Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the derivative suffix frequency effect in Spanish speaking children

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the developmental course of the suffix frequency effect and its role in the development of automatic morpho-lexical access. In Spanish, a highly transparent language from an orthographic point of view, this effect has been shown to be facilitative in adults, but the evidence with children is still inconclusive. A total of 90 2nd, 4th and 6th grade children performed a go/no go lexical decision task, with words containing either high or low frequency suffixes. Results showed significant main effects for grade and for derivative suffix frequency, with no interaction between both. This finding suggests that the suffix frequency effect emerges very early in reading development and that its role is well established from the beginning of reading experience, suggesting that sensitivity to suffix frequency can be a good predictor of a child’s ability to internalize orthographic regularities at an early stage. These findings are interpreted in the light of previous evidence paying special attention to orthographic transparency and morpheme regularity in Spanish language.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Different terms are used in the literature to refer to what we call suffix frequency. Some authors employ the term suffix productivity—usually operationalizing it as a type measure. Others employ the term suffix numerosity.

References

  • Abu-Rabia, S., & Taha, H. (2006). Reading in Arabic orthography: Characteristics, research findings and assessment. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 328–331). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez, C. J., Carreiras, M., & Taft, M. (2001). Syllables and morphemes: Contrasting frequency effects in Spanish. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 545–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anshen, F., & Aronoff, M. (1997). Morphology in real time. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marie (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 9–13). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psicholinguistics, 24, 621–635.

  • Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., & Aycock, J. (2007). Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon, 2, 419–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.1-5. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4

  • Berent, I., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English'. Psychological Review, 102, 146–184.

  • Bertram, R., Laine, M., & Virkkala, M. M. (2000a). The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition: Get by with little help from my morpheme friends. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertram, R., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000b). The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 489–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyersman, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: Evidence from masked priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1306–1326.

  • Beyersman, E., Grainger, J., Casalis, S., & Ziegler, J. (2015a). Effects of reading proficiency on embedded stem priming in primary school children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyersman, E., Ziegler, J., & Grainger, J. (2015b). Differences in the processing of prefixes and suffixes revealed by a letter-search task. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 1–14,

  • Burani, C., Bimonte, D., Barca, L., & Vicari, S. (2006). Word morphology and lexical comprehension in Williams Syndrome. Brain and Language, 99, 208–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., Marcolini, S., & Stella, G. (2002). How early does morpho-lexical reading develop in readers of a shallow orthography? Brain and Language, 81, 568–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burani, C., & Thornton, A. M. (2003). The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words. In H. R. Baayen & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 157–208). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J., & Feling, J. (2009). Lexical processing of morphologicallly complex words in elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carreiras, M., Álvarez, C. J., & de Vega, M. (1993). Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 766–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casalis, S., Quémart, P., & Duncan, L. (2015). How language affects children’s use of derivational morphological in visual word and pseudoword processing: Evidence from a cross-language study. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading task. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151–216). London: Academic Press.

  • Corral, S., Ferrero, M., & Goikoetxea, E. (2009). LEXIN: A lexical database from Spanish kindergarten and first-grade readers. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1009–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuetos, F., Rodríguez, B., Ruano, E., & Arribas, D. (2007). Prolec-R: Batería de evaluación de los procesos lectores [Prolec-R. Evaluation battery of reading processes]. Madrid: TEA ediciones.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deacon, S. H., Conrad, N., & Pacton, S. (2008). A statistical learning perspective on children’s learning about graphotactic and morphological regularities in spelling. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(2), 118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Defior, S., Justicia, F., & Martos, F. J. (1996). The influence of lexical and sublexical variables in normal and poor Spanish readers. Reading and Writing, 8(6), 487–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duñabeitia, J. A., Cholin, J., Corral, J., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2010). SYLLABARIUM: An online application for deriving complete statistics for Basque and Spanish orthographic syllables. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 118–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L., & Arribas, D. (2011). Peabody: Test de vocabulario en imágenes. Madrid: TEA ediciones.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. A., Davis, M. H., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2010). Derivational morphology and base morpheme frequency. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 117–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frauenfelder, U. H., & Schreuder, R. (1991). Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. In G. E. Booij & J. van Marie (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology (pp. 165–183). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, A., Kluger, T., Deustch, A., & Forstser, K. (2005). Orthographic structures versus morphologic structure: Principles or lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1293–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giraudo, H., & Grainger, J. (2000). Effects of prime word frequency and cumulative root frequency in masked morphological priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 421–444.

  • Goikoetxea, E. (2005). Levels of phonological awareness in preliterate and literate Spanish-speaking children. Reading and Writing, 18(1), 51–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, J. (2001). Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics, 39(6), 1041–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Järviki, J., Bertram, R., & Niemi, J. (2006). Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 394–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, J. E., García, E., O’Shanahan, I., & Rojas, E. (2010). Do Spanish children use the syllable in visual word recognition in learning to read? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2014). LmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R package version 2.0-6. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lmerTest

  • Laxon, V. J., Coltheart, V., & Keating, C. (1988). Children find friendly words friendly too: Words with many orthographic neighbours are easier to read and spell. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 103–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro, M. (2012). A study of base frequency in Spanish skilled and reading disabled children: All children benefit from morphological processing in defining complex pseudowords. Dyslexia, 18(2), 130–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro, M., Camacho, L., & Burani, C. (2013). Morphological processing in reading disabled and skilled Spanish children. Dyslexia, 19, 178–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro, M., García, C., & Burani, C. (2015a). How orthographic transparency modulates morphological processing in young readers with and without reading disability. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. doi:10.1111/sjop.12213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro, M., Illera, V., & Sainz, J. (2015b). The suffix priming effect in Spanish: Further evidence for an early morpho-orthographic parsing regardless of semantic content. Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1031146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro, M., Sainz, J., & Illera, V. (2015c). The role of derivative suffix productivity in the visual word recognition of complex words. Psicológica, 36, 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lázaro, M., Schreuder, R., & Aceituno, V. (2011). The processing of morphology in children with and without reading disabilities. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 1, 78–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32, 69–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luque, J. L., López-Zamora, M., Álvarez, C. J., & Bordoy, S. (2013). Beyond decoding deficit: Inhibitory effect of positional syllable frequency in dyslexic Spanish children. Annals of Dyslexia, 63(3–4), 239–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writing, 12(3), 191–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, J., & García, M. (2009). ONESC: A data base for orthographic neighbors for Spanish read by children. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 191–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moret-Tatay, M., & Perea, M. (2011). Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 125–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nation, K., Angell, P., & Castles, A. (2007). Orthographic learning via self-teaching in children learning to read English: Effects of exposure, durability, and context. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(1), 71–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoladis, E., & Krott, A. (2007). Words family size and French-speaking children’s segmentation of existing compounds. Language Learning, 57, 201–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunes, T., & Bryant, P. (2009). Children’s reading and spelling: Beyond the first steps. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Duncan, L. (2012). Exploring of bases and suffixes when reading familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence from French young readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 424–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RDevelopmentCoreTeam. (2008). R: A language and environment for statisticalcomputing. R package version 1.1–5. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=lme4.

  • Sainz, J. S. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Spanish. In R. Malatesha & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 151–171). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainz, J. S., & García-Zurdo, R. (2007). Brain correlates of syllable and non-syllable-based word parsing. In S. Vosniadou., D. Kayser., & A. Protopapas (Eds.). Proceedings of EuroCogSci07. The European cognitive science conference (pp. 539–544). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., & Castles, A. (2013). Phonological decoding or direct access? Regularity effects in lexical decisions of Grade 3 and 4 children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 338–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suárez-Coalla, P., & Cuetos, F. (2013). The role of morphology in reading in Spanish-speaking children with dyslexia. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 16, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taft, M. (1994). Interactive-activation as a framework for understanding morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 271–294.

  • Traficante, D. (2012). From graphemes to morphemes: An alternative way to improve reading skills in children with dyslexia. Revista de Investigación en Logopedia, 2, 163–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traficante, D., Marcolini, S., Luci, A., Zoccolotti, P., & Burani, C. (2011). How do roots and suffixes influence reading of pseudowords: A study of young Italian readers with and without dyslexia. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 777–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valera, S. (1990). Fundamentos de morfología [Fundamentals of morphology]. Madrid: Síntesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valera, S. (2005). Morfología léxica: la formación de palabras [Lexical morphology: Word formation]. Madrid: Gredos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venezky, R. L. (2006). Foundations for studying basic processes in reading. In R. Malatesha Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 735–758). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Morphological processing in reading acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(03), 457–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Prediction of the development of reading comprehension: A longitudinal study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This manuscript was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport to the first and third authors. We would like to thank the children, parents, teachers and head of the Colegio del Santísimo Cristo de la Sangre for their help in making this study possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Miguel Lázaro & Javier Sainz

  2. Universidad del País Vasco, San Sebastián, Spain

    Joana Acha

  3. Universidad de Castilla la Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Spain

    Saray de la Rosa & Seila García

Authors
  1. Miguel Lázaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joana Acha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Saray de la Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seila García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Javier Sainz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miguel Lázaro.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 20 kb)

Appendices

Appendix 1: Stimuli of the experiment

Words with HF suffixes

Words with LF suffixes

Simple words

Simple words

Perdedor (looser)

Isleño (islander)

Torneo (tourament)

Dinastía (dynasty)

Secador (dryer)

Hogareño (homelike)

Gacela (gazelle)

Acertijo (riddle)

Nadador (swimmer)

Navideño (Christmas)

Canela (cinnamon)

Almendra (almond)

Jugador (player)

Zarpazo (zarpazo)

Pupila (pupil)

Mazmorra (dungeon)

Aviador (aviator)

Chispazo (spark)

Garrafa (carafe)

Cerámica (ceramics)

Caluroso (warm)

Golpazo (wallop)

Enchufe (plug)

Apéndice (appendix)

Miedoso (scary)

Cochazo (nice car)

Azafrán (saffron)

Libélula (dragon-fly)

Aceitoso (oily)

Pinchazo (prick)

Emblema (emblem)

Cómplice (shill)

Venenosa (poisoning)

Hallazgo (finding)

Meñique (pinky)

Flamenco (flamenco)

Velero (sailing ship)

Noviazgo (engagement)

Maratón (marathon)

Cisterna (tank)

Escudero (squire)

Ligereza (lightness)

Anfibio (amphibian)

Avispa (wasp)

Guerrero (warrior)

Simpleza (simplicity)

Paladar (palate)

Jungla (jungle)

Barbero (barber)

Aspereza (roughtness)

Supremo (suprem)

Talisman (talisman)

Bromista (joker)

Firmeza (firmness)

Penalti (penalty)

Asfalto (asphalt)

Modista (modist)

Belleza (beauty)

Catarro (catarrh)

Calamar (squit)

Taxista (taxi driver)

Tipejo (despicable person)

Nuclear (nuclear)

huracán (hurricane)

Tenista (tennis player)

Bichejo (insect)

Trapecio (trapeze)

Alergia (allergy)

Tubería (pipe)

Melenudo (hairy)

Gamberro (thug)

Bellota (acorn)

Joyería (jewelry)

Forzudo (strong men)

Aguacate (avocado)

Borrego (lamb)

Bollería (pastries)

Orejudo (big-eared)

Polémica (controversy)

Calibre (caliber)

Pseudwords with HF suffixes

Pseudowords with LF suffixes

Simple pseudowords

 

Lerfedor

Esfeño

Porneo

Dinaspia

Semador

Cojareño

Racela

Afertijo

Nasador

Nariseño

Cabela

Aldendra

Lujador

Zartazo

Putila

Maztorra

Amiador

Chisfazo

Gatafa

Cefamica

Taculoso

Golmazo

Enfuge

Alendice

Liecoso

Corrazo

Asatran

Litedula

Aveidoso

Rintazo

Emplema

Contrice

Belenosa

Hañazgo

Metique

Fladenco

Tefero

Vosiazgo

Magaten

Cisperna

Esdutero

Limereza

Antigio

Afista

Guetero

Sintreza

Patalar

Cungla

Barfero

Asdeleza

Sutreno

Tadistan

Troñista

Tirneza

Pefalti

Asdalfo

Nofista

Teñeza

Cadarro

Racamal

Tagista

Pilejo

Nuselar

Hutatan

Teyista

Biyejo

Tratesio

Agergia

Luvería

Neletudo

Gampeto

Betocha

Gojería

Tortuzo

Asuatate

Sorrego

Tolería

Ofejudo

Polejica

Rapibre

Appendix 2: Summary of the statistical output

Reaction time data

Group reference: second graders

Random effects:

Groups

Name

Variance

SD

Participant

(Intercept)

3.119e−02

0.176595

SuffixFreq

 

6.935e−05

0.008328

Words

(Intercept)

1.539e−02

0.124038

Residual

 

6.269e−02

0.250386

Fixed effects:

 

Estimate

SE

df

t value

Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)

7.551e+00

8.133e−02

8.890e+01

92.846

<2e−16***

Group2 (4th)

−2.438e−01

6.522e−02

1.950e+02

−3.738

0.000243***

Group3 (6th)

