pISSN 12631-2840
eISSN 2631-2859
kronos.idiomas@uce.edu.ec
REVISTA KRONOS
INSITUTO ACADÉMICO DE IDIOMAS REVISTA KRONOS
UNIVERSIDAD CENTRAL DEL ECUADOR 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024, pp. 59-75
DOI:
CC BY-NC 4.0 —Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional
© 2023 Universidad Central del Ecuador
Carlos Díaz Ortiz | Universidad Central del Ecuador (Ecuador)
abstract This study centers on second language English learners and their limited vocabulary proficiency. Morpholog-
ical awareness is acknowledged as crucial for developing lexical competence. This review explores the implications of
morphological awareness (structure, analysis, and decoding) on lexical competence (vocabulary breadth, depth, and or-
ganization). The methodology employed is socio-educational, bibliographic, descriptive, and documentary. The transfer
technique facilitated gathering and analyzing relevant bibliographic records. Databases such as ERIC, Scopus, Wiley On-
line Library, ABELL, Google Scholar, university repositories, and international journals were utilized, in turn, manual
filters and keywords enhanced information gathering. Findings demonstrate that morphological awareness significantly
enhances lexical proficiency in English across all dimensions. Grasping inflectional, derivational, and compounded forms
enhances vocabulary breadth, depth, and organization. This awareness aids word recognition, comprehension, relation-
ships, nuances, and meanings. Appreciating morphological patterns assists in word classification and arrangement and
its pivotal role in increasing lexical proficiency benefits vocabulary organization, depth, and breadth. Educators can im-
plement effective teaching techniques, emphasizing inflection, derivation, and lexical compounding, to enhance students'
lexical competence and English proficiency, leveraging the scope of morphological awareness.
Key words Morphological awareness, lexical competence, inflection, derivation, lexical compounding, vocabulary breadth,
vocabulary depth, vocabulary organization, language learning.
fecha de recepción 20/06/2023 fecha de aprobación 28/08/2023
Conciencia morfológica para el desarrollo de la competencia léxica del idioma inglés
resumen Este estudio se centra en los estudiantes de inglés como segunda lengua y su limitado dominio del vocabular-
io. Se reconoce que la conciencia morfológica es crucial para el desarrollo de la competencia léxica. Esta revisión ex-
plora las implicaciones de la conciencia morfológica (estructura, análisis y decodificación) en la competencia lexical
(amplitud, profundidad y organización del vocabulario). La metodología empleada es socioeducativa, bibliográfica, de-
scriptiva y documental. La técnica de transferencia facilitó la recopilación y el análisis de los registros bibliográficos per-
tinentes. Se utilizaron bases de datos como ERIC, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, ABELL, Google Scholar, repositorios
universitarios y revistas internacionales; a su vez, los filtros manuales y las palabras clave mejoraron la recopilación de
información. Los resultados demuestran que la conciencia morfológica mejora significativamente la competencia léxica
en inglés en todas sus dimensiones. La comprensión de las formas flexivas, derivativas y compuestas aumenta la ampli-
tud, profundidad y organización del vocabulario. Este conocimiento facilita el reconocimiento, la comprensión, las rela-
ciones, los matices y los significados de las palabras. Apreciar los patrones morfológicos ayuda a clasificar y ordenar las
palabras, y su papel fundamental en el aumento de la competencia léxica favorece la organización, la profundidad y la
amplitud del vocabulario. Los educadores pueden aplicar técnicas de enseñanza eficaces, haciendo hincapié en la inflex-
ión, la derivación y la composición léxica, para mejorar la competencia léxica de los estudiantes y su dominio del inglés,
aprovechando el alcance de la conciencia morfológica.
palabras clave Genetic Conciencia morfológica, competencia léxica, flexión, derivación, composición léxica, amplitud de
vocabulario, profundidad de vocabulario, organización del vocabulario, aprendizaje de idiomas.
Morphological awareness for the development of
the lexical competence of the English language
60 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS
As a linguistic awareness skill, morphological awareness refers to the capacity to identify
and comprehend the smallest elements of meaning in language (Apel, 2014). This ability
is often seen as a sort of metalinguistic awareness, which entails the capacity to consider
language as a system, according to research (Li & Wu, 2015). Students learning English as
a second language benefit from discerning complex English expressions (Newton, 2018),
improving vocabulary, reading, writing, and overall communication.
The term «ability» here alludes to a metalinguistic capacity to comprehend, con-
sider, and change morphemic qualities, which enables one to expand words into more
intricate and nuanced forms. In contrast to morphological awareness, which involves a
more comprehensive grasp of morphemic aspects in words (Carlisle et al., 2010), mor-
phological knowledge includes an explicit understanding of the meaning of a root word
(Pacheco & Goodwin, 2013). Students that possess morphological awareness abilities
can identify distinctions in meaning between words that have the same root but various
affixes (such as help, helpful, helpless, and unhelpful). Numerous research supports the
idea that morphological awareness is crucial for vocabulary learning, teaching, and gen-
eral reading competency.
ASPECTS OF MORPHOLOGICAL AWARENESS
Research has delved into three aspects of morphological awareness, namely structure, anal-
ysis, and decoding (Deacon et al., 2017; Kuo & Anderson, 2006; Levesque et al., 2021;
MacKay et al., 2017), which offer a basis for comprehending how learners acquire knowl-
edge about the organization and purpose of English language, especially in relation to read-
ing and expanding their vocabulary.
The structure aspect involves understanding the complexity of the writing system and
how spelling affects inflection, derivation, and lexical compounding (Berg et al., 2014).
Analysis, the second aspect, involves dissecting unfamiliar words into free and bound
morphemes (Wagner et al., 2007). Decoding, the third aspect, entails identifying morphe-
mic units in words, pronouncing them, and blending them, combining orthographical and
phonological features in word reading (Levesque & Deacon, 2022; Deacon et al., 2017;
MacKay et al., 2017). Language teachers can gain a better grasp of the facets of morpho-
logical awareness and how they affect the learning of the English language through the
study of these aspects.
Structure
English writing is influenced by morphological information, aiding readers in understand-
ing the writing system (Levesque & Deacon, 2022). Research emphasizes studying word
formation processes, like inflection, derivation, and compounds, as part of morphological
awareness (W. Choi et al., 2018). It involves recognizing morphemes as units of meaning
(Varga et al., 2020), crucial for lexical competence (McCutchen et al., 2022). Lack of un-
derstanding can lead to vocabulary mistakes (Apel, 2014; Brandes & McMaster, 2017).
Recognizing word structure helps correct vocabulary errors, leading to a richer vocabu-
lary (Lubliner & Hiebert, 2011). Morphological awareness is especially beneficial for bi-
lingual students (Lubliner & Hiebert, 2011). Understanding word processes facilitates
effective communication and vocabulary acquisition (Varga et al., 2020). This knowledge
61REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
contributes to their overall morphological awareness, facilitating effective language com-
munication and vocabulary acquisition.
Inflection. Comprehending word structure and meaning is essential (Carlisle, 2000).
Inflection adds morphemes to a word’s root for tense, number, or degree in English (Berns
& Brown, 2010). Understanding English inflection is crucial for morphological awareness
(Hurrel, 2019). It leads to better vocabulary and reading comprehension (Deacon et al.,
2007). Inflectional morphemes change word form and definition, like regular verbs with
tense (e. g., call-called, work-worked) and nouns with plurality (e. g., dog-dogs). Reading
ability correlates with morphological competence (Deacon et al., 2007). Inflectional mor-
phological awareness affects word reading and comprehension (Müller & Brady, 2001;
Rothou & Padeliadu, 2015). Derivational morphology links to decoding and comprehen-
sion. Lack of inflection knowledge leads to errors in sentence structure and meaning.
Derivation. Derivation is vital for morphological awareness (Ke et al., 2021), forming
new words by modifying the base lexeme (e. g., walk, walk-er). It involves adding prefixes
and suffixes to base words (Oz, 2014), strengthening word arrangement and connections.
Derivational morphology aims to create new words with related meanings, being lexical
and less influenced by grammatical context (Deng et al., 2016). Exposure to words like
actuality, typical, and dehumanization enhances morphological knowledge (Kieffer &
Box, 2013), allowing learners to deduce meaning by identifying constituent morphemes.
Derivational morphology in Spanish and English is similar but lacks research in L2 theory
(Deng et al., 2016). Learners must grasp relational, syntactic, and distributional knowl-
edge. Relational morphology recognizes shared morphemes and meanings, while syntactic
morphology identifies suffixes’ syntactic categories (e. g., -th in «length») (Wu & Juffs,
2022). Distributional morphology involves stem-suffix combinations (e. g., -er in «player»)
(Wu & Juffs, 2022).
Errors may occur in vocabulary usage, such as word form confusion and affix misuse
(Kusumawardhani, 2018). Empowering learners with morphological awareness aids efl
instruction (Badawi, 2019), enhancing vocabulary depth and establishing a solid founda-
tion for lexical competence and English language comprehension.
Lexical compounding. Morphemes are small language units with distinct meanings.
Comprehending their combination and rules is crucial for morphological awareness (X.
Sun et al., 2022). Lexical compounding combines words to form new ones (Berns &
Brown, 2010). It’s a common method in many languages, categorized into open, hyphen-
ated, and closed compounds (Berg et al., 2014).
Compounds fall into endocentric and exocentric types (Ten Hacken, 2017). Endo-
centric compounds have a clear head word (e. g., darkroom), while exocentric ones don’t
(e. g., skinhead) (Ten Hacken, 2017). Lexical compounding aids vocabulary development.
It helps understand unfamiliar words and read accurately (Carlisle, 2000; P. D. Liu & Mc-
Bride-Chang, 2010). Errors may occur in word combinations or identifying compounds.
Learning compounding rules enhances language flexibility and expression. Knowing com-
pound patterns improves overall vocabulary usage.
Analysis
Analysis is vital for breaking down lexical items into free and bound morphemes to deduce
meanings (Deacon et al., 2017). Morphological analysis aids vocabulary development, im-
proving writing and speech expression (Nagy, 2014). Lexical categories (open-class) and
functional categories (closed-class) are crucial components of the theory (Kaplan, n.d.).
Students can determine unfamiliar word meanings based on relevant stems and suffixes
(McCutchen & Logan, 2011), enhancing language production through building semantic
networks. English has two main morpheme types: free and bound (Brown et al., 2010).
62 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
Free morphemes stand alone with distinct meanings (e. g., «dog», «run»), while bound
morphemes require attachment (e. g., «re-» in «rearrange», «-ful» in «successful») (Brown
et al., 2010). Analyzing words into their constituent morphemes, free and bound (Wag-
ner et al., 2007), helps language learners see how structural variations result in changes
in meaning, producing lexical units that share a similar one.
Free morphemes. The English morpheme boundaries may have an impact on graph-
eme-phoneme mappings (Levesque & Deacon, 2022). In the words «father» and «fathead»,
for instance, the letters «t» and «h» represent one phoneme in the former and two in the
latter, making it easier to recognize the terms. The identification of word class through
the knowledge of free morphemes plays a crucial role in word formation and lexical com-
petence (Goodwin et al., 2017). «A free base (often called a free morpheme) can stand
on its own».
Free morphemes stand alone, classified into open-classed (nouns, verbs, adjectives,
adverbs) and closed-class (conjunctions, prepositions, determiners) (Coch et al., 2020).
Knowing free morphemes helps form new words by combining them meaningfully (Henry,
2019). Interaction with bound morphemes creates new lexical items, enriching English
vocabulary (Henry, 2019). Understanding word class characteristics expands learners’
vocabulary and language skills (Berninger et al., 2010). Analyzing these morphemes allows
predicting new words and inferring meanings (Coch et al., 2020).
Bound morphemes. Bound morphemes are essential for word formation but cannot
function independently (Brown et al., 2010). They are divided into affixes (inflectional
and derivational) and roots. Inflectional morphemes change grammatical category (e. g.,
‘run’ to ‘ran’ or ‘running’) (Carlisle, 2000), while derivational morphemes create new
words with altered class or meaning (Coch et al., 2020). Understanding their role aids
vocabulary expansion and effective communication.
The analysis of bound morphemes is crucial for enhancing vocabulary development
in English as a second language (Henry, 2019). By analysing the meaning and function
of bound morphemes, language learners can more easily recognize the meaning of lex-
ical items, which can in turn help expand their vocabulary. Additionally, the knowledge
of bound morphemes can help learners to predict the meaning of unfamiliar words and
to identify word relationships and patterns, which can be beneficial for their reading
comprehension skills. In this sense, in accordance with Pastizzo and Feldman (2004)
«Morphologically complex words are composed of multiple morphemes; therefore, some
researchers have proposed that in the course of recognition, a lexical “processor” parses
complex words into constituent morphemes, and that lexical access then proceeds via the
stem» (p. 31). Thus, the analysis of bound morphemes can lead to a more sophisticated
understanding of English language and facilitate its learning.
DECODING
Decoding is vital for morphological awareness, using word structure to accurately pro-
nounce words (Levesque et al., 2017). It aids learners in reading complex lexical items
through written symbol manipulation and identifying phonological patterns (Levesque et
al., 2017). Phonological and orthographic metrics (Deacon et al., 2017; MacKay et al.,
2017) assess word reading progress, forming the referential framework for morphologi-
cal awareness (Levesque & Deacon, 2022). To improve decoding abilities, teachers should
provide tools like transcription, syllabic segmentation, and text-to-speech software (Dea-
con et al., 2017; MacKay et al., 2017).
Children may read more slowly in complex orthographies like English due to chal-
lenging decoding (Varga et al., 2020). Deep orthographies require morphological knowl-
63REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
edge, while shallow orthographies like Spanish have clear spelling-sound links (Varga et al.,
2020). Learners use sound-letter correspondence and morphological structure to decode
words. Phonology and orthography are crucial in decoding (Berninger et al., 2010; Deacon
et al., 2017). Phonological features involve language sound patterns, while orthographical
features refer to word spelling (Berninger et al., 2010). Decoding aids accurate and fluent
reading, improving vocabulary acquisition and comprehension, building a strong foun-
dation for English language proficiency and lexical competence (Berninger et al., 2010).
Phonological features. English is a morphophonemic language, meaning that the sound
of words is influenced by the presence or absence of certain morphemic units. In other
words, English spelling and pronunciation can change based on morphological awareness
factors, such as the knowledge of affixes or word roots (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Pho-
nological features play a crucial role in morphological awareness, especially in the aspect
of decoding in English, which is a morphophonemic language. The sound of words can
be influenced by the presence or absence of certain morphemic units, such as affixes or
word roots (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). Phonological features refer to the sounds of speech,
including phonemes, syllables, stress, and intonation (Berns & Brown, 2010). When learn-
ers decode words at the morpheme level, phonological processes come into play. Stress
patterns, syllable sounds, and speech intonation can all impact how words are pronounced
(Berninger et al., 2010). Additionally, phonological processes like assimilation and deletion
can influence word pronunciation, making it challenging for learners to decode complex
words accurately (Berns & Brown, 2010).
For English, being an alphabetic language, mastering alphabetic orthography in-
volves creating a graphic model of the phonological system and mapping graphemes to
phonemes (Schiff & Calif, 2007). Understanding how phonological processes work and
applying them correctly is crucial for effective decoding of morphologically complex words
(MacKay et al., 2017). Learners who lack decoding skills may make phonological mis-
takes, struggle to recognize syllable boundaries, blend sounds, or stress syllables correctly
(Berninger et al., 2010). This can lead to mispronunciations of words and hinder their
reading comprehension and overall vocabulary development.
Orthographical features. An orthographic feature refers to a specific aspect of spelling,
such as letter arrangement, vowel sounds, or stress patterns (Berns & Brown, 2010). These
features can be understood as the graphical representation of the sounds (graphemes) and
their combinations are crucial to understanding why spelling in English may differ from
pronunciation (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). An example of orthographic features in English
is the representation of vowel sounds such as «a», «e», «i», «o», «u», and «y», as well as
consonant combinations like «th», «sh», «ch», and «ph».
Learners who struggle with decoding may find it challenging to identify and compre-
hend orthographic features, leading to spelling errors (Levesque et al., 2021). For instance,
they might misspell words by omitting or replacing certain letters, such as writing «difer-
ence» instead of «difference» or «separate» instead of «separate». These mistakes are often
a result of not recognizing the specific letter combinations that make up the morphemes
in words. By learning and recognizing common spelling patterns and orthographic fea-
tures (Spalding, 2002), non-native English speakers can better predict how words will be
spelled, leading to more successful decoding and comprehension.
WORD READING
When it comes to morphological awareness, word reading refers to the ability to read un-
familiar words by sounding out the letters and blending the sounds together (Tong et al.,
2017). The process of sight word reading is characterized by the formation of systematic
64 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
visual-phonological connections between spellings and pronunciations of words in mem-
ory, facilitated by the knowledge of letter-sound relations (Tong et al., 2017). It enables
readers to recognize words quickly, without the need for decoding, unless the word is new
to them (Ehri, 2017; Menard & Wilson, 2014). This process is essential in English, as it is
a morphophonemic language where the spelling of words can be quite different from their
pronunciation (Kuo & Anderson, 2006). This skill becomes even more important as the
learner encounters more complex words that contain multiple morphemes, such as «un-
comfortably» or «unpredictable».
LEXICAL COMPETENCE
The term «lexical competence» refers to one’s ability to use and understand language effec-
tively (Rychka & Lisovska, 2022). It encompasses understanding the meaning of words,
their appropriate usage in different contexts, and their interactions within the language
(Zhou & Dai, 2016). Lexical incompetence may lead to misunderstandings and ineffec-
tive communication (Polatovna & Qizi, 2020). Enhancing English lexical competence
involves recognizing and comprehending the form and meaning of words, known as mor-
phological awareness (Spencer et al., 2015). This metalinguistic skill also aids efl learn-
ers in pronouncing complex words correctly, using grapheme-phoneme correspondences
in morphemic units (morphological decoding) (Spencer et al., 2015).
DIMENSIONS OF LEXICAL COMPETENCE
Among three to four dimensions of lexical competency have been posed in the overarch-
ing literature (Chapelle, 1999; Nation, 2001; Qian, 2002; Zareva et al., 2005); however,
this study will only comprise the most important three: vocabulary breadth, vocabulary
depth, and vocabulary organization. The range and diversity of words’ form, meaning and
usage that a student is familiar with is referred to as vocabulary breadth (Rashidi & Khos-
ravi, 2010), whereas vocabulary depth refers to the amount of understanding of each lex-
ical unit, including its many syntactic, semantic, collocational properties, etc. (Rychka &
Lisovska, 2022). The final dimension, vocabulary organization, is how lexical items are
stored, connected, and retrieved in the learner’s mind (Webb, 2020). Knowing these fac-
tors can aid in the methodical development of lexical competence in learners as well as the
construction of more effective teaching methods by teachers.
Vocabulary breadth
Vocabulary breadth involves more than word quantity; it encompasses form, meaning, and
usage (Harkio & Pietilä, 2016; Kezhen, 2015; Ordóñez et al., 2002; Rashidi & Khosravi,
2010). Learners with a wide vocabulary can accurately express thoughts on diverse top-
ics (Qian, 2002; Kezhen, 2015). Expanding vocabulary involves understanding word im-
plications, collocations, and word games (Rashidi & Khosravi, 2010).
Developing a wide vocabulary requires extensive practice and morpheme manipula-
tion (Rashidi & Khosravi, 2010). Learners need to comprehend form-meaning connections
and contextual usage (Schmitt, 2014). Morpheme manipulation aids word inference and
relationship identification, improving language proficiency (Harkio & Pietilä, 2016).
Word form. Word form knowledge encompasses understanding the morphological and
orthographic characteristics of words (Hong et al., 2011). Vocabulary breadth involves
65REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
more than mere memorization; it includes knowledge of both written and spoken forms,
surface meanings, and everyday usage (Leonard & Deevy, 2020). A large vocabulary is
beneficial, but comprehension of word forms and their common applications is critical for
reading fluency, spelling precision, and listening comprehension (Kezhen, 2015).
The aspect of structure in morphological awareness is essential in determining word
forms through the addition of prefixes and suffixes to base words, altering their appearance
and indicating grammatical information (Manolitsis et al., 2017). For example, the suffix
«-s» pluralizes nouns, while the prefix «un-» creates antonyms (e. g., «happy» to «unhap-
py»). The acquisition of word form knowledge is influenced by frequency, regularity,
transparency, and exposure to lexical units (Leonard & Deevy, 2020). Technology-en-
hanced and multimodal learning materials, along with explicit and implicit instruction,
feedback, and practice (Chapelle & Sauro, 2017), can aid learners.
Word meaning. Word meaning is crucial in Vocabulary Breadth, encompassing se-
mantic and pragmatic properties like denotations, connotations, collocations, and figura-
tive uses (Eguchi et al., 2022). A deep understanding of word meaning enables precise
communication, comprehension, and interpretation in different contexts (Webb, 2020).
Breaking down words into morphemes aids in understanding their structure and meaning
derivation (Mussar et al., 2020). Morphological analysis identifies how morphemes com-
bine to form the word’s overall meaning and reveals relationships between words with
shared morphemes.
Various factors influence word meaning acquisition, including word frequency, com-
plexity, learners’ prior knowledge, exposure, and motivation (i. s. p. Nation, 2001). Language
educators can promote word meaning knowledge through pedagogical activities like word
maps, semantic gradients, word associations, and semantic clusters (Eguchi et al., 2022).
Providing feedback and encouraging learners to use new words in their communication and
writing further enhances their word meaning knowledge and vocabulary breadth.
Word usage. Word usage, a crucial aspect of Vocabulary Breadth, involves effective
and appropriate use of words in various contexts and genres (Caro & Mendinueta, 2017).
It encompasses knowledge of collocations, idioms, phrasal verbs, and multi-word units,
along with linguistic characteristics like grammar, syntax, discourse, and register (i. s. p.
Nation, 2001).
Morphological analysis and accurate pronunciation of morpho-phonemic correspon-
dences enhance language proficiency, enabling learners to use lexical items effectively in
English (Webb, 2020). This is especially valuable for second language learners facing un-
familiar words and structures. Word usage proficiency can be developed through exposure
to real-world language input, explicit instruction, feedback, practice, and reflection (Zhou
& Dai, 2016). Language teachers can use various techniques like communicative activi-
ties (Loewen & Sato, 2017), task-based learning, and corpus-based analysis to encourage
learners’ word usage and vocabulary diversity.
Vocabulary depth knowledge
Vocabulary depth, a crucial dimension of lexical competence, involves a deep understanding
of a lexical unit, encompassing its meaning, pronunciation, spelling, frequency, and mor-
phological, syntactic, and collocational features (Rashidi & Khosravi, 2010; Qian, 2002).
Learners with a broad vocabulary are aware of all aspects of a word, including its multi-
ple meanings and relationships with other terms in the language, enabling them to use it
accurately in various situations.
Morphological awareness plays a vital role in developing vocabulary depth. Under-
standing word structure and formation helps learners acquire new words and expand their
vocabulary (Rychka & Lisovska, 2022). Familiarity with roots and affixes allows learners
66 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
to break down words and deduce their meanings, thereby enhancing word comprehension.
To fully increase vocabulary depth knowledge, it is essential to examine phonemic, gra-
phemic, morphemic, syntactic, semantic, and collocational features of lexical units (H.-Y.
Choi, 2013; Qian, 2002). These features can be categorized into two groups (Zareva et
al., 2005): the micro level, which includes phonemic, graphemic, and morphemic features,
and the macro level, covering syntactic, semantic, and collocational features.
Phonemic features. Language learners’ vocabulary depth is significantly influenced by
phonemic elements. The ability to understand spoken language accurately and recognize
word variations like plurals, verb tenses, and word endings, which can dramatically impact
a word’s meaning, depends on the capacity to differentiate between different sounds in
words. Phonological features pertain to the individual sounds and sound characteristics
of words, while lexical features involve the holistic combination of sounds in words and
their resemblance to other words (Farquharson et al., 2014).
Graphemic features. Graphemic elements play a significant role in learners’ acquisition
of a deeper understanding of words, contributing to vocabulary depth. As Venezky (2011)
highlights, there are complexities in the spelling units beyond the basic twenty-six graph-
emes. Learning to detect and decode words using graphemes, the visual representations
of written language, proves beneficial when encountering new terms. Understanding gra-
phemic aspects allows learners to identify spelling patterns, leading to the development of
a larger vocabulary. For example, recognizing common suffixes or prefixes helps students
determine the meaning of novel words, enhancing both depth and breadth of vocabulary
(Cleary, 2014). This knowledge enables learners to swiftly grasp and effectively use new
vocabulary (Spencer et al., 2015), enhancing their comprehension of the reading they
engage in.
Morphemic features. Morphemic characteristics play a fundamental role in vocabulary
depth knowledge, providing the ