>productive</emph> links that developing readers can exploit (<emph>soft/soften</emph> and not *<emph>soffen, mean/meant</emph> and not *<emph>ment</emph>), this would seem to be a reasonable price to pay for morphemic transparency. The silent <emph>w</emph> in <emph>answer</emph> seems entirely dispensable because it is never found in any derivation or inflection. To maintain morpheme uniqueness/distinctiveness, spelling reforms that result in homographs would also be undesirable. Altering <emph>should</emph> to <emph>shood</emph> and <emph>could</emph> to <emph>cood</emph> is innocuous but not <emph>would</emph> to <emph>wood</emph>. Likewise, <emph>coff</emph> and <emph>ruff</emph> seem unproblematic but not <emph>bough</emph> to <emph>bow</emph> (unless we accept <emph>bou</emph> or <emph>bouw</emph>) or <emph>through</emph> to <emph>threw (</emph>although <emph>thrue, thru</emph> or <emph>throo</emph> all avoid homography).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> More than half (58%) of the most frequent words in written English are polymorphemic (Hiebert, [269]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Finnish compound word <emph>mustaviinimarjamehu</emph> ('blackcurrant juice') combines four bisyllabic morphemes: <emph>musta</emph> ('black') <emph>viini</emph> ('vine') <emph>marja</emph> ('berry') <emph>mehu</emph> ('juice').</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Some South African scripts such as seTswana (Probert, [471]) actually add spaces between the morphemes of polymorphemic words. In isiXhosa, for example, <emph>ke a ba bona</emph> 'I see them' is considered to be one morphological word but four orthographic words (Probert, [471]), whereas the same word in seTswana ('I see them') is written <emph>ndiyababona</emph> also one morphological word but one unsegmented orthographic word.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> English spelling is not as chaotic as the many caricatures portray it to be because it is relatively consistent in <emph>consonantal</emph> letter‐sound correspondences—the most informative letters for determining word identity—and also the most dialect‐resilient. The bulk of English spelling irregularity is confined to the vowels.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mashkūl Arabic, like pointed Hebrew, represents all vowels: long vowels via fully‐fledged in‐line letters as well as short vowels with extra‐lineal diacritics. In non‐mashkūl script—the standard form for skilled adult readers—the long vowel signs (fully‐fledged letters) are retained, but not the short vowel signs (<emph>tashkīl</emph>).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> For example, the printed word הֶקשר with the sub‐lineal three‐dot <emph>segol</emph> vowel sign /ɛ/ unambiguously signals the word /hɛkʃɛʁ/ 'context' and not the definite article (the prefixed clitic הַ).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> According to linguists (Amenta &amp; Crepaldi, [15]; Aronoff &amp; Sims, [29]; Taft, [617]), words are not always reducible to morphemes and have a life of their own, with word‐level factors such as whole‐word ("surface") frequency and length, as well as morpheme‐level factors significantly influencing reading (Andrews et al., [18]; Burani et al., [79]; Colé et al., [125]; Deacon et al., [157]; Niswander et al., [425]; Verhoeven &amp; Schreuder, [687]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> According to Aronoff and Sims ([29]), these so‐called "complex" words" have been the focus of morphological inquiry ever since the term "morphology" was introduced by Schleicher in the 1850s.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> This is also true of abugidas/alphasyllabaries (Nag, [408]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In Japan, Kanji are taught in a similar way. In the early grades, instruction focuses on simple unbound Kanji, yet these same simple Kanji, in the upper elementary grades, make up a growing number of compounds composed of these same simple characters. This requires analyzing the Kanji into its sub‐lexical component characters (Hatano et al., [261]; Joyce et al., [299]; Joyce &amp; Masuda, [298]; Koda, [315]) in the same way that the English reader needs to see the <emph>read</emph> in <emph>unreadable</emph> when decomposing <emph>unreadable</emph> into its constituent morphemes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In addition to whole syllables other chunkable sub‐morphemic multi‐phonemic units include moras, syllable bodies, core (CV) syllables, and rimes (see, for example, Buckley, [76]; Gnanadesikan, [234]; Hyman, [286], [287]; Goswami &amp; Mead, [241]; Tadmor‐Troyansky &amp; Share, [616]; Treiman, [642]). Clearly, the nature of these intermediate units will vary across languages.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spoken Arabic is not actually a single language because the Arabic‐speaking world comprises many often mutually unintelligible dialects.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The classic KÄTS method, upon which most modern reading methods used in Finland are based, gets its name from the words Kirjain, Äänne, Tavu, Sana (letter, sound, <emph>syllable</emph>, word).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184680247-43"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ababneh, Y. (2000). Studies in the linguistics and phonology of Arabic [in Arabic]. Dar El‐Shorook.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abadzi, H. (2012). Developing cross language metrics for reading fluency measurement: Some issues and options. Global Partnership for Education (GPE) working paper series on learning, no. 6. World Bank. https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta‐ir/handle/10106/24345</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abler, W. L. (1989). On the particulate principle of self‐diversifying systems. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 12 (1), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140‐1750(89)90015‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abu Ahmad, H., Ibrahim, R., &amp; Share, D. L. (2014). Cognitive predictors of early Reading ability in Arabic: A longitudinal study from kindergarten to grade 2. In E. Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives (pp. 171 – 194). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8545‐7_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abu Ahmad, H., &amp; Share, D. L. (2021). Foundations of early literacy among Arabic‐speaking pre‐school children. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 42 (5), 1195 – 1220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abu Ahmad, H., &amp; Share, D. L. (2024). Beginning reading instruction: CV syllables or phonemes? An experimental training study with Arabic‐speaking preliterate preschoolers. Developmental Psychology.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abu‐Rabia, S. (1997). The need for cross‐cultural considerations in reading theory: The effects of Arabic sentence context in skilled and poor readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 20 (2), 137 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.00026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abu‐Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 14, 39 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008147606320</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Abu‐Rabia, S., &amp; Siegel, L. S. (1995). Different orthographies different context effects: The effects of Arabic sentence context in skilled and poor readers. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 16 (1), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0270271950160101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Adlof, S. M., Chan, J., Werfel, K., &amp; Catts, H. W. (2022). In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, &amp; K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 460 – 485). Wiley‐Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aidinis, A., &amp; Nunes, T. (2001). The role of different levels of phonological awareness in the development of reading and spelling in Greek. Reading and Writing, 14 (1), 145 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008107312006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Allon, E. (1988). The nikud and early Hebrew reading. Be'eri, 1, 143 – 149.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Al‐Shaieb, F. (2004). The impact of phonological rules in word's structure [in Arabic]. Alam Al‐kutub Al‐hadeeth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Amenta, S., &amp; Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00232</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., Ku, Y.‐M., Li, W., Chen, X., Wu, X., &amp; Shu, H. (2013). Learning to see the patterns in Chinese characters. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 41 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Anderson, R. C., Li, W., Ku, Y.‐M., Shu, H., &amp; Wu, N. (2003). Use of partial information in learning to read Chinese characters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (1), 52 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.95.1.52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Andrews, S., Miller, B., &amp; Rayner, K. (2004). Eye movements and morphological segmentation of compound words: There is a mouse in mousetrap. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16 (1–2), 285 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440340000123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ans, B., Carbonnel, S., &amp; Valdois, S. (1998). A connectionist multiple‐trace memory model for polysyllabic word reading. Psychological Review, 105 (4), 678 – 723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.105.4.678‐723</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Apel, K. (2011). What is orthographic knowledge? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42, 592 – 603. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161‐1461(2011/10‐0085)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., &amp; Petscher, Y. (2022). Morphological awareness performance profiles of first‐ through sixth‐grade students. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65 (3), 1070 – 1086. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR‐21‐00282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Apel, K., Henbest, V. S., &amp; Petscher, Y. (2023). Effects of affix type and base word transparency on students' performance on different morphological awareness measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 66 (1), 239 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR‐22‐00195</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Apel, K., &amp; Lawrence, J. (2011). Contributions of morphological awareness skills to word‐level reading and spelling in first‐grade children with and without speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54 (5), 1312 – 1327. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2011/10‐0115)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arciuli, J. (2018). Reading as statistical learning. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 49 (3S), 634 – 643. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS‐STLT1‐17‐0135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Arciuli, J., &amp; Paul, R. (2012). Sensitivity to probabilistic orthographic cues to lexical stress in adolescent speakers with autism spectrum disorder and typical peers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65 (7), 1288 – 1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.655700</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aro, M. (2017). Learning to read Finnish. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 416 – 436). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aronoff, M., Berg, K., &amp; Heyer, V. (2016). Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing. The Mental Lexicon, 11 (2), 164 – 185. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.01aro</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aronoff, M., &amp; Fudeman, K. (2023). What is morphology? John Wiley and Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aronoff, M., &amp; Sims, A. (2023). The relational nature of morphology. In D. Crepaldi (Ed.), Linguistic morphology in the mind and brain (pp. 7 – 25). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003159759‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asfaha, Y. M., Kroon, S., &amp; Kurvers, J. (2014). Building early reading on syllables and cultural literacy practices. In K. Juffermans, Y. M. Asfaha, &amp; A. K. Abdelhay (Eds.), African literacies: Ideologies, texts, education (pp. 305 – 331). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asfaha, Y. M., Kurvers, J., &amp; Kroon, S. (2009). Grain size in script and teaching: Literacy acquisition in Ge'ez and Latin. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 30 (4), 709 – 724. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990087</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ashby, J., &amp; Rayner, K. (2004). Representing syllable information during silent reading: Evidence from eye movements. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 19 (3), 391 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960344000233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., &amp; Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 290 – 313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., &amp; Van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database (CD‐ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory, reading and dyslexia. Advances in Psychology, 34, 141 – 152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166‐4115(08)61202‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 1 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐120710‐100422</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baddeley, A. D., &amp; Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47 – 89). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079‐7421(08)60452‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baluch, B., &amp; Besner, D. (1991). Visual word recognition: Evidence for strategic control of lexical and nonlexical routines in oral reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17 (4), 644 – 652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.17.4.644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baluch, B., &amp; Besner, D. (2001). Basic processes in reading: Semantics affects speeded naming of high‐frequency words in an alphabetic script. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 55 (1), 63 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐On, A., Dattner, E., &amp; Ravid, D. (2017). Context effects on heterophonic‐homography resolution in learning to read Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 30 (3), 463 – 487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9685‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐On, A., &amp; Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological analysis in learning to read pseudowords in Hebrew. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32 (3), 553 – 581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641100021X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bar‐On, A., Shalhoub‐Awwad, Y., &amp; Tuma‐Basila, R. I. (2018). Contribution of phonological and morphological information in reading Arabic: A developmental perspective. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 39 (6), 1253 – 1277. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baron, J., &amp; Strawson, C. (1976). Use of orthographic and word‐specific knowledge in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2 (3), 386 – 393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096‐1523.2.3.386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barton, J. J., Hanif, H. M., Eklinder Björnström, L., &amp; Hills, C. (2014). The word‐length effect in reading: A review. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 31 (5–6), 378 – 412. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2014.895314</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cole, P., Bouton, S., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S., &amp; Sprenger‐Charolles, L. (2012). Stem and derivational‐suffix processing during reading by French second and third graders. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 33 (1), 97 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ben‐Dror, I., Frost, R., &amp; Bentin, S. (1995). Orthographic representation and phonemic segmentation in skilled readers: A cross‐language comparison. Psychological Science, 6 (3), 176 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.1995.tb00328.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S. (1992). Phonological awareness, reading, and reading acquisition: A survey and appraisal of current knowledge. In R. Frost &amp; L. Katz (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 193 – 210). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166‐4115(08)62796‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S., Deutsch, A., &amp; Liberman, I. Y. (1990). Syntactic competence and reading ability in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49 (1), 147 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐0965(90)90053‐B</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bentin, S., &amp; Frost, R. (2013). Morphological factors in visual word identification in Hebrew. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 271 – 292). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Benuck, M. B., &amp; Peverly, S. T. (2004). The effect of orthographic depth on reliance upon semantic context for oral reading in English and Hebrew. Journal of Research in Reading, 27 (3), 281 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2004.00232.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berg, K., &amp; Aronoff, M. (2017). Self‐organization in the spelling of English suffixes: The emergence of culture out of anarchy. Language, 93 (1), 37 – 64. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26630344">www.jstor.org/stable/26630344</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berg, K., Buchmann, F., Dybiec, K., &amp; Fuhrhop, N. (2014). Morphological spellings in English. Written Language and Literacy, 17 (2), 282 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.17.2.05ber</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berkling, K. (2016). Item presentation in primers‐an analysis based on acquisition research. In S. Dipper, F. Neubarth, &amp; H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th conference on natural language processing (KONVENS 2016) (pp. 50 – 61). University of Bochum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berthiaume, R., Daigle, D., &amp; Desrochers, A. (2018). Morphological processing and literacy development: Current issues and research. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beyersmann, E., Castles, A., &amp; Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65 (7), 1306 – 1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.656661</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beyersmann, E., &amp; Grainger, J. (2023). The role of embedded words and morphemes in reading. In D. Crepaldi (Ed.), Linguistic morphology in the mind and brain (pp. 26 – 49). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003159759‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bhide, A. (2018). Copying helps novice learners build orthographic knowledge: Methods for teaching Devanagari akshara. Reading and Writing, 31 (1), 1 – 33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐017‐9767‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 6 (1), 75 – 96. https://doi.org/10.2307/747049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blasi, D. E., Henrich, J., Adamou, E., Kemmerer, D., &amp; Majid, A. (2022). Over‐reliance on English hinders cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26 (12), 1153 – 1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.09.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blythe, H. I. (2014). Developmental changes in eye movements and visual information encoding associated with learning to read. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (3), 201 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414530145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blythe, H. I., Liang, F., Zang, C., Wang, J., Yan, G., Bai, X., &amp; Liversedge, S. P. (2012). Inserting spaces into Chinese text helps readers to learn new words: An eye movement study. Journal of Memory and Language, 67 (2), 241 – 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Booth, J. R., Harasaki, Y., &amp; Burman, D. D. (2006). Development of lexical and sentence level context effects for dominant and subordinate word meanings of homonyms. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35 (6), 531 – 554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936‐006‐9028‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bosman, A. M., &amp; Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. Learning to Spell: Research, Theory, and Practice Across Languages, 10, 173 – 194.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boudelaa, S. (2014). Is the arabic mental lexicon morpheme‐based or stem‐based? Implications for spoken and written word recognition. In E. Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives (pp. 31 – 54). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8545‐7_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boudelaa, S., &amp; Marslen‐Wilson, W. D. (2011). Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 26 (4–6), 624 – 652. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.521022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, J. S., &amp; Bowers, P. N. (2017). Beyond phonics: The case for teaching children the logic of the English spelling system. Educational Psychologist, 52 (2), 124 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1288571</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., &amp; Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80 (2), 144 – 179. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309359353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowey, J. A. (2005). Predicting individual differences in learning to read. In M. J. Snowling &amp; C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 155 – 172). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Breznitz, Z. (2006). Fluency in reading: Synchronization of processes. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bright, W. (1999). A matter of typology: Alphasyllabaries and abugidas. Written Language &amp; Literacy, 2 (1), 45 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, M. C., Sibley, D. E., Washington, J. A., Rogers, T. T., Edwards, J. R., MacDonald, M. C., &amp; Seidenberg, M. S. (2015). Impact of dialect use on a basic component of learning to read. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruck, M. (1990). Word‐recognition skills of adults with childhood diagnoses of dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 26 (3), 439 – 454. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.26.3.439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brus, B. T., &amp; Voeten, M. J. M. (1995). Eén‐minuut‐test [One‐minute‐test]. Berkhout B.V.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta‐analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, 109, 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buckley, E. (2018). Core syllables vs. moraic writing. Written Language and Literacy, 21 (1), 26 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00009.buc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burani, C., Marcolini, S., De Luca, M., &amp; Zoccolotti, P. (2008). Morpheme‐based reading aloud: Evidence from dyslexic and skilled Italian readers. Cognition, 108 (1), 243 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burani, C., Marcolini, S., &amp; Stella, G. (2002). How early does morpholexical reading develop in readers of a shallow orthography? Brain and Language, 81 (1), 568 – 586. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2548</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burani, C., Marcolini, S., Traficante, D., &amp; Zoccolotti, P. (2018). Reading derived words by Italian children with and without dyslexia: The effect of root length. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (647), 1 – 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00647</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butskhrikidze, M. (2021). What do modern languages with scriptio continua have in common? Jazykovednỳ Časopis, 72 (3), 821 – 838.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14 (1), 177 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso‐Martins, C. (1991). Awareness of phonemes and alphabetic literacy acquisition. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (2), 164 – 173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8279.1991.tb00972.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso‐Martins, C. (1995). Sensitivity to rhymes, syllables, and phonemes in literacy acquisition in portuguese. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (4), 808 – 828. https://doi.org/10.2307/748199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cardoso‐Martins, C. (2001). The reading abilities of beginning readers of Brazilian Portuguese: Implications for a theory of reading acquisition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (4), 289 – 317. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0504_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189 – 210). Lawrence Erlbaum. <ulink href="http://tinyurl.com/ye2auz65">http://tinyurl.com/ye2auz65</ulink></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, 169 – 190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24 (3–4), 291 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390227369</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., &amp; Fleming, J. (2003). Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7 (3), 239 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., &amp; Katz, L. A. (2006). Effects of word and morpheme familiarity on reading of derived words. Reading and Writing, 19 (7), 669 – 693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐005‐5766‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlisle, J. F., &amp; Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 (4), 428 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.4.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carney, E. (1994). A survey of English spelling. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., &amp; Richman, B. M. (1971). The American heritage word frequency book. Houghton Mifflin Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casalis, S., &amp; Louis‐Alexandre, M. F. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and learning to read French: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 12 (3), 303 – 335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008177205648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casalis, S., Quémart, P., &amp; Duncan, L. G. (2015). How language affects children's use of derivational morphology in visual word and pseudoword processing: Evidence from a cross‐language study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (452), 1 – 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles, A., &amp; Nation, K. (2008). Learning to be a good orthographic reader. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 (1), 1 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2007.00367.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castles, A., Rastle, K., &amp; Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19 (1), 5 – 51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100618772271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cattell, J. M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11 (41), 63 – 65. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2247157">www.jstor.org/stable/2247157</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chall, J. S. (1983). Literacy: Trends and explanations. Educational Researcher, 12 (9), 3 – 8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X012009003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, C. K. K., &amp; Siegel, L. S. (2001). Phonological processing in reading Chinese among normally achieving and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 80, 23 – 43. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, J. S., Wade‐Woolley, L., Heggie, L., &amp; Kirby, J. R. (2020). Understanding prosody and morphology in school‐age children's reading. Reading and Writing, 33 (5), 1295 – 1324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐019‐10005‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, L., &amp; Nunes, T. (1998). Children's understanding of the formal and functional characteristics of written Chinese. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 19 (1), 115 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chang, L.‐Y., Chen, Y.‐C., &amp; Perfetti, C. A. (2018). GraphCom: A multidimensional measure of graphic complexity applied to 131 written languages. Behavior Research Methods, 50 (1), 427 – 449. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐017‐0881‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chasnoff, R. E. (1968). Two alphabets: A follow‐up. The Elementary School Journal, 68 (5), 251 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1086/460442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Li, H., &amp; Shu, H. (2014). Visual, phonological, and orthographic strategies in learning to read Chinese. In X. Chen, Q. Wang, &amp; Y. C. Luo (Eds.), Reading development and difficulties in monolingual and bilingual Chinese children (Vol. 8, pp. 23 – 47). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐007‐7380‐6_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Hao, M., Geva, E., Zhu, J., &amp; Shu, H. (2009). The role of compound awareness in Chinese children's vocabulary acquisition and character reading. Reading and Writing, 22 (5), 615 – 631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐008‐9127‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., &amp; Pasquarella, A. (2017). Learning to read Chinese. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (1st ed., pp. 31 – 56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Shu, H., Wu, N., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (2003). Stages in learning to pronounce Chinese characters. Psychology in the Schools, 40 (1), 115 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1086/460442</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, X., Wang, Q., &amp; Luo, Y. C. (Eds.). (2013). Reading development and difficulties in monolingual and bilingual Chinese children (Vol. 8). Springer Science and Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐007‐7380‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, H., &amp; Ng, L. (2003). Chinese reading development in some major Chinese societies: An introduction. In C. McBride‐Chang &amp; H. Chen (Eds.), Reading development in Chinese children (pp. 3 – 17). Praeger.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, J. R., &amp; Lee, J. Y. (2010). Transfer of phonological and morphological awareness to reading in English and logographic Hanja among Korean children. Journal of Cognitive Science, 11 (1), 57 – 78.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, J. R., McBride‐Chang, C., &amp; Park, S. G. (2008). Phonological awareness and morphological awareness: Differential associations to regular and irregular word recognition in early Korean Hangul readers. Reading and Writing, 21, 255 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐007‐9072‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chomsky, N., &amp; Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. Harper and Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chow, B. W., McBride‐Chang, C., Cheung, H., &amp; Chow, C. S. (2008). Dialogic reading and morphology training in Chinese children: Effects on language and literacy. Developmental Psychology, 44 (1), 233 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.44.1.233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christiansen, M. H., &amp; Chater, N. (2015). The language faculty that wasn't: A usage‐based account of natural language recursion. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1182. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christiansen, M. H., &amp; Chater, N. (2016). The now‐or‐never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christofalos, A. L., Arco, N. M., Laks, M., &amp; Sheridan, H. (2024). The impact of interword spacing on inference processing during text reading: Evidence from eye movements. Discourse Processes, 1–15, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2024.2413811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clay, M. M. (2000). Concepts about print: What have children learned about the way we print language? Heinemann.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clifton, C., Ferreira, F., Henderson, J. M., Inhoff, A. W., Liversedge, S. P., Reichle, E. D., &amp; Schotter, E. R. (2016). Eye movements in reading and information processing: Keith Rayner's 40 year legacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 86, 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clin, E., Wade‐Woolley, L., &amp; Heggie, L. (2009). Prosodic sensitivity and morphological awareness in children's reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104 (2), 197 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cline, H., &amp; Haas, K. (2008). The regulation of dendritic arbor development and plasticity by glutamatergic synaptic input: A review of the synaptotrophic hypothesis. The Journal of Physiology, 586 (6), 1509 – 1517. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2007.150029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, L., Dehaene, S., Vinckier, F., Jobert, A., &amp; Montavont, A. (2008). Reading normal and degraded words: Contribution of the dorsal and ventral visual pathways. NeuroImage, 40, 353 – 366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.11.036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen‐Mimran, R., &amp; Share, D. L. (submitted). The phonology‐morphology seesaw: Morpho‐lexical knowledge replaces phonological awareness as the key predictor of word reading fluency by Grade 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colé, P., Bouton, S., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S., &amp; Sprenger‐Charolles, L. (2012). Stem and derivational‐suffix processing during reading by French second and third graders. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 33 (1), 97 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colé, P., Cavalli, E., Duncan, L. G., Theurel, A., Gentaz, E., Sprenger‐Charolles, L., &amp; El‐Ahmadi, A. (2018). What is the influence of morphological knowledge in the early stages of reading acquisition among low SES children? A graphical modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (547), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00547</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colé, P., Segui, J., &amp; Taft, M. (1997). Words and morphemes as units for lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 37 (3), 312 – 330. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151 – 216). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., &amp; Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual‐route and parallel‐distributed‐processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100 (4), 589 – 608. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.100.4.589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., &amp; Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108 (1), 204 – 256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.108.1.204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conrad, N. J., &amp; Deacon, S. H. (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 (1), 113 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.489</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coulmas, F. (1989). The writing systems of the world. Blackwell. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000793760530944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short‐term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (1), 87 – 114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crepaldi, D. (2023). Linguistic morphology in the mind and brain. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, A. E., &amp; Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Early spelling acquisition: Writing beats the computer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 (1), 159 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.82.1.159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, A. E., &amp; Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33 (6), 934 – 945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.33.6.934</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cunningham, A. E., &amp; Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22 (1–2), 8 – 15.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damera, S. R., Chang, L., Nikolov, P. P., Mattei, J. A., Banerjee, S., Glezer, L. S., Cox, P. H., Jiang, X., Rauschecker, J. P., &amp; Riesenhuber, M. (2023). Evidence for a spoken word lexicon in the auditory ventral stream. Neurobiology of Language, 4 (3), 420 – 434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Danelli, L., Marelli, M., Berlingeri, M., Tettamanti, M., Sberna, M., Paulesu, E., &amp; Luzzatti, C. (2015). Framing effects reveal discrete lexical‐semantic and sublexical procedures in reading: An fMRI study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (1328), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01328</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (1992). The syllabic origin of writing and the segmental origin of the alphabet. The Linguistics of Literacy, 21, 83 – 110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (2018). An exploration of writing. Equinoxe.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (2019). Indic scripts: History, typology, study. In R. M. Joshi &amp; C. McBride (Eds.), Handbook of literacy in Akshara orthography (pp. 11 – 42). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐05977‐4_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (2023a). Languages of Africa. In R. M. Joshi, C. A. McBride, B. Kaani, &amp; G. Elbeheri (Eds.), Handbook of literacy in Africa (pp. 19 – 44). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐26250‐0_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T. (2023b). When is non‐writing writing? Or, when is writing non‐writing? Written Language and Literacy, 26 (2), 188 – 237. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00078.dan</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T., &amp; Bright, W. (Eds.). (1996). The world's writing systems. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Daniels, P. T., &amp; Share, D. L. (2018). Writing system Vvariation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (1), 101 – 116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1379082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Das, T., Padakannaya, P., Pugh, K. R., &amp; Singh, N. C. (2011). Neuroimaging reveals dual routes to reading in simultaneous proficient readers of two orthographies. NeuroImage, 54 (2), 1476 – 1487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.09.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117 (3), 713 – 758. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019738</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dawson, N., Rastle, K., &amp; Ricketts, J. (2018). Morphological effects in visual word recognition: Children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44 (4), 645 – 654. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000485</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Boer, B., Sandler, W., &amp; Kirby, S. (2012). New perspectives on duality of patterning: Introduction to the special issue. Language and Cognition, 4 (4), 251 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog‐2012‐0014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Freitas, P., da Mota, M., &amp; Deacon, H. (2017). Morphological awareness, word reading, and reading comprehension in Portuguese. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 1–19, 507 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Saussure, F. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). Duckworth. (Original work published 1922).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Simone, E., Moll, K., &amp; Beyersmann, E. (2024). Cross‐linguistic differences in morphological processing: Evidence from English and Italian. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2413108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Simone, E., Moll, K., Feldmann, L., Schmalz, X., &amp; Beyersmann, E. (2023). The role of syllables and morphemes in silent reading: An eye‐tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76 (11), 2493 – 2513. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231160638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., Desrochers, A., &amp; Levesque, K. (2017). Learning to read French. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 243 – 269). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., Holliman, A. J., Dobson, G. J., &amp; Harrison, E. C. J. (2018). Assessing direct contributions of morphological awareness and prosodic sensitivity to children's word reading and reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (6), 527 – 534. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1483376</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., &amp; Kieffer, M. (2018). Understanding how syntactic awareness contributes to reading comprehension: Evidence from mediation and longitudinal models. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (1), 72 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., &amp; Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just "more phonological"? The roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 25 (2), 223 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001110</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon, S. H., Whalen, R., &amp; Kirby, J. R. (2011). Do children see the danger in dangerous? Grade 4, 6, and 8 children's reading of morphologically complex words. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32 (3), 467 – 481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Defior, S., &amp; Serrano, F. (2017). Learning to read in Spanish. In L. Verhoven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 279 – 298). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. University of Hawaii Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The mew science of how we read. Penguin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Morais, J., &amp; Kolinsky, R. (2015). Illiterate to literate: Behavioural and cerebral changes induced by reading acquisition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16 (4), 234 – 244. https://<ulink href="http://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3924">www.nature.com/articles/nrn3924</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Sigman, M., &amp; Vinckier, F. (2005). The neural code for written words: A proposal. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (7), 335 – 341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deutsch, A., &amp; Bentin, S. (1996). Attention factors mediating syntactic deficiency in reading‐disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63 (2), 386 – 415. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deutsch, A., &amp; Frost, R. (2003). Lexical organization and lexical access in a non‐concatenated morphology. In J. Shimron (Ed.), Language processing and acquisition in languages of semitic, root‐based morphology (pp. 165 – 186). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diamanti, V., Mouzaki, A., Ralli, A., Antoniou, F., Papaioannou, S., &amp; Protopapas, A. (2017). Preschool phonological and morphological awareness as longitudinal predictors of early reading and spelling development in Greek. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doehring, D. G. (1976). Acquisition of rapid reading responses. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41 (2), 1 – 54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doignon, N., &amp; Zagar, D. (2005). Illusory conjunctions in French: The nature of sublexical units in visual word recognition. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 20 (3), 443 – 464. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doignon‐Camus, N., &amp; Zagar, D. (2014). The syllabic bridge: The first step in learning spelling‐to‐sound correspondences. Journal of Child Language, 41 (5), 1147 – 1165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000913000305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. The Elementary School Journal, 36 (6), 456 – 460. https://doi.org/10.1086/457353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Downing, J. A. (1965). The initial teaching alphabet reading experiment: Three lectures on the research in beginning reading with sir James Pitman's initial teaching alphabet. Scott, Foresman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drieghe, D., Fitzsimmons, G., &amp; Liversedge, S. P. (2017). Parafoveal preview effects in reading unspaced text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43 (10), 1701 – 1716. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, L. G., Colé, P., Seymour, P. H., &amp; Magnan, A. (2006). Differing sequences of metaphonological development in French and English. Journal of Child Language, 33 (2), 369 – 399. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500090600732X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, L. G., Seymour, P. H. K., &amp; Hill, S. (1997). How important are rhyme and analogy in beginning reading? Cognition, 63, 171 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(97)00001‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, L. G., Traficante, D., &amp; Wilson, M. A. (2019). Editorial: Word morphology and written language acquisition: Insights from typical and atypical development in different orthographies. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 (126), 1 – 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2017). Learning to read Turkish. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Leaning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 416 – 436). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eaton, H. (in press). The orthographic word in languages of the world. SIL International.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eberhard, D. M., Simons, G. F., &amp; Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2024). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (24th ed.). SIL International. <ulink href="http://www.ethnologue.com">http://www.ethnologue.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, A., Steacy, L., Rigobon, V., Siegelman, N., Rueckl, J., &amp; Compton, D. (2024). Is the role of set for variability in word reading influenced by conditions leading to partial decoding? Retrieved December 8, 2024, from https://osf.io/zsxce/download</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling &amp; C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135 – 154). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisition. In T. G. Waller &amp; G. Mackinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (pp. 63 – 114). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18 (2), 116 – 125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.1995.tb00077.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 5 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.819356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. A., &amp; Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the national reading panel's meta‐analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71 (3), 393 – 447. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543071003393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C., &amp; Roberts, K. T. (1979). Do beginners learn printed words better in contexts or in isolation? Child Development, 50 (3), 675 – 685. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C., &amp; Saltmarsh, J. (1995). Beginning readers outperform older disabled readers in learning to read words by sight. Reading and Writing, 7 (3), 295 – 326. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03162082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri, L. C., &amp; Wilce, L. S. (1980). The influence of orthography on readers' conceptualization of the phonemic structure of words. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 1 (4), 371 – 385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eklund, K., Torppa, M., Aro, M., Leppänen, P. H. T., &amp; Lyytinen, H. (2015). Literacy skill development of children with familial risk for dyslexia through grades 2, 3, and 8. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107 (1), 126 – 140. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> El Akiki, C., &amp; Content, A. (2020). Early sensitivity to morphology in beginning readers of Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (552315), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.552315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbro, C. (1996). Early linguistic abilities and reading development: A review and a hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 8 (6), 453 – 485. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00577023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbro, C. (2006). Hvad er læsning—Og hvad bør en læseunderviser vide?' [what is reading—And what is the reading teacher supposed to know?]. In V. Boelt &amp; M. Jørgensen (Eds.), Læsning. Teori og Praksis (pp. 23 – 38). KvaN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbro, C., &amp; Arnbak, E. (1996). The role of morpheme recognition and morphological awareness in dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 209 – 240. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elbro, C., de Jong, P. F., Houter, D., &amp; Nielsen, A. M. (2012). From spelling pronunciation to lexical access: A second step in word decoding? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16 (4), 341 – 359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.568556</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, N. C., &amp; Hooper, A. M. (2001). Why learning to read is easier in welsh than in English: Orthographic transparency effects evinced with frequency‐matched tests. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 22 (4), 571 – 599. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401004052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Epelboim, J., Booth, J. R., Ashkenazy, R., Taleghani, A., &amp; Steinman, R. M. (1997). Fillers and spaces in text: The importance of word recognition during reading. Vision Research, 37 (20), 2899 – 2914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042‐6989(97)00095‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ericsson, K. A., &amp; Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). Towards a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, N., &amp; Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32 (5), 429 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feitelson, D. (1988). Facts and fads in beginning reading: A cross‐language perspective. Ablex.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferreiro, E., &amp; Teberosky, A. (1979). Los sistema de escritura en el desarrollo del nino [Literacy before schooling]. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fischer‐Baum, S., &amp; Englebretson, R. (2016). Orthographic units in the absence of visual processing: Evidence from sublexical structure in braille. Cognition, 153, 161 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitch, W. T. (2018). What animals can teach us about human language: The phonological continuity hypothesis. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 68 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.01.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fitch, W. T., &amp; Martins, M. D. (2014). Hierarchical processing in music, language, and action: Lashley revisited. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316 (1), 87 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleischhauer, E., Bruns, G., &amp; Grosche, M. (2021). Morphological decomposition supports word recognition in primary school children learning to read: Evidence from masked priming of German derived words. Journal of Research in Reading, 44 (1), 90 – 109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fletcher, J. M. (2009). Dyslexia: The evolution of a scientific concept. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15 (4), 501 – 508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617709090900</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In E. C. T. Walker &amp; R. J. Wales (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257 – 287). North Holland Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forster, K. I., &amp; Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12 (6), 627 – 635. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐5371(73)80042‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forster, K. I., &amp; Davis, C. (1984). Repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10 (4), 680 – 698. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.10.4.680</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frazier, L., &amp; Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two‐stage parsing model. Cognition, 6 (4), 291 – 325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(78)90002‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frazier, L., &amp; Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14 (2), 178 – 210. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0285(82)90008‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frazier, L., &amp; Rayner, K. (1987). Resolution of syntactic category ambiguities: Eye movements in parsing lexically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 26 (5), 505 – 526. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749‐596X(87)90137‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frith, U. (Ed.). (1980). Cognitive processes in spelling. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frith, U. (1985). The surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Marshall, &amp; M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301 – 330). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frith, U., Wimmer, H., &amp; Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German and English speaking children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 31 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0201_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (1995). Phonological computation and missing vowels: Mapping lexical involvement in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (2), 398 – 408. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.21.2.398</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (2006). Becoming literate in Hebrew: The grain size hypothesis and Semitic orthographic systems. Developmental Science, 9 (5), 439 – 440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35 (5), 263 – 279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001841</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., Armstrong, B. C., &amp; Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Statistical learning research: A critical review and possible new directions. Psychological Bulletin, 145 (12), 1128 – 1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost, R., Forster, K. I., &amp; Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked‐priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (4), 829 – 856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.23.4.829</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gates, A. I. (1926). The Gates primary reading tests. Teachers College Record, 28 (2), 146 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812602800203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gatlin, B., &amp; Wanzek, J. (2015). Relations among children's use of dialect and literacy skills: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58 (4), 1306 – 1318. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR‐L‐14‐0311</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaur, A. (1995). Scripts and writing systems: A historical perspective. In I. Taylor &amp; D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters (pp. 19 – 30). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐1162‐1_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geary, D. C. (1995). Reflections of evolution and culture in children's cognition: Implications for mathematical development and instruction. American Psychologist, 50 (1), 24 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003‐066X.50.1.24</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2010). A situated‐sociocultural approach to literacy and technology. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 165 – 193). The Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gee, J. P. (2023). Discourse and 'the new literacy studies'. In M. Handford &amp; J. P. Gee (Eds.), The routledge handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 469 – 480). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035244‐39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelb, I. J. (1952). A study of writing. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Georgiou, G. K., Vieira, A. P. A., Rothou, K. M., Kirby, J. R., Antoniuk, A., Martinez, D., &amp; Guo, K. (2023). A meta‐analysis of morphological awareness deficits in developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, 27 (3), 253 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2022.2155524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geva, E., &amp; Siegel, L. S. (2000). Orthographic and cognitive factors in the concurrent development of basic reading skills in two languages. Reading and Writing, 12 (1), 1 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008017710115</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, E. J. (1965). Learning to read: Experimental psychologists examine the process by which a fundamental intellectual skill is acquired. Science, 148 (3673), 1066 – 1072. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.148.3673.1066</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillingham, A., &amp; Stillman, B. (1956). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Educators Publishing Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gleitman, L. R., &amp; Rozin, P. (1973). Teaching reading by use of a syllabary. Reading Research Quarterly, 8 (4), 447 – 483. https://doi.org/10.2307/747169</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glezer, L. S., Jiang, X., &amp; Riesenhuber, M. (2009). Evidence for highly selective neuronal tuning to whole words in the "visual word form area". Neuron, 62 (2), 199 – 204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2008). The writing revolution: Cuneiform to the internet. Wiley‐Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444304671</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2012). Maldivian Thaana, Japanese kana, and the representation of moras in writing. Writing Systems Research, 4 (1), 91 – 102. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2012.693459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gnanadesikan, A. E. (2023). Segments and syllables in Hangeul and Thaana: A comparison and optimality theoretic analysis. Written Language and Literacy, 26 (2), 238 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Godde, E., Bosse, M. L., &amp; Bailly, G. (2020). A review of reading prosody acquisition and development. Reading and Writing, 33 (2), 399 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐019‐09968‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gombert, J. E. (1997). Metalinguistic development in first‐language acquisition. In L. Van Lier &amp; D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 6, pp. 43 – 51). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐4533‐6_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gombert, J. E. (2006). Epi/méta vs implicite/explicite: niveau de contrôle cognitif sur les traitements et apprentissage de la lecture. Langage et Pratiques, 38, 68 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gombert, J. E., &amp; Fayol, M. (1992). Writing in preliterate children. Learning and Instruction, 2 (1), 23 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959‐4752(92)90003‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodwin, A. P., &amp; Ahn, S. (2013). A meta‐analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy outcomes for school‐age children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17 (4), 257 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U., Gombert, J. E., &amp; de Barrera, L. F. (1998). Children's orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: Nonsense word reading in English, French, and Spanish. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 19 (1), 19 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010560</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U., &amp; Mead, F. (1992). Onset and rime awareness and analogies in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 153–162, 152. https://doi.org/10.2307/747684</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goswami, U., Porpodas, C., &amp; Wheelwright, S. (1997). Children's orthographic representations in English and Greek. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12 (3), 273 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172876</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., &amp; Hillinger, M. L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179 – 196. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23769975">www.jstor.org/stable/23769975</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gough, P. B., Juel, C., &amp; Roper‐Schneider, D. (1983). Code and cipher: A two‐stage conception of initial reading acquisition. In J. A. Niles &amp; L. A. Harris (Eds.), Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction: 32nd yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 207 – 210). National Reading Conference.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grainger, J. (2022). Word recognition I: Visual and orthographic processing. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, &amp; K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed., pp. 60 – 78). Wiley‐Blackwel. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigorenko, E. L. (2017). Gifted education in Russia: Developing, threshold, or developed. Cogent Education, 4 (1), 1364898. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1364898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grigorenko, E. L., Kornev, A. N., Rakhlin, N., &amp; Krivulskaya, S. (2011). Reading‐related skills, reading achievement, and inattention: A correlational study. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 10 (2), 140 – 156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guan, C. Q., Liu, Y., Chan, D. H. L., Ye, F., &amp; Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Writing strengthens orthography and alphabetic‐coding strengthens phonology in learning to read Chinese. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 (3), 509 – 522. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guo, T., Vazeux, M., Doignon‐Camus, N., Bosse, M. L., Mahé, G., &amp; Zagar, D. (2023). Before learning the code: A commentary on Sargiani, Ehri, and Maluf (RRQ, 2022). Reading Research Quarterly, 58 (1), 103 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gur, T. (2005). Reading Hebrew vowel diacritics: A longitudinal investigation from grade 1 to grade 3 [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Häikiö, T., Hyönä, J., &amp; Bertram, R. (2015). The role of syllables in word recognition among beginning Finnish readers: Evidence from eye movements during reading. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27 (5), 562 – 577. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.982126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harding, L. M., Beech, J. R., &amp; Sneddon, W. (1985). The changing pattern of reading errors and reading style from 5 to 11 years of age. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55 (1), 45 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8279.1985.tb02605.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haridas, M., Vasudevan, N., Raman, R., Share, D. L., &amp; Nedungadi, P. (2024). Developing a multi‐dimensional phonological and morphological framework for understanding reading and spelling acquisition: A study in Malayalam literacy learning. Reading and Writing, 37, 2883 – 2925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐023‐10501‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harm, M. W., &amp; Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106 (3), 491 – 528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.106.3.491</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harm, M. W., &amp; Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111 (3), 662 – 720. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.111.3.662</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, L. N., Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Hirshorn, E. A. (2023). Bypass language en route to meaning at your peril. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X23000729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M., &amp; Coltheart, M. (1986). Language processing in children and adults: An introduction. Routledge and Kegan Paul. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000796051648896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasenäcker, J., &amp; Schroeder, S. (2017). Syllables and morphemes in German reading development: Evidence from second graders, fourth graders, and adults. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 38 (3), 733 – 753. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716416000412</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasenäcker, J., Schröter, P., &amp; Schroeder, S. (2017). Investigating developmental trajectories of morphemes as reading units in German. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43 (7), 1093 – 1108. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000353</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hasenäcker, J., Solaja, O., &amp; Crepaldi, D. (2021). Does morphological structure modulate access to embedded word meaning in child readers? Memory and Cognition, 49 (7), 1334 – 1347. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421‐021‐01164‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatano, G., Kuhara, K., &amp; Akiyama, M. (1997). 20 kanji help readers of Japanese infer the meaning of unfamiliar words. In M. Cole, Y. Engeström, &amp; O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition (pp. 269 – 291). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hautala, J., Aro, M., Eklund, K., Lerkkanen, M.‐K., &amp; Lyytinen, H. (2013). The role of letters and syllables in typical and dysfluent reading in a transparent orthography. Reading and Writing, 26 (6), 845 – 864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐012‐9394‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawelka, S., Gagl, B., &amp; Wimmer, H. (2010). A dual‐route perspective on eye movements of dyslexic readers. Cognition, 115 (3), 367 – 379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawelka, S., Schuster, S., Gagl, B., &amp; Hutzler, F. (2013). Beyond single syllables: The effect of first syllable frequency and orthographic similarity on eye movements during silent reading. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 28 (8), 1134 – 1153. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.696665</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hende, N. (2012). Predicting second grade reading from kindergarten language and literacy in Arabic. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tel‐Aviv University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., &amp; Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3), 61 – 83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hermena, E. W. (2021). Manipulating interword and interletter spacing in cursive script: An eye movements investigation of reading Persian. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 14 (1), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.16910/jemr.14.1.6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heß, J., Karageorgos, P., Müller, B., Riedmann, A., Schaper, P., Lugrin, B., &amp; Richter, T. (2024). Improving word reading skills of low‐skilled readers: An intervention combining a syllable‐based approach with digital game‐based features. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40, 2306 – 2324. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H. (2017). The texts of literacy instruction: Obstacles to or opportunities for educational equity? Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 66 (1), 117 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H. (2024). Enhancing opportunities for decoding and knowledge building through beginning texts. The Reading Teacher, 77 (6), 965 – 974. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hiebert, E. H., Goodwin, A. P., &amp; Cervetti, G. N. (2018). Core vocabulary: Its morphological content and presence in exemplar texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 53 (1), 29 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, D., &amp; Nation, I. S. P. (1992). What vocabulary size is needed to read unsimplified texts for pleasure? Reading in a Foreign Language, 8 (2), 689 – 696.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, C. S. H., &amp; Bryant, P. (1997a). Phonological skills are important in learning to read Chinese. Developmental Psychology, 33 (6), 946 – 951. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.33.6.946</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, C. S. H., &amp; Bryant, P. (1997b). Development of phonological awareness of Chinese children in Hong Kong. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 109 – 126. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025016322316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, C. S. H., Yau, P. W. Y., &amp; Au, A. (2003). Development of orthographic knowledge and its relationship with reading and spelling among Chinese kindergarten and primary school children. In C. McBride‐Chang &amp; H. C. Chen (Eds.), Reading development in Chinese children (pp. 51 – 71). Bloomsbury Publishing. https://digital.casalini.it/9780313053122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203 (3), 88 – 97. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/24940617">www.jstor.org/stable/24940617</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Holmes, V. M., &amp; Carruthers, J. (1998). The relation between reading and spelling in skilled adult readers. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (2), 264 – 289. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2583</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoosain, R. (1995). Getting at the sound and meaning of logographic and alphabetic scripts. In I. Taylor &amp; D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries, and characters (pp. 131 – 144). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐1162‐1_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hsu, S. H., &amp; Huang, K. C. (2000). Effects of word spacing on reading Chinese text from a video display terminal. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90 (1), 81 – 92. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2000.90.1.81</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huemer, S., Aro, M., Landerl, K., &amp; Lyytinen, H. (2010). Repeated reading of syllables among Finnish‐speaking children with poor reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14 (4), 317 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903150659</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huettig, F., &amp; Ferreira, F. (2023). The myth of normal reading. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18 (4), 863 – 870. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691622112722</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huettig, F., &amp; Hulstijn, J. H. (2024). The enhanced literate mind hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12731</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulme, C. (1983). Reading retardation and multisensory teaching. Routledge and Kegan Paul.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulme, C., Monk, A., &amp; Ives, S. (1987). Some experimental studies of multi‐sensory teaching: The effects of manual tracing on children's paired‐associate learning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5 (4), 299 – 307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐835X.1987.tb01066.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutzler, F., &amp; Wimmer, H. (2004). Eye movements of dyslexic children when reading in a regular orthography. Brain and Language, 89 (1), 235 – 242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093‐934X(03)00401‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyman, L. M. (1983). Are there syllables in Gokana? In J. Kaye, H. Koopman, D. Sportiche, &amp; A. Dugas (Eds.), Current approaches to African linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 171 – 179). Foris.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hyman, L. M. (2015). Does Gokana really have syllables? A postscript. Phonology, 32 (2), 303 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675715000160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaffré, J. P., &amp; Fayol, M. (2006). Orthography and literacy in French. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 81 – 104). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jastak, J., &amp; Jastak, S. (1984). The wide range achievement test‐revised. Jastak Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Job, R., Peressotti, F., &amp; Mulatti, C. (2006). The acquisition of literacy in Italian. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 321 – 338). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jorm, A. F., &amp; Share, D. L. (1983). An invited article: Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 4 (2), 103 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400004380</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R. M. (2014). Literacy in Kannada, an alphasyllabic orthography. In H. Winskel &amp; P. Padakanayya (Eds.), South and southeast Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 202 – 211). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R. M., &amp; McBride, C. (2019). Introduction: Handbook of literacy in akshara orthography. In R. M. Joshi &amp; C. McBride (Eds.), Handbook of literacy in akshara orthography (pp. 3 – 9). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R. M., &amp; McCardle, P. (2018). Models of reading in different orthographies: An introduction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (5), 419 – 421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417718196</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R. M., Nakamura, P. R., &amp; Singh, N. C. (2017). Reading research and practice: Indian perspective. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 158, 43 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi, R. M., Wijekumar, K., &amp; Gillespie Rouse, A. (2022). International perspectives on spelling and writing in different orthographies: Introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55 (2), 83 – 86. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211059836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joyce, T. (2011). The significance of the morphographic principle for the classification of writing systems. Written Language and Literacy, 14 (1), 58 – 81. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.14.1.04joy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joyce, T., &amp; Masuda, H. (2023). Chaos or system? Reassessing the unique case of the Japanese writing system. Written Language &amp; Literacy, 26 (1), 57 – 75. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00073.joy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joyce, T., Masuda, H., &amp; Ogawa, T. (2014). Jōyō kanji as core building blocks of the Japanese writing system: Some observations from database construction. Written Language and Literacy, 17 (2), 173 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.17.2.01joy</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalindi, S. C., McBride, C., Tong, X., Wong, N. L. Y., Chung, K. H. K., &amp; Lee, C.‐Y. (2015). Beyond phonological and morphological processing: Pure copying as a marker of dyslexia in Chinese but not poor reading of English. Annals of Dyslexia, 65 (2), 53 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐015‐0097‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kao, H. S. R., Leong, C. K., &amp; Gao, D. G. (Eds.). (2002). Cognitive neuroscience studies of the Chinese language. Hong Kong University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karanth, P. (2006). The Kagunita of Kannada: Learning to reading and write an Indian alphasyllabary. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 389 – 404). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kearns, D. M., &amp; Cooper Borkenhagen, M. J. (2024). Following the rules in an unruly writing system: The cognitive science of learning to read English. The Reading Teacher, 77 (5), 712 – 726. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerek, E., &amp; Niemi, P. (2009). Russian orthography and learning to read. Reading in a Foreign Language, 21 (1), 1 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kessler, B., &amp; Treiman, R. (2015). Writing systems: Their properties and implications for reading. In A. Pollatsek &amp; R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 10 – 25). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Khanna, M. M., &amp; Boland, J. E. (2010). Children's use of language context in lexical ambiguity resolution. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (1), 160 – 193. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902866664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kieffer, M. J., Biancarosa, G., &amp; Mancilla‐Martinez, J. (2013). Roles of morphological awareness in the reading comprehension of Spanish‐speaking language minority learners: Exploring partial mediation by vocabulary and reading fluency. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 34 (4), 697 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000920</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P., &amp; Suchomel, V. (2014). The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography, 1 (1), 7 – 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607‐014‐0009‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, Y.‐S. (2007). Phonological awareness and literacy skillsin Korean: An examination of the unique role of body‐codaunits. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 28, 69 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640707004X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, R. (1996). Korean writing. In P. T. Daniels &amp; W. Bright (Eds.), The world's writing systems (pp. 218 – 227). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction‐integration model. Psychological Review, 95 (2), 163 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.95.2.163</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kintsch, W. (2012). Psychological models of reading comprehension and their implications for assessment. In J. P. Sabatini, E. Albro, &amp; T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 21 – 38). Rowman and Littlefield Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., &amp; Bowers, P. N. (2018). The effects of morphological instruction on vocabulary learning, reading, and spelling. In R. Berthiaume, D. Daigle, &amp; A. Desrochers (Eds.), Morphological processing and literacy development: Current issues and research (pp. 217 – 243). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade‐Woolley, L., &amp; Parrila, R. (2012). Children's morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25 (2), 389 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐010‐9276‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koda, K. (2017). Learning to read Japanese. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 31 – 56). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kogan, N., &amp; Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2023). The internal structure of the syllable in Russian and in Hebrew: Evidence from monolingual kindergarteners. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 44 (1), 101 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716423000012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohsom, C., &amp; Gobet, F. (1997). Adding spaces to Thai and English: Effects on reading. In M. G. Shafto &amp; P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (Vol. 19, pp. 388 – 393). Erlbaum. <ulink href="http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/2122">http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/2122</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolinsky, R. (2015). How learning to read influences language and cognition. In A. Pollatsek &amp; R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 377 – 393). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruk, R. S., &amp; Bergman, K. (2013). The reciprocal relations between morphological processes and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114 (1), 10 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., &amp; Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45 (2), 230 – 251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuo, L., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross‐language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41 (3), 161 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuperman, V., Schroeder, S., &amp; Gnetov, D. (2024). Word length and frequency effects on text reading are highly similar in 12 alphabetic languages. Journal of Memory and Language, 135 (104), 497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2023.104497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kwok, R. K. W., &amp; Ellis, A. W. (2015). Visual word learning in skilled readers of English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68 (2), 326 – 349. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.944549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laaredj‐Campbell, A. (2023). Literacy and education in multilingual Algeria. In R. M. Joshi, C. A. McBride, B. Kaani, &amp; G. Elbeheri (Eds.), Handbook of literacy in Africa (pp. 135 – 152). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐26250‐0_8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LaBerge, D., &amp; Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6 (2), 293 – 323. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0285(74)90015‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, J., Quinonez‐Beltran, J. F., &amp; Joshi, R. M. (2024). A bigger picture of early literacy and biliteracy acquisition in abugidas: Perspectives from Asian and African languages. Reading Research Quarterly, 59 (3), 499 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landerl, K. (2000). Influences of orthographic consistency and reading instruction on the development of nonword reading skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15 (3), 239 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landerl, K. (2017). Learning to read German. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 299 – 323). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., &amp; Frith, U. (1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German‐English comparison. Cognition, 63 (3), 315 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(97)00005‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lázaro, M., García, L., &amp; Burani, C. (2015). How orthographic transparency affects morphological processing in young readers with and without reading disability. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56 (5), 498 – 507. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12213</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, C.‐Y. (2011). The statistical learning perspective on Chinese reading. In P. McCardle, B. Miller, J. R. Lee, &amp; O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Dyslexia across languages: Orthography and the brain–gene–behavior link (pp. 44 – 61). Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lefly, D. L., &amp; Pennington, B. F. (1991). Spelling errors and reading fluency in compensated adult dyslexics. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 141 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leikin, M., Share, D. L., &amp; Schwartz, M. (2005). Difficulties in L2 Hebrew reading in Russian‐speaking second graders. Reading and Writing, 18, 455 – 472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐005‐8919‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerdahl, F., &amp; Jackendoff, R. (1983). An overview of hierarchical structure in music. Music Perception, 1 (2), 229 – 252. https://doi.org/10.2307/40285257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lervag, A. O., &amp; Hulme, C. (2016). Preschool morphological training produces long‐ ¨ term improvements in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 29, 1269 – 1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9636‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K. C., Breadmore, H. L., &amp; Deacon, S. H. (2021). How morphology impacts reading and spelling: Advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy development. Journal of Research in Reading, 44 (1), 10 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levesque, K. C., Kieffer, M. J., &amp; Deacon, S. H. (2019). Inferring meaning from meaningful parts: The contributions of morphological skills to the development of children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 54 (1), 63 – 80. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, B. A., Gong, Z., Hessels, S., Evans, M. A., &amp; Jared, D. (2006). Understanding print: Early reading development and the contributions of home literacy experiences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93 (1), 63 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, H., Shu, H., McBride‐Chang, C., Liu, H. Y., &amp; Xue, J. (2009). Paired associate learning in Chinese children with dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103 (2), 135 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.02.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, L., Wang, H.‐C., Castles, A., Hsieh, M.‐L., &amp; Marinus, E. (2018). Phonetic radicals, not phonological coding systems, support orthographic learning via self‐teaching in Chinese. Cognition, 176, 184 – 194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, S., Wang, Y., Lan, Z., Yuan, X., Zhang, L., &amp; Yan, G. (2021). Effects of word spacing on children's reading: Evidence from eye movements. Reading and Writing, 35, 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐021‐10215‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., Li, H., &amp; Wang, M. (2020). Orthographic learning via self‐teaching in Chinese: The roles of phonological recoding, context, and phonetic and semantic radicals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 199, 104913.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, X., Huang, L., Yao, P., &amp; Hyönä, J. (2022). Universal and specific reading mechanisms across different writing systems. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1 (3), 133 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159‐022‐00022‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., &amp; Wang, M. (2023). A systematic review of orthographic learning via self‐teaching. Educational Psychologist, 58 (1), 35 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2137673</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, Y., Xiao, L., &amp; Li, H. (2022). Self‐teaching in Chinese: The roles of phonetic and semantic radicals in orthographic and vocabulary learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 45 (1), 20 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12379</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liberman, A. M. (1992). The relation of speech to reading and writing. In R. Frost &amp; L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 167 – 178). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166‐4115(08)62794‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., &amp; Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18 (2), 201 – 212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐0965(74)90101‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, A. (1989). Lecture on discoveries and inventions. In D. E. Fehrenbacher (Ed.), Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and writings (Vol. 2, pp. 3 – 11). Library of America. (Original work published 1859).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, S. S. F. (1978). Decoding and comprehension in reading Chinese. In D. Feitelson (Ed.), Cross‐cultural perspectives on reading and reading research (pp. 144 – 156). International Reading Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Z., Li, J., Bi, H. Y., Xu, M., &amp; Yang, Y. (2022). Disruption of functional brain networks underlies the handwriting deficit in children with developmental dyslexia. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16 (919), 440. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.919440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95 (4), 492 – 527. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.95.4.492</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the instance theory of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13 (2), 123 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057356970130203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longcamp, M., Boucard, C., Gilhodes, J. C., Anton, J. L., Roth, M., Nazarian, B., &amp; Velay, J. L. (2008). Learning through hand‐or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: Behavioral and functional imaging evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20 (5), 802 – 815. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20504</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Longcamp, M., Zerbato‐Poudou, M.‐T., &amp; Velay, J.‐L. (2005). The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: A comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychologica, 119 (1), 67 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.10.019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lonigan, C. J., &amp; Shanahan, T. (2009). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Executive summary. A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. National Institute for Literacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lukatela, K., Carello, C., Shankweiler, D., &amp; Liberman, I. Y. (1995). Phonological awareness in illterates: Observations from Serbo‐Croatian. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 16 (4), 463 – 488. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., &amp; Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐003‐0001‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyster, S.‐A. H., Lervåg, A. O., &amp; Hulme, C. (2016). Preschool morphological training produces long‐term improvements in reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 29 (6), 1269 – 1288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐016‐9636‐x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyster, S.‐A. H., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., &amp; Lervåg, A. O. (2021). Preschool phonological, morphological and semantic skills explain it all: Following reading development through a 9‐year period. Journal of Research in Reading, 44 (1), 175 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lyytinen, P., &amp; Lyytinen, H. (2004). Growth and predictive relations of vocabulary and inflectional morphology in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 25 (3), 397 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddieson, I. (2013). Consonant inventories. In M. S. Dryer &amp; M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. https://wals.info/chapter/1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahony, D., Singson, M., &amp; Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and writing, 12, 191 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mair, V. H. (1996). Modern Chinese writing. In P. T. Daniels &amp; W. Bright (Eds.), The world's writing systems (pp. 200 – 208). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manguel, A. (2014). A history of reading. Penguin Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, V. A. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of reading experience. Cognition, 24 (1–2), 65 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(86)90005‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mannhaupt, G., Jansen, H., &amp; Marx, H. (1997). Cultural influences on literacy development. In C. K. Leong &amp; R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Cross‐language studies of learning to read and spell: Phonologic and orthographic processing (pp. 161 – 173). Kluwer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐1197‐5_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Manolitsis, G., Grigorakis, I., &amp; Georgiou, G. K. (2017). The longitudinal contribution of early morphological awareness skills to reading fluency and comprehension in Greek. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (1793), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the relations between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes. Cognitive Psychology, 15 (2), 238 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0285(83)90010‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marinus, E., &amp; De Jong, P. F. (2008). The use of sublexical clusters in normal and dyslexic readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12 (3), 253 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430802132246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marinus, E., &amp; de Jong, P. F. (2010). Variability in the word‐reading performance of dyslexic readers: Effects of letter length, phoneme length and digraph presence. Cortex, 46 (10), 1259 – 1271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.06.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, G., Friedman, M. P., Welch, V., &amp; Desberg, P. (1981). A cognitive‐developmental theory of reading acquisition. In T. G. Waller &amp; G. E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 199 – 221). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, H. W., Overall, J. U., &amp; Kesler, S. P. (1979). Class size, students' evaluations, and instructional effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 16 (1), 57 – 70. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312016001057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marzi, C., Pisa, I., Rodella, A., Nadalini, A., Taxitari, L., &amp; Pirrelli, V. (2020). Does finger‐tracking point to child reading strategies? In J. Monti, F. Dell'Orletta, &amp; F. Tamburini (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Italian conference on computational linguistics CLiC‐it 2020 (pp. 272 – 278). Accademia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, J. M., Anderson, R. C., Omura, A., Uchida, N., &amp; Imai, M. (1989). Learning to read in Japan. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 21 (5), 389 – 407. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027890210501</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masonheimer, P. E., Drum, P. A., &amp; Ehri, L. C. (1984). Does environmental print identification lead children into word reading? Journal of Reading Behavior, 16 (4), 257 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968409547520</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mattingly, I. G. (1985). Did orthographies evolve? Remedial and Special Education, 6 (6), 18 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193258500600605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, C. (2015). Children's literacy development: A cross‐cultural perspective on learning to read and write. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, C. (2016). Is Chinese special? Four aspects of Chinese literacy acquisition that might distinguish learning Chinese from learning alphabetic orthographies. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (3), 523 – 549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐015‐9318‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, C., Pan, D. J., &amp; Mohseni, F. (2022). Reading and writing words: A cross‐linguistic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 125 – 138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1920595</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride, C., &amp; Wang, Y. (2015). Learning to read Chinese: Universal and unique cognitive cores. Child Development Perspectives, 9 (3), 196 – 200. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride‐Chang, C. (2012). Shared book reading: There is no downside for parents. In S. Suggate (Ed.), Contemporary debates in childhood education and development (pp. 51 – 58). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBride‐Chang, C., Lam, F., Lam, C., Chan, B., Fong, C. Y.‐C., Wong, T. T.‐Y., &amp; Wong, S. W.‐L. (2011). Early predictors of dyslexia in Chinese children: Familial history of dyslexia, language delay, and cognitive profiles. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52 (2), 204 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469‐7610.2010.02299.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCandliss, B. D., Cohen, L., &amp; Dehaene, S. (2003). The visual word form area: Expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (7), 293 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364‐6613(03)00134‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCarthy, S. (1995). The cree syllabary and the writing system riddle: A paradigm in crisis. In I. Taylor &amp; D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters (pp. 59 – 75). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐1162‐1_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, S. F., Rastle, K., &amp; Davis, M. H. (2008). Is there a 'fete'in 'fetish'? Effects of orthographic opacity on morpho‐orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 58 (2), 307 – 326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCutchen, D., Logan, B., &amp; Biangardi‐Orpe, U. (2009). Making meaning: Children's sensitivity to morphological information during word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (4), 360 – 376. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.4.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meaux, A. B., Wolter, J. A., &amp; Collins, G. G. (2020). Morphological awareness as a key factor in language‐literacy success for academic achievement. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51 (3), 509 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS‐20‐00064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meletis, D. (2020). The nature of writing: A theory of grapholinguistics. Grapholinguistics and its applications (Vol. 3). Fluxus Editions. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh‐198384</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meletis, D. (2024). What's in a name? Trends and challenges in naming the study of writing. In Y. Haralambous (Ed.), Grapholinguistics in the 21st century 2022 (Vol. 9, pp. 1 – 44). Fluxus Editions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mesmer, H. A. E. (2000). Decodable text: A review of what we know. Reading Research and Instruction, 40 (2), 121 – 141. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070109558338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Míguez‐Álvarez, C., Cuevas‐Alonso, M., &amp; Saavedra, Á. (2022). Relationships between phonological awareness and reading in Spanish: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 72 (1), 113 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, K. P., Rubin, G. B., &amp; Gonzalez‐Frey, S. (2018). Rethinking sight words. The Reading Teacher, 71 (6), 715 – 726. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1658</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63 (2), 81 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mirdehghan, M. (2010). Persian, Urdu, and Pashto: A comparative orthographic analysis. Writing Systems Research, 2 (1), 9 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsq005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mizrachi, N. (2023). Methods of teaching reading in first grade Hebrew‐speaking classrooms in Israel. [Unpublished Master's thesis]. University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohseni, F., &amp; McBride, C. (2020). What explains reading and dictation in Persian among Iranian second grade students? Reading and Writing, 33 (7), 1769 – 1790.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montessori, M. (1915). My system of education. Journal and Proceedings and Addresses of the National Education Association, 53, 64 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moors, A., &amp; De Houwer, J. (2006). Automaticity: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (2), 297 – 326. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.132.2.297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morais, J., Alegria, J., &amp; Content, A. (1987). The relationships between segmental analysis and alphabetic literacy: An interactive view. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 7 (5), 415 – 438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morin, O. (2023). The puzzle of ideography. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e233. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002801</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, D., &amp; Perney, J. (2018). Using a sight word measure to predict reading fluency problems in grades 1 to 3. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 34 (4), 338 – 348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1446857</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76 (2), 165 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, B., Richter, T., Karageorgos, P., Krawietz, S., &amp; Ennemoser, M. (2017). Effects of a syllable‐based reading intervention in poor‐reading fourth graders. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 (1635), 1 – 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muroya, N., Inoue, T., Hosokawa, M., Georgiou, G. K., Maekawa, H., &amp; Parrila, R. (2017). The role of morphological awareness in word reading skills in Japanese: A within‐language cross‐orthographic perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21 (6), 449 – 462. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1323906</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myhill, J. (2009). Towards an understanding of the relationship between diglossia and literacy (survey commissioned by the language and literacy domain committee). University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nag, S. (2007). Early reading in Kannada: The pace of acquisition of orthographic knowledge and phonemic awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 30 (1), 7 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2006.00329.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nag, S. (2017). Learning to read alphasyllabaries. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton, &amp; R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of reading development (pp. 75 – 98). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nag, S. (2021). How children learn to use a writing system: Mapping evidence from an Indic orthography to written language in children's books. Written Language and Literacy, 24 (2), 284 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00056.nag</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nag, S., &amp; Snowling, M. J. (2011). Cognitive profiles of poor readers of Kannada. Reading and Writing, 24, 657 – 676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐010‐9258‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nag‐Arulmani, S., Reddy, V., &amp; Buckley, S. (2003). Targeting phonological representations can help in the early stages of reading in a non‐dominant language. Journal of Research in Reading, 26 (1), 49 – 68. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.261005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., &amp; Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle‐school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (1), 134 – 147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.98.1.134</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19 (3), 304 – 330. https://doi.org/10.2307/747823</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., &amp; Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47 (1), 3 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219413509967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naka, M. (1998). Repeated writing facilitates children's memory for pseudocharacters and foreign letters. Memory and Cognition, 26 (4), 804 – 809. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naka, M., &amp; Naoi, H. (1995). The effect of repeated writing on memory. Memory and Cognition, 23 (2), 201 – 212. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197222</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakamura, P. R., Joshi, R. M., &amp; Ji, X. R. (2018). Investigating the asymmetrical roles of syllabic and phonemic awareness in akshara processing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (5), 499 – 506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417718201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, K. (2005). Connections between language and reading in children with poor reading comprehension. In H. W. Catts &amp; A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connection between language and reading disabilities (pp. 41 – 54). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, K. (2017). Nurturing a lexical legacy: Reading experience is critical for the development of word reading skill. npj Science of Learning, Article 2, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539‐017‐0004‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, K., &amp; Snowling, M. J. (1998). Semantic processing and the development of word‐recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (1), 85 – 101. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2564</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nation, K., &amp; Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27 (4), 342 – 356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2004.00238.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, &amp; Human Development (US). (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence‐based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nazzi, T., &amp; Cutler, A. (2019). How consonants and vowels shape spoken‐language recognition. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 25 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐linguistics‐011718‐011919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C., &amp; Brysbaert, M. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English lexicon project. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13 (1), 45 – 52. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193811</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nikolopoulos, D., Goulandris, N., Hulme, C., &amp; Snowling, M. J. (2006). The cognitive bases of learning to read and spell in Greek: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94 (1), 1 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niswander, E., Pollatsek, A., &amp; Rayner, K. (2000). The processing of derived and inflected suffixed words during reading. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 15 (4–5), 389 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakhill, J., Cain, K., &amp; Elbro, C. (2019). Reading comprehension and reading comprehension difficulties. In D. A. Kilpatrick, R. M. Joshi, &amp; R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Reading development and difficulties: Bridging the gap between research and practice (pp. 83 – 115). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐26550‐2_5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47 (3), 257 – 281. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.47.3.8840364413869005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. R. (1994). The world on paper: The conceptual and cognitive implications of writing and reading. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. R. (2009). A theory of reading/writing: From literacy to literature. Writing Systems Research, 1 (1), 51 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsp005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, D. R. (2016). The mind on paper: Reading, consciousness and rationality (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316678466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orsolini, M., Fanari, R., Tosi, V., De Nigris, B., &amp; Carrieri, R. (2006). From phonological recoding to lexical reading: A longitudinal study on reading development in Italian. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 21 (5), 576 – 607. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500139355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orton, S. T. (1928). Specific reading disability—Strephosymbolia. Journal of the American Medical Association, 90 (14), 1095 – 1099. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1928.02690410007003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orwin, M., Howes, C., &amp; Kempson, R. (Eds.). (2013). Language, music and interaction. College Publications. https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/21081/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., &amp; Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130 (3), 401 – 426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096‐3445.130.3.401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pae and Winskel. (in press). Non‐linear scripts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pae, H. K. (2024). Analyzing the Korean alphabet: The science of Hangul. Springer Nature.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pae, H. K., &amp; Wang, M. (2022). The effects of writing systems and scripts on cognition and beyond: An introduction. Reading and Writing, 35 (6), 1315 – 1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐022‐10289‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pan, J., Song, S., Su, M., McBride, C., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., Li, H., &amp; Shu, H. (2016). On the relationship between phonological awareness, morphological awareness and Chinese literacy skills: Evidence from an 8‐year longitudinal study. Developmental Science, 19 (6), 982 – 991. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papadopoulos, T. C., Spanoudis, G., &amp; Kendeou, P. (2009). The dimensionality of phonological abilities in Greek. Reading Research Quarterly, 44 (2), 127 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.44.2.2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J., &amp; de Jong, P. F. (2004). A cross‐linguistic comparison of children learning to read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (4), 785 – 797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.96.4.785</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulesu, E., Rocca, P., Zuffi, M., Bottini, G., Basilico, S., Franceschi, M., &amp; Fazio, F. (2000). Altered brain perfusion in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease does not necessarily involve temporarietal neocortex. Neurobiology of Aging, Supplement, 1 (21), 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197‐4580(00)82283‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelli, D. G., Farell, B., &amp; Moore, D. C. (2003). The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition. Nature, 423 (6941), 752 – 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01516</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peng, P., Wang, C., Tao, S., &amp; Sun, C. (2017). The deficit profiles of Chinese children with reading difficulties: A meta‐analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (3), 513 – 564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐016‐9366‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perea, M., &amp; Acha, J. (2009). Space information is important for reading. Vision Research, 49 (15), 1994 – 2000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., &amp; Adlof, S. M. (2012). Reading comprehension: A conceptual framework from word meaning to text meaning. In J. P. Sabatini, E. R. Albro, &amp; T. O'Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability (pp. 3 – 20). Rowman and Littlefield Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., Cao, F., &amp; Booth, J. (2013). Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: How Chinese research informs a universal science of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17 (1), 5 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2012.689786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., &amp; Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. Snowling, C. Hulme, &amp; K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading, a handbook (2nd ed., pp. 5 – 35). Wiley‐Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., &amp; Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (1), 22 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.827687</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C., &amp; Verhoeven, L. (2017). Epilogue: Universals and particulars in learning to read across seventeen orthographies. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 455 – 480). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, &amp; R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145 – 174). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, &amp; M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 21 – 38). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. https://psycnet‐apa‐org.ezproxy.haifa.ac.il/record/1997‐05053‐001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7 (1), 3 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_02</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11 (4), 357 – 383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Harris, L. N. (2013). Universal reading processes are modulated by language and writing system. Language Learning and Development, 9 (4), 296 – 316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2013.813828</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy, 11, 67 – 86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Tan, L. H. (1999). The constituency model of Chinese word identification. In J. Wang, H. C. Chen, R. Radach, &amp; A. Inhoff (Eds.), Reading chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 127 – 146). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., &amp; Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114 (2), 273 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.114.2.273</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perry, C., Zorzi, M., &amp; Ziegler, J. C. (2019). Understanding dyslexia through personalized large‐scale computational models. Psychological Science, 30 (3), 386 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618823540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterson, R. L., &amp; Pennington, B. F. (2012). Developmental dyslexia. The Lancet, 379 (9830), 1997 – 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(12)60198‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pittas, E., &amp; Nunes, T. (2014). The relation between morphological awareness and reading and spelling in Greek: A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 27 (8), 1507 – 1527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐014‐9503‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plaza, M., &amp; Cohen, H. (2007). The contribution of phonological awareness and visual attention in early reading and spelling. Dyslexia, 13 (1), 67 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pontecorvo, C., &amp; Zucchermaglio, C. (1988). Modes of differentiation in children's writing construction. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3 (4), 371 – 384. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/23422049">www.jstor.org/stable/23422049</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porpodas, C. D. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Greek: Research review of the role of phonological and cognitive factors. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 189 – 199). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32 (1), 3 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poulsen, M., Juul, H., &amp; Elbro, C. (2023). A national test of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 73 (3), 337 – 355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐023‐00285‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prakash, P., Rekha, D., Nigam, R., &amp; Karanth, P. (1993). Phonological awareness, orthography and literacy. In R. J. Scholes (Ed.), Literacy and language analysis (pp. 55 – 70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preston, J. L., Molfese, P. J., Frost, S. J., Mencl, W. E., Fulbright, R. K., Hoeft, F., Landi, N., Shankweiler, D., &amp; Pugh, K. R. (2016). Print‐speech convergence predicts future reading outcomes in early readers. Psychological Science, 27 (1), 75 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615611921</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prinzmetal, W., Treiman, R., &amp; Rho, S. H. (1986). How to see a reading unit. Journal of Memory and Language, 25 (4), 461 – 475. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749‐596X(86)90038‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pritchard, S. C., Coltheart, M., Marinus, E., &amp; Castles, A. (2018). A computational model of the self‐teaching hypothesis based on the dual‐route cascaded model of reading. Cognitive Science, 42 (3), 722 – 770. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12571</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Probert, T. N. (2019). A comparison of the early reading strategies of isiXhosa and seTswana first language learners. South African Journal of Childhood Education, 9 (1), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v9i1.643</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Protopapas, A., &amp; Gerakaki, S. (2009). Development of processing stress diacritics in reading Greek. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 (6), 453 – 483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430903034788</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugh, K., &amp; Verhoeven, L. (2018). Introduction to this special issue: Dyslexia across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (1), 1 – 6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1390668</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R., Shaywitz, S. E., &amp; Shaywitz, B. A. (2000). Functional neuroimaging studies of reading and reading disability (developmental dyslexia). Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 6 (3), 207 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098‐2779(2000)6:3&lt;207::AID‐MRDD8&gt;3.0.CO;2‐P</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quémart, P., Casalis, S., &amp; Duncan, L. G. (2012). Exploring the role of bases and suffixes when reading familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence from French young readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16 (5), 424 – 442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.584333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rack, J., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., &amp; Wightman, J. (1994). The role of phonology in young children learning to read words: The direct‐mapping hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57 (1), 42 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1994.1003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rakhlin, N., Kornilov, S., &amp; Grigorenko, E. L. (2017). Learning to read Russian. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 371 – 392). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramirez, G., Chen, X., Geva, E., &amp; Kiefer, H. (2010). Morphological awareness in Spanish‐speaking English language learners: Within and cross‐language effects on word reading. Reading and Writing, 23, 337 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐009‐9203‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rao, C., Vaid, J., Srinivasan, N., &amp; Chen, H. C. (2011). Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: Evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates. Reading and Writing, 24, 679 – 695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐010‐9256‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rapp, B. (Ed.). (2015). Handbook of cognitive neuropsychology: What deficits reveal about the human mind. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315783017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rastle, K. (2019a). The place of morphology in learning to read in English. Cortex, 116, 45 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.02.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rastle, K. (2019b). EPS mid‐career prize lecture 2017: Writing systems, reading, and language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72 (4), 677 – 692. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819829696</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rastle, K. (2022). Word recognition III: Morphological processing. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, &amp; K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 102 – 119). John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116.ch5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rastle, K. (2023). Understanding reading, understanding writing. The Cognitive Psychology Bulletin, 8, 18 – 22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rastle, K., &amp; Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language &amp; Cognitive Processes, 23 (7–8), 942 – 971. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ratcliffe, R. R. (2001). What do "phonemic" writing systems represent?: Arabic Huruuf, Japanese kana, and the Moraic principle. Written Language and Literacy, 4 (1), 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.4.1.02rat</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rau, A. K., Moeller, K., &amp; Landerl, K. (2014). The transition from sublexical to lexical processing in a consistent orthography: An eye‐tracking study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18 (3), 224 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.857673</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (1996). Accessing the mental lexicon: Evidence from incompatibility between representation of spoken and written morphology. Linguistics, 34, 1219 – 1246. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1996.34.6.1219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D. (2006). Hebrew orthography and literacy. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 339 – 364). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ravid, D., &amp; Schiff, R. (2004). Learning to represent vowels in written Hebrew: Different factors across development. First Language, 24 (2), 185 – 208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723704044127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rawlins, A., &amp; Invernizzi, M. (2018). Reconceptualizing sight words: Building an early reading vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 72 (6), 711 – 719. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372 – 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.124.3.372</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rayner, K., Fischer, M. H., &amp; Pollatsek, A. (1998). Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Research, 38 (8), 1129 – 1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042‐6989(97)00274‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., &amp; Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105 (1), 125 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.105.1.125</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reichle, E. D., &amp; Schotter, E. R. (2020). A computational analysis of the constraints on parallel word identification. In S. Denison, M. Mack, Y. Xu, &amp; B. C. Armstrong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 164 – 170). Cognitive Science Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reichle, E. D., &amp; Yu, L. (2024). The psychology of reading: Insights from Chinese. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36 (2), 321 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐0965(83)90036‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reitsma, P. (1989). Orthographic memory and learning to read. In P. G. Aaron &amp; R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 51 – 73). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐009‐1041‐6_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richlan, F. (2020). The functional neuroanatomy of developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00155</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Richlan, F., Kronbichler, M., &amp; Wimmer, H. (2009). Functional abnormalities in the dyslexic brain: A quantitative meta‐analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 30 (10), 3299 – 3308. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rickard Liow, S. J., &amp; Lee, L. C. (2004). Metalinguistic awareness and semi‐syllabic scripts: Children's spelling errors in Malay. Reading and Writing, 17 (1), 7 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:READ.0000013833.79570.de</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricketts, J., Nation, K., &amp; Bishop, D. V. M. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11 (3), 235 – 257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701344306</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rispens, J. E., McBride‐Chang, C., &amp; Reitsma, P. (2008). Morphological awareness and early and advanced word recognition and spelling in Dutch. Reading and Writing, 21, 587 – 607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐007‐9077‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, D. (2010). Hidden morpheme boundaries in Kabiye: A source of miscues in a toneless orthography. Writing Systems Research, 2 (2), 139 – 153. https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsq011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, D. (2013). A tone orthography typology. In S. R. Borgwaldt &amp; T. Joyce (Eds.), Typology of writing systems (pp. 85 – 111). John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, D. (2023). Roman script orthography development in Africa: Historical and contemporary perspectives. In R. M. Joshi, C. A. McBride, B. Kaani, &amp; G. Elbeheri (Eds.), Handbook of literacy in Africa (pp. 59 – 78). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐26250‐0_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, D., Bar‐On, A., &amp; Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2023). Heterophonic homographs in African and Semitic: Comparing the functions of tones and vowels. In Paper presented at the 14th international workshop of the Association of Written Language and Literacy. Temple University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roberts, D., &amp; Walter, S. L. (Eds.). (2021). Tone orthography and literacy: The voice of evidence in ten Niger‐Congo languages. John Benjamins.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, H. (1995). Optimal orthographies. In I. Taylor &amp; D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters (pp. 31 – 43). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐1162‐1_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogers, H. (2005). Writing systems: A linguistic approach. Blackwell. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1130000795931820800.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruan, Y., Georgiou, G. K., Song, S., Li, Y., &amp; Shu, H. (2018). Does writing system influence the associations between phonological awareness, morphological awareness, and reading? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110 (2), 180 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rueckl, J. G., Paz‐Alonso, P. M., Molfese, P. J., Kuo, W.‐J., Bick, A., Frost, S. J., Hancock, R., Wu, D. H., Mencl, W. E., Duñabeitia, J. A., Lee, J.‐R., Oliver, M., Zevin, J. D., Hoeft, F., Carreiras, M., Tzeng, O. J. L., Pugh, K. R., &amp; Frost, R. (2015). Universal brain signature of proficient reading: Evidence from four contrasting languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (50), 15510 – 15515. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509321112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan, D. (2017). Principles of English spelling formation. [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Trinity College Dublin. <ulink href="http://tinyurl.com/3f8um9e7">http://tinyurl.com/3f8um9e7</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabatini, J., Bruce, K., Steinberg, J., &amp; Weeks, J. (2015). SARA reading components tests, RISE forms: Technical adequacy and test design (ETS RR‐15–32) (2nd ed.). ETS Research Report Series, 2015 (2), 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12076</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2004). The impact of phonemic and lexical distance on the phonological analysis of words and pseudowords in a diglossic context. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 25 (4), 495 – 512. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716404001249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2007). Linguistic constraints on children's ability to isolate phonemes in Arabic. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 28 (4), 607 – 625. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2017). Learning to read in Arabic. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Reading acquisition across languages and writing systems: An international handbook (pp. 127 – 154). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2018). MAWRID: A model of Arabic word reading in development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (5), 454 – 462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417720460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E., &amp; Henkin‐Roitfarb, R. (2014). The structure of Arabic language and orthography. In E. Saiegh‐Haddad &amp; R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives (pp. 3 – 28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8545‐7_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E., &amp; Joshi, M. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Arabic literacy and orthography. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐017‐8545‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E., Laks, L., &amp; McBride, C. (Eds.). (2022). Handbook of literacy in diglossia and in dialectal contexts: Psycholinguistic, neurolinguistic, and educational perspectives (Vol. 22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐030‐80072‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E., Shahbari‐Kassem, A., &amp; Schiff, R. (2020). Phonological awareness in Arabic: The role of phonological distance, phonological‐unit size, and SES. Reading and Writing, 33 (6), 1649 – 1674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐020‐10019‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh‐Haddad, E., &amp; Taha, H. (2017). The role of morphological and phonological awareness in the early development of word spelling and reading in typically developing and disabled Arabic readers. Dyslexia, 23 (4), 345 – 371. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sainio, M., Hyönä, J., Bingushi, K., &amp; Bertram, R. (2007). The role of interword spacing in reading Japanese: An eye movement study. Vision Research, 47 (20), 2575 – 2584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.05.017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saito, H., Masuda, H., &amp; Kawakami, M. (1998). Form and sound similarity effects in kanji recognition. In C. K. Leong &amp; K. Tamaoka (Eds.), Cognitive processing of the Chinese and the Japanese languages (Vol. 14, pp. 169 – 203). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐015‐9161‐4_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems. Stanford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sampson, G. (2016). Vyvyan Evans. 2015. The crucible of language: How language and mind create meaning. Language and Dialogue, 6 (2), 329 – 336. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.2.06sam</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sampson, G. (2018). From phonemic spelling to distinctive spelling. Written Language and Literacy, 21 (1), 3 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.00008.sam</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandak, R., Mencl, W. E., Frost, S. J., &amp; Pugh, K. R. (2004). The neurobiological basis of skilled and impaired reading: Recent findings and new directions. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 273 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0803_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandler, W. (2012). The phonological organization of sign languages. Lang &amp; Ling Compass, 6 (3), 162 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sargiani, R. d. A., Ehri, L. C., &amp; Maluf, M. R. (2022). Teaching beginners to decode consonant–vowel syllables using grapheme–phoneme subunits facilitates reading and spelling as compared with teaching whole‐syllable decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 57 (2), 629 – 648. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savage, R., Georgiou, G. K., Inoue, T., Dunn, K., &amp; Parrila, R. (2024). Set‐for‐variability predicts responsiveness to tier 2 reading interventions. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2024.2418940</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savage, R., Stuart, M., &amp; Hill, V. (2001). The role of scaffolding errors in reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal and a correlational study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71 (1), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., Raveh, M., &amp; Fighel, A. (2012). The development of the Hebrew mental lexicon: When morphological representations become devoid of their meaning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16 (5), 383 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.571327</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiff, R., &amp; Saiegh‐Haddad, E. (2018). Development and relationships between phonological awareness, morphological awareness and word reading in spoken and standard Arabic. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (356), 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00356</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlaggar, B. L., &amp; McCandliss, B. D. (2007). Development of neural systems for reading. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 475 – 503. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.28.061604.135645</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmalz, X., Moll, K., Mulatti, C., &amp; Schulte‐Körne, G. (2019). Is statistical learning ability related to reading ability, and if so, why? Scientific Studies of Reading, 23 (1), 64 – 76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2018.1482304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmidt, K. (2014). Morphophonographic regularities in German: The graphematic syllable boundary: A non‐linear graphematic approach. Written Language and Literacy, 17 (2), 253 – 281. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.17.2.04sch</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schubert, T., Reilhac, C., &amp; McCloskey, M. (2018). Knowledge about writing influences reading: Dynamic visual information about letter production facilitates letter identification. Cortex, 103, 302 – 315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.03.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scragg, D. G. (1974). A history of English spelling. Manchester University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidenberg, M. (2017). Language at the speed of sight: How we read, why so many can't, and what can be done about it. Basic.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidenberg, M. S., &amp; McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96 (4), 523 – 568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.96.4.523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, P. H. K. (2006). Theoretical framework for beginning reading in different orthographies. In R. Malatesha Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (1st ed., pp. 441 – 462). L. Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M., &amp; Network, collaboration with C. A. A. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94 (2), 143 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shahar‐Yames, D., &amp; Share, D. L. (2008). Spelling as a self‐teaching mechanism in orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31 (1), 22 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9817.2007.00359.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalhoub‐Awwad, Y. (2020). The role of nominal word pattern in Arabic reading acquisition: Insights from cross‐modal priming. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24 (4), 307 – 320. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1668396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalhoub‐Awwad, Y., &amp; Cohen‐Mimran, R. (2024). On the role of morphology in early spelling in Hebrew and Arabic. Morphology, 34, 151 – 172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525‐023‐09408‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalhoub‐Awwad, Y., &amp; Leikin, M. (2016). The lexical status of the root in processing morphologically complex words in Arabic. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20 (4), 296 – 310. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1180525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shankweiler, D. (2012). Reading and phonological processing. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (2nd ed., pp. 249–256). Academic press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐375000‐6.00279‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shankweiler, D., &amp; Fowler, C. A. (2019). Relations between reading and speech manifest universal phonological principle. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5 (1), 109 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐linguistics‐011718‐012419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., Bar‐On, A., &amp; Katzir, T. (2012). Reading different orthographic structures in the shallow‐pointed Hebrew script: A cross‐grade study in elementary school. Reading and Writing, 25 (6), 1217 – 1238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐011‐9314‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shany, M., Lachman, D., Shalem, Z., Bahat, A., &amp; Zeiger, T. (2006). Aleph‐Taph a test for the diagnosis of reading and writing disabilities, based on National Israeli norms. Yesod Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self‐teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55 (2), 151 – 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(94)00645‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (1999). Phonological recoding and orthographic learning: A direct test of the self‐teaching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 72 (2), 95 – 129. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2481</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self‐teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87 (4), 267 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2004.01.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2008a). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an "outlier" orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (4), 584 – 615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.134.4.584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2008b). Orthographic learning, phonological recoding, and self‐teaching. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 36, pp. 31 – 82). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065‐2407(08)00002‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2011). On the role of phonology in reading acquisition: The self‐teaching hypothesis. In S. A. Brady, D. Braze, &amp; C. A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 45 – 68). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2012). Frost and fog or sunny skies? Orthography, reading, and misplaced optimalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35 (5), 307 – 308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2014). Alphabetism in reading science. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 752. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2017). Learning to read Hebrew. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2021). Is the science of reading just the science of reading English? Reading Research Quarterly, 56, S391 – S402. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L. (2023). Literacy and illiteracy in Africa: The tower of babel predicament. In R. M. Joshi, C. A. McBride, B. Kaani, &amp; G. Elbeheri (Eds.), Handbook of literacy in Africa (pp. 1 – 18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐031‐26250‐0_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., &amp; Bar‐On, A. (2018). Learning to read a Semitic abjad: The triplex model of Hebrew reading development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51 (5), 444 – 453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219417718198</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., &amp; Blum, P. (2005). Syllable splitting in literate and preliterate Hebrew speakers: Onsets and rimes or bodies and codas? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92 (2), 182 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.05.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., &amp; Daniels, P. T. (2016). Aksharas, alphasyllabaries, abugidas, alphabets and orthographic depth: Reflections on Rimzhim, Katz and Fowler (2014). Writing Systems Research, 8 (1), 17 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2015.1016395</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., &amp; Gur, T. (1999). How reading begins: A study of preschoolers' print identification strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 17 (2), 177 – 213. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI170202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., &amp; Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of individual differences in reading acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76 (6), 1309 – 1324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.76.6.1309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Share, D. L., &amp; Shalev, C. (2004). Self‐teaching in normal and disabled readers. Reading and Writing, 17 (7), 769 – 800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐004‐2658‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shatil, E., &amp; Share, D. L. (2003). Cognitive antecedents of early reading ability: A test of the modularity hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86 (1), 1 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐0965(03)00106‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shatil, E., Share, D. L., &amp; Levin, I. (2000). On the contribution of kindergarten writing to grade 1 literacy: A longitudinal study in Hebrew. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 21 (1), 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400001016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaywitz, S. E., Pugh, K., Jenner, A. R., Fulbright, R. K., Fletcher, J. M., Gore, J., &amp; Shaywitz, B. A. (2000). The neurobiology of reading and reading disability (dyslexia). In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &amp; R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 229 – 249). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaywitz, S. E., &amp; Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57 (11), 1301 – 1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.01.043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shechter, A., &amp; Share, D. L. (2021). Keeping an eye on effort: A pupillometric investigation of effort and effortlessness in visual word recognition. Psychological Science, 32 (1), 80 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620958638</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheridan, H., Rayner, K., &amp; Reingold, E. M. (2013). Unsegmented text delays word identification: Evidence from a survival analysis of fixation durations. Visual Cognition, 21 (1), 38 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.767296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shimron, J. (1993). The role of vowels in reading: A review of studies of English and Hebrew. Psychological Bulletin, 114 (1), 52 – 67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.114.1.52</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H. (2003). Chinese writing system and learning to read. International Journal of Psychology, 38 (5), 274 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (1997). Role of radical awareness in the character and word acquisition of Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 32 (1), 78 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.1.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., &amp; Wu, N. (2000). Phonetic awareness: Knowledge of orthography–phonology relationships in the character acquisition of Chinese children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (1), 56 – 62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.92.1.56</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., Anderson, R. C., &amp; Zhang, H. (1995). Incidental learning of word meanings while reading: A Chinese and American cross‐cultural study. Reading Research Quarterly, 30 (1), 76 – 95. https://doi.org/10.2307/747745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Wu, N., &amp; Xuan, Y. (2003). Properties of school Chinese: Implications for learning to read. Child Development, 74 (1), 27 – 47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8624.00519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shu, H., Peng, H., &amp; McBride‐Chang, C. (2008). Phonological awareness in young Chinese children. Developmental Science, 11 (1), 171 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2007.00654.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siegelman, N., Schroeder, S., Acartürk, C., Ahn, H.‐D., Alexeeva, S., Amenta, S., Bertram, R., Bonandrini, R., Brysbaert, M., Chernova, D., Da Fonseca, S. M., Dirix, N., Duyck, W., Fella, A., Frost, R., Gattei, C. A., Kalaitzi, A., Kwon, N., Lõo, K., ... Kuperman, V. (2022). Expanding horizons of cross‐linguistic research on reading: The multilingual eye‐movement corpus (MECO). Behavior Research Methods, 54 (6), 2843 – 2863. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐021‐01772‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silverzweig, Z. (2023). Unambiguous phonics system (U.S. Patent No. 11,842,718.). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch‐public/print/downloadPdf/11842718</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Simpson, G. B., &amp; Kang, H. (2004). Syllable processing in alphabetic Korean. Reading and Writing, 17, 137 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:READ.0000013808.65933.a1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, L., &amp; Bortfeld, H. (2024). Towards a global developmental science. Developmental Science, 27, e13555. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singson, M., Mahony, D., &amp; Mann, V. (2000). The relation between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing, 12 (3), 219 – 252. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008196330239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siok, W. T., &amp; Fletcher, P. (2001). The role of phonological awareness and visual‐orthographic skills in Chinese reading acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 37 (6), 886 – 899. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.37.6.886</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snell, J., van Leipsig, S., Grainger, J., &amp; Meeter, M. (2018). OB1‐reader: A model of word recognition and eye movements in text reading. Psychological Review, 125 (6), 969 – 984. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia. Blackwell Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., &amp; Nation, K. (2020). Defining and understanding dyslexia: Past, present and future. Oxford Review of Education, 46 (4), 501 – 513. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2020.1765756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., &amp; Nation, K. (Eds.). (2022). The science of reading: A handbook (2nd ed.). John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119705116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Solity, J., &amp; Vousden, J. (2009). Real books vs reading schemes: A new perspective from instructional psychology. Educational Psychology, 29 (4), 469 – 511. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903103657</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spencer, L. H., &amp; Hanley, J. R. (2003). Effects of orthographic transparency on reading and phoneme awareness in children learning to read in Wales. British Journal of Psychology, 94 (1), 1 – 28. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842075</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spinelli, D., De Luca, M., Di Filippo, G., Mancini, M., Martelli, M., &amp; Zoccolotti, P. (2005). Length effect in word naming in reading: Role of reading experience and reading deficit in Italian readers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 27 (2), 217 – 235. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326942dn2702_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sprenger‐Charolles, L., Colé, P., Béchennec, D., &amp; Kipffer‐Piquard, A. (2005). French normative data on reading and related skills from EVALEC, a new computerized battery of tests (end grade 1, grade 2, grade 3, and grade 4)1. European Review of Applied Psychology, 55 (3), 157 – 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2004.11.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sprenger‐Charolles, L., &amp; Siegel, L. S. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of syllabic structure on the development of reading and spelling skills in French. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 18 (4), 485 – 505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640001095X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sprenger‐Charolles, L., Siegel, L. S., &amp; Béchennec, D. (1997). Beginning reading and spelling acquisition in French: A longitudinal study. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben, &amp; M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 339 – 359). Lawrence Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sproat, R. (2000). A computational theory of writing systems. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sproat, R. (2010). Language, technology, and society. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stahl, A. E., &amp; Feigenson, L. (2018). Infants use linguistic group distinctions to chunk items in memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 172, 149 – 167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive‐compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 16 (1), 32 – 71. https://doi.org/10.2307/747348</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. (1990a). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10 (1), 72 – 100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273‐2297(90)90005‐O</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. (1990b). A call for an end to the paradigm wars in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22 (3), 221 – 231. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969009547708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K. E., &amp; West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24 (4), 402 – 433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steacy, L. M., Wade‐Woolley, L., Rueckl, J. G., Pugh, K. R., Elliott, J. D., &amp; Compton, D. L. (2019). The role of set for variability in irregular word reading: Word and child predictors in typically developing readers and students at‐risk for reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 23 (6), 523 – 532. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1620749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steinkeller, P. (1995). Review of Zeichenliste der Archaiste Texte aus Uruk, by Margaret W. Green and Hans J. Nissen. Bibliotheca Orientalis, 52, 689 – 713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stokoe, W. C. (1960). Sign language structure: An outline of the visual communication systems of the American deaf. In Studies in linguistics, occasional papers (Vol. 8). University of Buffalo.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Street, B. V. (Ed.). (1993). Cross‐cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuart, M., &amp; Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence of stages? Cognition, 30 (2), 139 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(88)90038‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stuart, M., Dixon, M., Masterson, J., &amp; Gray, B. (2003). Children's early reading vocabulary: Description and word frequency lists. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73 (4), 585 – 598. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322591253</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Studdert‐Kennedy, M. (2000). Evolutionary implications of the particulate principle: Imitation and the dissociation of phonetic form from semantic function. In C. Knight, M. Studdert‐Kennedy, &amp; J. R. Hurford (Eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language:Social function and the origins of linguistic form (pp. 161 – 176). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sulpizio, S., Spinelli, G., &amp; Burani, C. (2017). STRESYL: An Italian stress‐in‐syllables database for reading research. Written Language and Literacy, 20 (1), 80 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.20.1.05sul</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tadmor‐Troyansky, M., &amp; Share, D. L. (2024). Phonological awareness in the Hebrew abjad: Consonants, vowels and core units. Manuscript submitted for publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taft, M. (2023). Localist lexical representation of polymorphemic words: The AUSTRAL model. In D. Crepaldi (Ed.), Linguistic morphology in the mind and brain (pp. 152 – 166). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taft, M., &amp; Forster, K. I. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14 (6), 638 – 647. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022‐5371(75)80051‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taft, M., &amp; Zhu, X. (1997). Submorphemic processing in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (3), 761 – 775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.23.3.761</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taibah, N. J., &amp; Haynes, C. W. (2011). Contributions of phonological processing skills to reading skills in Arabic speaking children. Reading and Writing, 24 (9), 1019 – 1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐010‐9273‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, L. H., Perfetti, C. A., Ziegler, J. C., &amp; McCandliss, B. (2023). Editorial: Neural bases of reading acquisition and reading disability. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17, 1147156. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1147156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, L. H., Spinks, J. A., Eden, G. F., Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Siok, W. T. (2005). Reading depends on writing, in Chinese. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (24), 8781 – 8785. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0503523102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taouka, M., &amp; Coltheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read in Arabic. Reading and Writing, 17 (1), 27 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:READ.0000013831.91795.ec</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, I. (2002). Phonological awareness in Chinese reading. In L. Wenling, J. S. Gaffney, &amp; J. L. Packard (Eds.), Chinese children's reading acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues (pp. 39 – 58). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4615‐0859‐5_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, I., &amp; Taylor, M. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese. Korean and Japanese.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, I., &amp; Taylor, M. M. (2014). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. John Benjamins Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, J. S. H., Rastle, K., &amp; Davis, M. H. (2013). Can cognitive models explain brain activation during word and pseudoword reading? A meta‐analysis of 36 neuroimaging studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (4), 766 – 791. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thaler, V., Ebner, E. M., Wimmer, H., &amp; Landerl, K. (2004). Training reading fluency in dysfluent readers with high reading accuracy: Word specific effects but low transfer to untrained words. Annals of Dyslexia, 54 (1), 89 – 113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐004‐0005‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Lancet. (2018). Editorial: The cost of not educating girls in Africa. The Lancet, 392 (10162), 2326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140‐6736(18)33017‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thorstad, G. (1991). The effect of orthography on the acquisition of literacy skills. British Journal of Psychology, 82 (4), 527 – 537. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044‐8295.1991.tb02418.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tibi, S., Edwards, A. A., Schatschneider, C., Lombardino, L. J., Kirby, J. R., &amp; Salha, S. H. (2021). IRT analyses of Arabic letter knowledge in kindergarten. Reading and Writing, 34 (3), 791 – 816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐020‐10086‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tibi, S., &amp; Kirby, J. R. (2017). Morphological awareness: Construct and predictive validity in Arabic. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 38 (5), 1019 – 1043. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716417000029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tibi, S., &amp; Kirby, J. R. (2018). Investigating phonological awareness and naming speed as predictors of reading in Arabic. Scientific Studies of Reading, 22 (1), 70 – 84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1340948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiwari, S., Nair, R., &amp; Krishnan, G. (2011). A preliminary investigation of akshara knowledge in the Malayalam alphasyllabary: Extension of Nag's (2007) study. Writing Systems Research, 3 (2), 145 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1093/wsr/wsr013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> To, N. L., Tighe, E. L., &amp; Binder, K. S. (2016). Investigating morphological awareness and the processing of transparent and opaque words in adults with low literacy skills and in skilled readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 39 (2), 171 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9817.12036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky, L. (2003). The cradle of culture and what children know about writing and numbers before being taught. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky, L., &amp; Jisa, H. (2017). Literacy development in romance languages. In N. Kucirkova, C. E. Snow, V. Grover, &amp; C. McBride (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of early literacy education: A contemporary guide to literacy teaching in a global context (pp. 112 – 123). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky‐Landsmann, L., &amp; Levin, I. (1985). Writing in preschoolers: An age‐related analysis. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 6 (3), 319 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400006238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tolchinsky‐Landsmann, L., &amp; Levin, I. (1987). Writing in four‐to six‐year‐olds: Representation of semantic and phonetic similarities and differences. Journal of Child Language, 14 (1), 127 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900012770</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., &amp; Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency (TOWRE). Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., &amp; Rashotte, C. A. (2012). TOWRE‐2 examiner's manual. Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman, R. (1985). Onsets and rimes as units of spoken syllables: Evidence from children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39 (1), 161 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐0965(85)90034‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first‐grade children. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman, R., &amp; Kessler, B. (2022). Statistical learning in word reading and spelling across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 139 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1920951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., &amp; McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students' reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36 (1), 159 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087958</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tressoldi, P. E., Stella, G., &amp; Faggella, M. (2001). The development of reading speed in Italians with dyslexia: A longitudinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34 (5), 414 – 417. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tressoldi, P. E., Vio, C., &amp; Iozzino, R. (2007). Efficacy of an intervention to improve fluency in children with developmental dyslexia in a regular orthography. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40 (3), 203 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trudell, B., &amp; Schroeder, L. (2007). Reading methodologies for African languages: Avoiding linguistic and pedagogical imperialism. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 20 (3), 165 – 180. https://doi.org/10.2167/lcc333.0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsou, B. K. (1981). A sociolinguistic analysis of the logographic writing system of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 9 (1), 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tucker, R., Castles, A., Laroche, A., &amp; Deacon, S. H. (2016). The nature of orthographic learning in self‐teaching: Testing the extent of transfer. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 145, 79 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.12.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tucker, R. (2024). Exploring the nature and transfer of orthographic learning within the self‐teaching hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dalhousie University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W., &amp; Chapman, J. W. (1998). Language prediction skills, phonological recoding ability, and beginning reading. In R. M. Joshi &amp; C. Hulme (Eds.), Reading and spelling: Development and disorders (pp. 33 – 67). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W., &amp; Chapman, J. W. (2006). Metalinguistic abilities, phonological recoding skill, and the use of context in beginning reading development: A longitudinal study. In R. M. Joshi &amp; P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 617 – 636). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W. E. (2014). How cognitive science has provided the theoretical basis for resolving the 'great debate' over reading methods in alphabetic orthographies. In S. Cooper &amp; K. Ratele (Eds.), Psychology serving humanity: Proceedings of the 30th international congress of psychology (pp. 242 – 253). Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tunmer, W. E., &amp; Chapman, J. W. (2012). Does set for variability mediate the influence of vocabulary knowledge on the development of word recognition skills? Scientific Studies of Reading, 16 (2), 122 – 140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.542527</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzeng, O. J. L. (2002). Current issues in learning to read Chinese. In W. Li, J. S. Gaffney, &amp; J. L. Packard (Eds.), Chinese children's reading acquisition: Theoretical and pedagogical issues (pp. 3 – 16). Kluwer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tzeng, O. J. L., Lin, Z. H., Hung, D. L., &amp; Lee, W. L. (1995). Learning to be a conspirator: A tale of becoming a good Chinese reader. In B. de Gelder &amp; J. Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: A comparative approach (pp. 227 – 246). Taylor &amp; Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ulicheva, A., Harvey, H., Aronoff, M., &amp; Rastle, K. (2020). Skilled readers' sensitivity to meaningful regularities in English writing. Cognition, 195 (103810), 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unger, J. M. (2014). Empirical evidence and the typology of writing systems: A response to Handel. Scripta, 6, 75 – 95.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unger, J. M. (2017). How many OJ syllables are reflected in EMJ yo? In A. Vovin &amp; W. McClure (Eds.), Studies in Japanese and Korean historical and theoretical linguistics and beyond (Vol. 16, pp. 76 – 79). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004351134_009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Unger, J. M., &amp; DeFrancis, J. (1995). Logographic and semasiographic writing systems: A critique of Sampson's classification. In I. Taylor &amp; D. R. Olson (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters (pp. 45 – 58). Kluwer Academic. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐011‐1162‐1_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United Nations. (2015). The world's women 2015: Trends and statistics. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210573719</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Uno, A., Wydell, T. N., Haruhara, N., Kaneko, M., &amp; Shinya, N. (2009). Relationship between reading/writing skills and cognitive abilities among Japanese primary‐school children: Normal readers versus poor readers (dyslexics). Reading and Writing, 22 (7), 755 – 789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐008‐9128‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vachek, J. (1939 /1964). 36. Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache. In A Prague School reader in linguistics (pp. 441 – 452). Indiana University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vachek, J. (1989). In P. A. Leulsdorff (Ed.), Written language revisited. John Benjamins. (Original work published 1939).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaid, J. (2022). Biscriptality: A neglected construct in the study of bilingualism. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 6 (2), 135 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809‐022‐00101‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V. (2021). Morphological awareness: A tool to promote reading fluency and accuracy in Hebrew in students with reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &amp; Practice, 36 (1), 26 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaknin‐Nusbaum, V., Sarid, M., &amp; Shimron, J. (2016). Morphological awareness and reading in second and fifth grade: Evidence from Hebrew. Reading and Writing, 29, 229 – 244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐015‐9587‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Bergen, E., Hart, S. A., Latvala, A., Vuoksimaa, E., Tolvanen, A., &amp; Torppa, M. (2023). Literacy skills seem to fuel literacy enjoyment, rather than vice versa. Developmental Science, 26 (3), e13325. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13325</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Daal, V. H., &amp; Wass, M. (2017). First‐and second‐language learnability explained by orthographic depth and orthographic learning: A "natural" Scandinavian experiment. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21 (1), 46 – 59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1251437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van den Bos, K. P., Lutje Spelberg, H. C., Scheepstra, A. M. J., &amp; de Vries, J. R. (1994). De Klepel: Handleiding [the Klepel: Manual]. Berkhout BV.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Witteloostuijn, M., Boersma, P., Wijnen, F., &amp; Rispens, J. (2017). Visual artificial grammar learning in dyslexia: A meta‐analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 70, 126 – 137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasudevan, N., Haridas, M., Nedungadi, P., Raman, R., Daniels, P. T., &amp; Share, D. L. (2023). A multi‐dimensional framework for characterizing the role of writing system variation in literacy learning: A case study in Malayalam. Reading and Writing, 37, 581 – 614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐022‐10374‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaughn, J. E. (1989). Review: Fine structure of synaptogenesis in the vertebrate central nervous system. Synapse, 3 (3), 255 – 285. https://doi.org/10.1002/syn.890030312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vazeux, M., Doignon‐Camus, N., Bosse, M. L., Mahé, G., Guo, T., &amp; Zagar, D. (2020). Syllable‐first rather than letter‐first to improve phonemic awareness. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 22130. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐020‐79240‐y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., &amp; Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45 (1), 2 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021‐9630.2003.00305.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venezky, R. (1970). The structure of English orthography. Mouton.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Venezky, R. L. (2007). In search of the perfect orthography. Written Language and Literacy, 7 (2), 139 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.7.2.02ven</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L. (2017). Learning to read in Dutch. In L. Verhoeven &amp; C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read across languages and writing systems (pp. 323 – 345). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., &amp; Carlisle, J. F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Morphology in word identification and word spelling. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 643 – 650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐006‐9010‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., Nag, S., Perfetti, C., &amp; Pugh, K. (2023). Global variation in literacy development. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., &amp; Perfetti, C. (2003). Introduction to this special issue: The role of morphology in learning to read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7 (3), 209 – 217. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0703_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., &amp; Perfetti, C. (Eds.). (2017). Learning to read across languages and writing systems. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., &amp; Perfetti, C. (2022). Universals in learning to read across languages and writing systems. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 150 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1938575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., &amp; Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross‐linguistic perspective. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32 (3), 457 – 466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., Perfetti, C. A., &amp; Pugh, K. (Eds.). (2019). Developmental dyslexia across languages and writing systems. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108553377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., &amp; Schreuder, R. (2011). Morpheme frequency effects in Dutch complex word reading: A developmental perspective. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 32 (3), 483 – 498. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000178</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., &amp; Baayen, R. H. (2006). Learnability of graphotactic rules in visual word identification. Learning and Instruction, 16 (6), 538 – 548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vinckier, F., Dehaene, S., Jobert, A., Dubus, J. P., Sigman, M., &amp; Cohen, L. (2007). Hierarchical coding of letter strings in the ventral stream: Dissecting the inner organization of the visual word‐form system. Neuron, 55 (1), 143 – 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.05.031</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Humboldt, W. (1999). On the diversity of human language construction and its influence on the mental development of the human species. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1836).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade‐Woolley, L., &amp; Heggie, L. (2015). Implicit knowledge of word stress and derivational morphology guides skilled readers' decoding of multisyllabic words. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19 (1), 21 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2014.947647</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wade‐Woolley, L., Wood, C., Chan, J., &amp; Weidman, S. (2022). Prosodic competence as the missing component of reading processes across languages: Theory, evidence and future research. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (2), 165 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2021.1995390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H. C., Castles, A., Nickels, L., &amp; Nation, K. (2011). Context effects on orthographic learning of regular and irregular words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109 (1), 39 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, H. C., Wass, M., &amp; Castles, A. (2017). Paired‐associate learning ability accounts for unique variance in orthographic learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 21 (1), 5 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2016.1231686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Z., Sabatini, J., O'reilly, T., &amp; Weeks, J. (2019). Decoding and reading comprehension: A test of the decoding threshold hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (3), 387 – 401. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000302</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber, R. M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first‐grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 5 (3), 427 – 451. https://doi.org/10.2307/747079</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, G., Vadillo, M. A., Shanks, D. R., &amp; Hulme, C. (2018). The procedural learning deficit hypothesis of language learning disorders: We see some problems. Developmental Science, 21 (2), e12552. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12552</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, A. L., Palmer, J., &amp; Boynton, G. M. (2018). Evidence of serial processing in visual word recognition. Psychological Science, 29 (7), 1062 – 1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617751898</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, S., Sabatini, J., Park, B. J., Chen, J., Bernstein, J., &amp; Li, M. (2021). The 2018 NAEP oral reading fluency study (NCES 2021–025). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2021025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitehurst, G. J., &amp; Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69 (3), 848 – 872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.1998.tb06247.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review, 8, 221 – 243. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196158</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whittaker, G. (2001). The dawn of writing and phoneticism. In D. Borchers, F. Kammerzell, &amp; S. Weninger (Eds.), Hieroglyphen, alphabete, schriftreformen (pp. 11 – 50). Seminar für Ägyptologie und Koptologie.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wijaythilake, M. A. D. K., &amp; Parrila, R. (2014). Predictors of word reading skills in good and struggling readers in Sinhala. Writing Systems Research, 6 (1), 120 – 131. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.846844</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wijaythilake, M. A. D. K., Parrila, R., Inoue, T., &amp; Nag, S. (2019). Cognitive predictors of word reading in Sinhala. Reading and Writing, 32 (7), 1881 – 1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐018‐9927‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer, H., &amp; Goswami, U. (1994). The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development: Word recognition in English and German children. Cognition, 51 (1), 91 – 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(94)90010‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer, H., &amp; Hummer, P. (1990). How German‐speaking first graders read and spell: Doubts on the importance of the logographic stage. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 11 (4), 349 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009620</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer, H., &amp; Landerl, K. (1997). How learning to spell German differs from learning to spell English. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, &amp; M. Fayol (Eds.), Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 81 – 96). Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer, H., &amp; Ludersdorfer, P. (2018). Searching for the orthographic lexicon in the visual word form area. In T. Lachmann &amp; T. Weis (Eds.), Reading and dyslexia: From basic functions to higher order cognition (pp. 57 – 69). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐90805‐2_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wimmer, H., &amp; Schurz, M. (2010). Dyslexia in regular orthographies: Manifestation and causation. Dyslexia, 16 (4), 283 – 299. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.411</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winskel, H. (2013). Learning to read and write in Thai. In H. Winskel &amp; P. Padakannaya (Eds.), South and southeast Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 171 – 178). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winskel, H., &amp; Lee, L. W. (2013). Learning to read and write in Malaysian/Indonesian: A transparent alphabetic orthography. In H. Winskel &amp; P. Padakannaya (Eds.), South and southeast Asian psycholinguistics (pp. 179 – 183). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winskel, H., Radach, R., &amp; Luksaneeyanawin, S. (2009). Eye movements when reading spaced and unspaced Thai and English: A comparison of Thai–English bilinguals and English monolinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 (3), 339 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winskel, H., &amp; Widjaja, V. (2007). Phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and literacy development in Indonesian beginner readers and spellers. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 28 (1), 23 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., &amp; Katzir‐Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5 (3), 211 – 239. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532799XSSR0503_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, M., &amp; Potter, K. (2018). Reader, come home: The reading brain in a digital world. Harper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolter, J. A., Wood, A., &amp; D'zatko, K. W. (2009). The influence of morphological awareness on the literacy development of first‐grade children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40 (3), 286 – 298. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161‐1461(2009/08‐0001)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolters, A. P., Kim, Y. S. G., &amp; Szura, J. W. (2022). Is reading prosody related to reading comprehension? A meta‐analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 26 (1), 1 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1850733</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K., &amp; Mathers, N. (2000). Woodcock– Johnson–III. Norm tables. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woods, C., Emberling, G., &amp; Teeter, E. (Eds.). (2010). Visible language: Inventions of writing in the ancient Middle East and beyond. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. https://relbib.de/Record/636392023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woollams, A. M., Ralph, M. A. L., Plaut, D. C., &amp; Patterson, K. (2007). SD‐squared: On the association between semantic dementia and surface dyslexia. Psychological Review, 114 (2), 316 – 339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.114.2.316</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, X., Li, W., &amp; Anderson, R. C. (1999). Reading instruction in China. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31 (5), 571 – 586. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202799183016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., Yusupu, R., Miao, D., Krügel, A., &amp; Kliegl, R. (2014). Eye movements guided by morphological structure: Evidence from the Uighur language. Cognition, 132, 181 – 215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, S. N., &amp; McConkie, G. W. (2001). Eye movements during reading: A theory of saccade initiation times. Vision Research, 41 (25–26), 3567 – 3585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042‐6989(01)00025‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeatman, J. D., &amp; White, A. L. (2021). Reading: The confluence of vision and language. Annual Review of Vision Science, 7 (1), 487 – 517. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐vision‐093019‐113509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yin, L., &amp; McBride, C. (2015). Chinese kindergartners learn to read characters analytically. Psychological Science, 26 (4), 424 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614567203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zang, C., Liang, F., Bai, X., Yan, G., &amp; Liversedge, S. P. (2013). Interword spacing and landing position effects during Chinese reading in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39 (3), 720 – 734. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030097</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeno, S., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., &amp; Duvvuri, R. (1995). The Educator's word frequency guide. Touchstone Applied Science Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou, Y. L., McBride‐Chang, C., Fong, C. Y. C., Wong, T. T. Y., &amp; Cheung, S. K. (2012). A comparison of phonological awareness, lexical compounding, and homophone training for Chinese word reading in Hong Kong kindergartners. Early Education and Development, 23 (4), 475 – 492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.530478</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J., Gioia, P., &amp; Deauvieau, J. (2024). Strict phonics beats mixed phonics: Effective teaching improves reading acquisition and reduces social inequalities. Hal open. Science, hal‐04769557, 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs‐5017972/v1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J. C., &amp; Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131 (1), 3 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.131.1.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J. C., &amp; Goswami, U. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science, 9 (5), 429 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2006.00509.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., &amp; Zorzi, M. (2014). Modelling reading development through phonological decoding and self‐teaching: Implications for dyslexia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 369 (1634), 20120397. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zilberman‐Shoam, B. (2015). On the contribution of handwritten spelling to orthographic learning [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zinna, D. R., Liberman, I. Y., &amp; Shankweiler, D. (1986). Children's sensitivity to factors influencing vowel reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21 (4), 465 – 480. https://doi.org/10.2307/747617</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psychobiology of language. Houghton‐Mifflin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zipoli, R. P., Jr. (2023). Making sense of word reading difficulties: Principles of clinical assessment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 44 (3), 194 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1177/15257401221111787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, M., Di Filippo, G., Judica, A., &amp; Martelli, M. (2009). Reading development in an orthographically regular language: Effects of length, frequency, lexicality and global processing ability. Reading and Writing, 22, 1053 – 1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145‐008‐9144‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoccolotti, P., De Luca, M., Di Pace, E., Gasperini, F., Judica, A., &amp; Spinelli, D. (2005). Word length effect in early reading and in developmental dyslexia. Brain and Language, 93 (3), 369 – 373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zoccolotti, P., Luca, M. D., Pace, E. D., Judica, A., Orlandi, M., &amp; Spinelli, D. (1999). Markers of developmental surface dyslexia in a language (Italian) with high grapheme–phoneme correspondence. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 20 (2), 191 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716499002027</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By David L. Share</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>David L. Share is a Professor in the Department of Learning Disabilities and a member of the Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, 199 Abba Khoushy Ave, Haifa, 3498838, Israel. email:</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib348" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib659" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib324" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib629" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib662" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib454" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib456" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib459" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib542" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib320" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib325" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib450" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib714" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib646" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib709" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib739" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib332" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib492" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib207" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib368" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib669" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib159" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib223" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib224" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib563" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib610" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib611" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib177" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib196" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib562" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib666" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib266" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib586" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib221" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib510" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib526" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib216" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib281" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib343" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib484" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib556" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib583" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib707" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib544" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib730" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib296" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib293" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib294" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib326" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib377" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib379" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib437" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib435" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib449" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib473" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib496" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib521" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib520" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib592" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib686" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib681" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib560" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib604" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib208" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib209" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib393" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib465" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib601" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib160" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib318" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib171" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib698" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib495" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib589" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib494" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib724" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib541" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib276" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib530" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib210" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib448" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib311" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib312" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib426" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib305" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib493" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib341" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib726" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib194" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib200" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib267" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl111" bibid="bib444" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl112" bibid="bib575" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl113" bibid="bib723" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl114" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl115" bibid="bib524" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl116" bibid="bib279" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl117" bibid="bib317" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl118" bibid="bib712" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl119" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl120" bibid="bib130" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl121" bibid="bib232" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl122" bibid="bib527" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl123" bibid="bib550" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl124" bibid="bib599" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl125" bibid="bib719" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl126" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl127" bibid="bib447" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl128" bibid="bib481" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl129" bibid="bib543" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl130" bibid="bib600" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl131" bibid="bib660" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl132" bibid="bib677" firstref="ref166"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl133" bibid="bib460" firstref="ref168"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl134" bibid="bib468" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl135" bibid="bib474" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl136" bibid="bib500" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl137" bibid="bib512" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl138" bibid="bib572" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl139" bibid="bib621" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl140" bibid="bib355" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl141" bibid="bib700" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl142" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref178"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl143" bibid="bib256" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl144" bibid="bib591" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl145" bibid="bib676" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl146" bibid="bib400" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl147" bibid="bib626" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl148" bibid="bib549" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl149" bibid="bib141" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl150" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl151" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref195"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl152" bibid="bib220" firstref="ref196"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl153" bibid="bib405" firstref="ref197"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl154" bibid="bib427" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl155" bibid="bib428" firstref="ref202"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl156" bibid="bib388" firstref="ref203"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl157" bibid="bib664" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl158" bibid="bib665" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl159" bibid="bib455" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl160" bibid="bib482" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl161" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl162" bibid="bib673" firstref="ref216"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl163" bibid="bib176" firstref="ref217"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl164" bibid="bib540" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl165" bibid="bib528" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl166" bibid="bib559" firstref="ref221"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl167" bibid="bib346" firstref="ref223"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl168" bibid="bib383" firstref="ref224"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl169" bibid="bib364" firstref="ref225"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl170" bibid="bib429" firstref="ref227"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl171" bibid="bib715" firstref="ref228"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl172" bibid="bib430" firstref="ref230"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl173" bibid="bib436" firstref="ref231"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl174" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref232"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl175" bibid="bib418" firstref="ref233"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl176" bibid="bib606" firstref="ref234"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl177" bibid="bib508" firstref="ref236"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl178" bibid="bib204" firstref="ref238"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl179" bibid="bib357" firstref="ref239"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl180" bibid="bib573" firstref="ref240"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl181" bibid="bib590" firstref="ref241"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl182" bibid="bib243" firstref="ref243"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl183" bibid="bib222" firstref="ref244"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl184" bibid="bib480" firstref="ref249"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl185" bibid="bib195" firstref="ref250"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl186" bibid="bib183" firstref="ref252"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl187" bibid="bib553" firstref="ref253"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl188" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref255"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl189" bibid="bib421" firstref="ref256"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl190" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref257"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl191" bibid="bib406" firstref="ref260"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl192" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref261"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl193" bibid="bib380" firstref="ref262"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl194" bibid="bib578" firstref="ref263"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl195" bibid="bib577" firstref="ref264"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl196" bibid="bib134" firstref="ref265"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl197" bibid="bib648" firstref="ref269"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl198" bibid="bib133" firstref="ref270"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl199" bibid="bib282" firstref="ref271"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl200" bibid="bib136" firstref="ref274"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl201" bibid="bib162" firstref="ref276"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl202" bibid="bib689" firstref="ref277"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl203" bibid="bib690" firstref="ref278"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl204" bibid="bib636" firstref="ref279"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl205" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref284"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl206" bibid="bib451" firstref="ref285"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl207" bibid="bib201" firstref="ref288"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl208" bibid="bib202" firstref="ref289"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl209" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref290"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl210" bibid="bib179" firstref="ref291"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl211" bibid="bib245" firstref="ref292"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl212" bibid="bib442" firstref="ref293"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl213" bibid="bib701" firstref="ref295"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl214" bibid="bib729" firstref="ref296"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl215" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref297"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl216" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref298"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl217" bibid="bib674" firstref="ref299"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl218" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref300"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl219" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref301"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl220" bibid="bib178" firstref="ref302"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl221" bibid="bib228" firstref="ref303"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl222" bibid="bib532" firstref="ref304"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl223" bibid="bib607" firstref="ref305"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl224" bibid="bib655" firstref="ref306"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl225" bibid="bib502" firstref="ref307"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl226" bibid="bib236" firstref="ref308"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl227" bibid="bib237" firstref="ref309"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl228" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref310"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl229" bibid="bib252" firstref="ref311"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl230" bibid="bib533" firstref="ref312"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl231" bibid="bib696" firstref="ref313"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl232" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref314"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl233" bibid="bib373" firstref="ref315"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl234" bibid="bib431" firstref="ref316"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl235" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref317"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl236" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref318"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl237" bibid="bib181" firstref="ref319"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl238" bibid="bib182" firstref="ref320"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl239" bibid="bib212" firstref="ref321"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl240" bibid="bib244" firstref="ref322"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl241" bibid="bib257" firstref="ref324"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl242" bibid="bib371" firstref="ref325"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl243" bibid="bib476" firstref="ref326"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl244" bibid="bib612" firstref="ref327"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl245" bibid="bib375" firstref="ref328"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl246" bibid="bib567" firstref="ref329"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl247" bibid="bib291" firstref="ref330"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl248" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref331"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl249" bibid="bib199" firstref="ref332"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl250" bibid="bib238" firstref="ref333"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl251" bibid="bib463" firstref="ref334"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl252" bibid="bib571" firstref="ref335"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl253" bibid="bib638" firstref="ref336"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl254" bibid="bib639" firstref="ref337"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl255" bibid="bib180" firstref="ref338"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl256" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref343"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl257" bibid="bib338" firstref="ref344"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl258" bibid="bib129" firstref="ref345"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl259" bibid="bib328" firstref="ref349"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl260" bibid="bib706" firstref="ref350"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl261" bibid="bib568" firstref="ref351"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl262" bibid="bib570" firstref="ref353"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl263" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref354"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl264" bibid="bib407" firstref="ref355"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl265" bibid="bib704" firstref="ref356"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl266" bibid="bib581" firstref="ref357"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl267" bibid="bib374" firstref="ref359"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl268" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref363"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl269" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref364"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl270" bibid="bib519" firstref="ref367"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl271" bibid="bib631" firstref="ref368"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl272" bibid="bib506" firstref="ref374"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl273" bibid="bib303" firstref="ref375"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl274" bibid="bib153" firstref="ref376"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl275" bibid="bib190" firstref="ref377"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl276" bibid="bib193" firstref="ref379"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl277" bibid="bib594" firstref="ref381"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl278" bibid="bib738" firstref="ref384"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl279" bibid="bib679" firstref="ref385"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl280" bibid="bib304" firstref="ref386"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl281" bibid="bib477" firstref="ref387"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl282" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref388"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl283" bibid="bib564" firstref="ref389"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl284" bibid="bib518" firstref="ref390"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl285" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref391"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl286" bibid="bib242" firstref="ref392"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl287" bibid="bib240" firstref="ref393"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl288" bibid="bib329" firstref="ref394"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl289" bibid="bib440" firstref="ref395"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl290" bibid="bib705" firstref="ref399"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl291" bibid="bib598" firstref="ref401"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl292" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref402"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl293" bibid="bib213" firstref="ref404"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl294" bibid="bib227" firstref="ref405"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl295" bibid="bib628" firstref="ref409"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl296" bibid="bib630" firstref="ref410"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl297" bibid="bib285" firstref="ref415"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl298" bibid="bib441" firstref="ref417"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl299" bibid="bib327" firstref="ref421"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl300" bibid="bib366" firstref="ref422"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl301" bibid="bib290" firstref="ref424"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl302" bibid="bib464" firstref="ref425"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl303" bibid="bib302" firstref="ref426"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl304" bibid="bib246" firstref="ref427"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl305" bibid="bib565" firstref="ref431"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl306" bibid="bib623" firstref="ref432"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl307" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref433"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl308" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref434"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl309" bibid="bib187" firstref="ref435"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl310" bibid="bib489" firstref="ref438"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl311" bibid="bib561" firstref="ref439"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl312" bibid="bib250" firstref="ref440"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl313" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref441"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl314" bibid="bib554" firstref="ref442"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl315" bibid="bib569" firstref="ref443"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl316" bibid="bib596" firstref="ref449"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl317" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref450"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl318" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref451"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl319" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref452"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl320" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref453"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl321" bibid="bib262" firstref="ref454"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl322" bibid="bib263" firstref="ref455"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl323" bibid="bib370" firstref="ref456"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl324" bibid="bib595" firstref="ref457"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl325" bibid="bib737" firstref="ref460"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl326" bibid="bib173" firstref="ref464"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl327" bibid="bib434" firstref="ref465"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl328" bibid="bib288" firstref="ref466"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl329" bibid="bib657" firstref="ref467"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl330" bibid="bib734" firstref="ref468"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl331" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref469"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl332" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref470"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl333" bibid="bib275" firstref="ref471"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl334" bibid="bib579" firstref="ref472"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl335" bibid="bib488" firstref="ref478"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl336" bibid="bib551" firstref="ref479"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl337" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref480"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl338" bibid="bib472" firstref="ref482"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl339" bibid="bib507" firstref="ref487"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl340" bibid="bib417" firstref="ref490"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl341" bibid="bib419" firstref="ref491"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl342" bibid="bib420" firstref="ref492"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl343" bibid="bib602" firstref="ref495"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl344" bibid="bib605" firstref="ref496"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl345" bibid="bib652" firstref="ref497"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl346" bibid="bib653" firstref="ref498"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl347" bibid="bib720" firstref="ref499"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl348" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref500"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl349" bibid="bib163" firstref="ref501"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl350" bibid="bib333" firstref="ref503"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl351" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref508"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl352" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref510"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl353" bibid="bib424" firstref="ref512"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl354" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref513"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl355" bibid="bib306" firstref="ref514"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl356" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref515"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl357" bibid="bib695" firstref="ref516"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl358" bibid="bib699" firstref="ref517"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl359" bibid="bib445" firstref="ref522"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl360" bibid="bib154" firstref="ref524"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl361" bibid="bib235" firstref="ref525"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl362" bibid="bib692" firstref="ref526"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl363" bibid="bib717" firstref="ref527"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl364" bibid="bib184" firstref="ref534"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl365" bibid="bib185" firstref="ref535"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl366" bibid="bib186" firstref="ref536"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl367" bibid="bib497" firstref="ref537"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl368" bibid="bib498" firstref="ref538"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl369" bibid="bib651" firstref="ref540"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl370" bibid="bib670" firstref="ref542"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl371" bibid="bib150" firstref="ref544"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl372" bibid="bib206" firstref="ref545"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl373" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref546"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl374" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref547"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl375" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref548"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl376" bibid="bib169" firstref="ref549"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl377" bibid="bib219" firstref="ref550"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl378" bibid="bib392" firstref="ref552"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl379" bibid="bib401" firstref="ref553"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl380" bibid="bib491" firstref="ref554"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl381" bibid="bib736" firstref="ref555"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl382" bibid="bib289" firstref="ref556"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl383" bibid="bib514" firstref="ref557"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl384" bibid="bib640" firstref="ref558"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl385" bibid="bib641" firstref="ref559"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl386" bibid="bib718" firstref="ref560"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl387" bibid="bib466" firstref="ref561"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl388" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref562"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl389" bibid="bib671" firstref="ref563"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl390" bibid="bib552" firstref="ref564"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl391" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref565"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl392" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref566"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl393" bibid="bib145" firstref="ref567"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl394" bibid="bib231" firstref="ref568"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl395" bibid="bib499" firstref="ref571"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl396" bibid="bib529" firstref="ref572"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl397" bibid="bib536" firstref="ref573"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl398" bibid="bib627" firstref="ref574"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl399" bibid="bib708" firstref="ref575"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl400" bibid="bib340" firstref="ref580"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl401" bibid="bib342" firstref="ref581"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl402" bibid="bib345" firstref="ref582"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl403" bibid="bib721" firstref="ref583"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl404" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref584"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl405" bibid="bib323" firstref="ref587"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl406" bibid="bib351" firstref="ref589"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl407" bibid="bib352" firstref="ref590"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl408" bibid="bib470" firstref="ref594"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl409" bibid="bib732" firstref="ref596"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl410" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref597"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl411" bibid="bib166" firstref="ref601"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl412" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref605"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl413" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref606"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl414" bibid="bib205" firstref="ref607"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl415" bibid="bib372" firstref="ref615"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl416" bibid="bib557" firstref="ref618"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl417" bibid="bib509" firstref="ref623"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl418" bibid="bib211" firstref="ref634"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl419" bibid="bib725" firstref="ref637"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl420" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref647"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl421" bibid="bib727" firstref="ref648"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl422" bibid="bib735" firstref="ref649"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl423" bibid="bib189" firstref="ref650"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl424" bibid="bib192" firstref="ref651"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl425" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref655"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl426" bibid="bib191" firstref="ref656"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl427" bibid="bib654" firstref="ref664"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl428" bibid="bib155" firstref="ref665"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl429" bibid="bib344" firstref="ref666"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl430" bibid="bib558" firstref="ref668"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl431" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref669"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl432" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref670"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl433" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref677"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl434" bibid="bib609" firstref="ref680"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl435" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref681"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl436" bibid="bib614" firstref="ref686"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl437" bibid="bib334" firstref="ref690"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl438" bibid="bib433" firstref="ref691"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl439" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref694"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl440" bibid="bib310" firstref="ref696"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl441" bibid="bib505" firstref="ref698"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl442" bibid="bib382" firstref="ref706"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl443" bibid="bib693" firstref="ref709"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl444" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref710"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl445" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref711"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl446" bibid="bib248" firstref="ref713"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl447" bibid="bib283" firstref="ref714"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl448" bibid="bib350" firstref="ref715"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl449" bibid="bib354" firstref="ref716"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl450" bibid="bib414" firstref="ref718"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl451" bibid="bib545" firstref="ref719"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl452" bibid="bib415" firstref="ref722"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl453" bibid="bib663" firstref="ref723"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl454" bibid="bib284" firstref="ref727"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl455" bibid="bib300" firstref="ref728"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl456" bibid="bib353" firstref="ref729"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl457" bibid="bib446" firstref="ref730"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl458" bibid="bib539" firstref="ref731"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl459" bibid="bib622" firstref="ref733"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl460" bibid="bib733" firstref="ref734"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl461" bibid="bib198" firstref="ref738"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl462" bibid="bib229" firstref="ref739"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl463" bibid="bib397" firstref="ref741"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl464" bibid="bib432" firstref="ref742"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl465" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref743"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl466" bibid="bib452" firstref="ref744"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl467" bibid="bib277" firstref="ref746"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl468" bibid="bib225" firstref="ref749"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl469" bibid="bib297" firstref="ref751"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl470" bibid="bib661" firstref="ref752"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl471" bibid="bib376" firstref="ref753"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl472" bibid="bib555" firstref="ref754"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl473" bibid="bib453" firstref="ref759"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl474" bibid="bib457" firstref="ref760"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl475" bibid="bib525" firstref="ref762"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl476" bibid="bib402" firstref="ref764"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl477" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref768"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl478" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref769"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl479" bibid="bib412" firstref="ref770"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl480" bibid="bib643" firstref="ref771"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl481" bibid="bib593" firstref="ref772"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl482" bibid="bib613" firstref="ref773"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl483" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref775"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl484" bibid="bib301" firstref="ref776"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl485" bibid="bib271" firstref="ref777"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl486" bibid="bib272" firstref="ref778"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl487" bibid="bib645" firstref="ref780"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl488" bibid="bib299" firstref="ref781"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl489" bibid="bib331" firstref="ref783"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl490" bibid="bib694" firstref="ref784"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl491" bibid="bib625" firstref="ref785"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl492" bibid="bib363" firstref="ref786"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl493" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref787"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl494" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref790"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl495" bibid="bib678" firstref="ref794"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl496" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref803"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl497" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref806"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl498" bibid="bib273" firstref="ref809"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl499" bibid="bib274" firstref="ref810"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl500" bibid="bib339" firstref="ref811"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl501" bibid="bib580" firstref="ref821"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl502" bibid="bib656" firstref="ref825"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl503" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref830"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl504" bibid="bib356" firstref="ref846"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl505" bibid="bib158" firstref="ref847"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl506" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref851"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl507" bibid="bib658" firstref="ref854"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl508" bibid="bib157" firstref="ref859"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl509" bibid="bib330" firstref="ref860"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl510" bibid="bib688" firstref="ref862"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl511" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref863"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl512" bibid="bib385" firstref="ref864"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl513" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref866"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl514" bibid="bib239" firstref="ref868"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl515" bibid="bib635" firstref="ref869"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl516" bibid="bib538" firstref="ref872"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl517" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref873"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl518" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref874"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl519" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref877"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl520" bibid="bib253" firstref="ref878"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl521" bibid="bib471" firstref="ref879"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl522" bibid="bib504" firstref="ref880"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl523" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref884"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl524" bibid="bib649" firstref="ref886"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl525" bibid="bib378" firstref="ref887"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl526" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref888"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl527" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref890"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl528" bibid="bib170" firstref="ref891"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl529" bibid="bib384" firstref="ref894"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl530" bibid="bib278" firstref="ref896"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl531" bibid="bib588" firstref="ref899"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl532" bibid="bib633" firstref="ref906"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl533" bibid="bib396" firstref="ref908"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl534" bibid="bib394" firstref="ref909"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl535" bibid="bib479" firstref="ref910"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl536" bibid="bib197" firstref="ref913"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl537" bibid="bib214" firstref="ref918"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl538" bibid="bib517" firstref="ref923"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl539" bibid="bib349" firstref="ref925"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl540" bibid="bib270" firstref="ref933"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl541" bibid="bib390" firstref="ref934"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl542" bibid="bib584" firstref="ref937"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl543" bibid="bib322" firstref="ref939"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl544" bibid="bib574" firstref="ref942"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl545" bibid="bib308" firstref="ref945"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl546" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref951"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl547" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref954"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl548" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref955"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl549" bibid="bib650" firstref="ref959"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl550" bibid="bib255" firstref="ref961"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl551" bibid="bib215" firstref="ref963"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl552" bibid="bib731" firstref="ref965"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl553" bibid="bib615" firstref="ref966"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl554" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref971"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl555" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref974"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl556" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref975"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl557" bibid="bib164" firstref="ref976"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl558" bibid="bib174" firstref="ref977"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl559" bibid="bib307" firstref="ref978"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl560" bibid="bib313" firstref="ref979"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl561" bibid="bib336" firstref="ref980"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl562" bibid="bib404" firstref="ref981"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl563" bibid="bib411" firstref="ref982"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl564" bibid="bib483" firstref="ref985"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl565" bibid="bib485" firstref="ref986"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl566" bibid="bib618" firstref="ref987"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl567" bibid="bib619" firstref="ref988"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl568" bibid="bib680" firstref="ref989"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl569" bibid="bib682" firstref="ref990"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl570" bibid="bib685" firstref="ref991"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl571" bibid="bib691" firstref="ref992"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl572" bibid="bib722" firstref="ref993"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl573" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref996"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1468457 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+L%2E+Share%22">David L. Share</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Research+Quarterly%22"><i>Reading Research Quarterly</i></searchLink>. 2025 60(2). – 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: 51 – 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+Comprehension%22">Reading Comprehension</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Fluency%22">Reading Fluency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Instruction%22">Reading Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Processes%22">Reading Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Strategies%22">Reading Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Writing+Relationship%22">Reading Writing Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Pluralism%22">Cultural Pluralism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnic+Diversity%22">Ethnic Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Rate%22">Reading Rate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Morphemes%22">Morphemes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Alphabets%22">Alphabets</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Orthographic+Symbols%22">Orthographic Symbols</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emergent+Literacy%22">Emergent Literacy</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/rrq.603 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0034-0553<br />1936-2722 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: In this essay, I outline some of the essential ingredients of a universal theory of reading acquisition, one that seeks to highlight commonalities while embracing the global diversity of languages, writing systems, and cultures. I begin by stressing the need to consider insights from multiple disciplines including neurobiology, cognitive science, linguistics, socio-cultural, and historical inquiry, although my major emphasis is on a writing systems approach. A theme common to several of these perspectives is the need to attain a level of word reading speed and effortlessness necessary to overcome the severe limitations of human (sequential) information processing thereby allowing the reader to devote maximum cognitive resources to comprehension. I then present the "Combinatorial Model"--a universal theory of learning to read based on the fundamental principle of spoken and written language combinatoriality. This principle ("infinite ends from finite means") makes it possible for children to learn how to decipher (i.e., decode), combine and chunk/unitize a limited and learnable set of rudimentary (typically meaningless) elements such as letters, aksharas, syllabograms, and character components into a nested hierarchy of meaningful higher-order units such as morphemes and words that can be recognized instantly and effortlessly via rapid parallel processing of their constituent elements. Combinatoriality enables an orthography to provide "learnability" and "decipherability" for the novice reader (via "phonological transparency") as well as unitizability and automatizability for the expert (via morphemic transparency). I then elaborate on the (i) dual nature of this model and the "unfamiliar-to-familiar/novice-to-expert" framework, (ii) the unit/s of unitization, and (iii) the dual nature of writing. I liken the development of reading to a tree that grows both upwards and outwards. Vertical growth can be thought of as a universal 3-phase progression from "sub-morphemic," through "morpho-lexical," to "supra-lexical" phases in which later-developing phases do not replace earlier phases but are added in a nested combinatorial hierarchy. Outward growth is conceptualized as a process of knowledge "arborization"--ongoing refinement, elaboration, and diversification. I conclude by noting that, despite important recent advances, our knowledge of learning to read in non-European and non-alphabetic systems is still in its infancy. Current research is over-reliant on English--an outlier orthography--together with a handful of Roman-script Western European languages. This has led reading science to neglect many issues of global significance such as homography, tone, diacritics, visual complexity, non-linearity, linguistic distance, multilingualism, multiscriptism, and more. An appreciation of the specifics of the particular language (or languages) and orthography (or orthographies) a child is learning to read "within the broader context of global linguistic, orthographic, and cultural diversity" is crucial not only for a deeper understanding of learning to read a specific language but for a truly global non-ethnocentric science of reading. – 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: EJ1468457 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468457 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/rrq.603 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 51 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Reading Comprehension Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Fluency Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Instruction Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Strategies Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Writing Relationship Type: general – SubjectFull: Cultural Pluralism Type: general – SubjectFull: Ethnic Diversity Type: general – SubjectFull: Reading Rate Type: general – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach Type: general – SubjectFull: Morphemes Type: general – SubjectFull: Alphabets Type: general – SubjectFull: Written Language Type: general – SubjectFull: Orthographic Symbols Type: general – SubjectFull: Emergent Literacy Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Blueprint for a Universal Theory of Learning to Read: The Combinatorial Model Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: David L. Share IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 04 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: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading Research Quarterly Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