−3.353e−01

6.403e−02

1.851e+02

−5.236

4.43e−07***

SuffixFreq

−6.279e−02

2.910e−02

7.000e+01

−2.158

0.034399*

Group2: suffixfreq

−1.778e−04

1.944e−02

2.350e+03

−0.009

0.992702

Group3: suffixfreq

−4.049e−03

1.892e−02

2.344e+03

−0.214

0.830553

Group reference: fourth graders

Random effects:

Groups

Name

Variance

SD

Participant

(Intercept)

3.119e−02

0.176595

SuffixFreq

 

6.935e−05

0.008328

Words

(Intercept)

1.539e−02

0.124038

Residual

 

6.269e−02

0.250386

Fixed effects:

 

Estimate

SE

df

t value

Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)

7.307e+00

7.568e−02

6.780e+01

96.560

<2e−16***

Group2 (2nd)

2.438e−01

6.522e−02

1.950e+02

3.738

0.000243***

Group3 (6th)

−9.144e−02

5.715e−02

1.343e+02

−1.600

0.111927

SuffixFreq

−6.297e−02

2.692e−02

5.160e+01

−2.339

0.023221*

Gruop2: SuffixFreq

1.778e−04

1.944e−02

2.350e+03

0.009

0.992702

Gruop3: SuffixFreq

−3.871e−03

1.554e−02

2.221e+03

−0.249

0.803220

Group reference: sixth graders

Random effects:

Groups

Name

Variance

SD

Participant

(Intercept)

3.119e−02

0.176595

SuffixFreq

 

6.935e−05

0.008328

Words

(Intercept)

1.539e−02

0.124038

Residual

 

6.269e−02

0.250386

Fixed effects:

 

Estimate

SE

df

t value

Pr(>|t|)

(Intercept)

7.216e+00

7.364e−02

6.110e+01

97.988

<2e−16***

Group 2 (4th)

9.144e−02

5.715e−02

1.343e+02

1.600

0.112

Group 3 (2nd)

3.353e−01

6.403e−02

1.851e+02

5.236

4.43e−07***

SuffixFreq

−6.684e−02

2.615e−02

4.610e+01

−2.556

0.014*

Group 2: SuffixFreq

3.872e−03

1.554e−02

2.221e+03

0.249

0.803

Group 3: SuffixFreq

4.049e−03

1.892e−02

2.344e+03

0.214

0.831

Error data

Group reference: second graders

Random effects:

Groups

Name

Variance

SD

Participant

(Intercept)

0.783

0.8849

Word

(Intercept)

1.844

1.3579

Fixed effects:

 

Estimate

SE

z value

Pr(>|z|)

(Intercept)

−0.58837

0.54996

−1.070

0.284691

Group 2 (4th)

1.26751

0.33476

3.786

0.000153***

Group 3 (6th)

2.35935

0.34807

6.778

1.22e−11***

SuffixFreq

0.53434

0.20353

2.625

0.008656**

Group 2: SuffixFreq

0.19421

0.09877

1.866

0.062576

Group 3: SuffixFreq

0.10984

0.10716

1.025

0.305386

Group reference: fourth graders

Random effects:

Groups

Name

Variance

SD

Participant

(Intercept)

0.7829

0.8848

Word

(Intercept)

1.8439

1.3579

Fixed effects:

 

Estimate

SE

z value

Pr(>|z|)

(Intercept)

0.67914

0.55056

1.234

0.217375

Group 2 (2nd)

−1.26748

0.33478

−3.786

0.000153***

Group 3 (6th)

1.09181

0.33851

3.225

0.001258**

SuffixFreq

0.72856

0.20615

3.534

0.000409***

Group 2: SuffixFreq

−0.19422

0.09878

−1.866

0.062576

Group 3: SuffixFreq

−0.08437

0.10668

−0.791

0.429026

Group reference: sixth graders

Random effects:

Groups

Name

Variance

SD

Participant

(Intercept)

0.783

0.8849

Word

(Intercept)

1.844

1.3579

Fixed effects:

 

Estimate

SE

z value

Pr(>|z|)

(Intercept)

1.77102

0.55749

3.177

0.00149**

Group 2 (4th)

−1.09188

0.33849

−3.226

0.00126**

Group 3 (2nd)

−2.35936

0.34808

−6.778

1.22e−11***

SuffixFreq

0.64416

0.20992

3.069

0.00215**

Group 2: SuffixFreq

0.08437

0.10667

0.791

0.42900

Group 3: SuffixFreq

−0.10984

0.10717

−1.025

0.30537

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lázaro, M., Acha, J., de la Rosa, S. et al. Exploring the derivative suffix frequency effect in Spanish speaking children. Read Writ 30, 163–185 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9668-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9668-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation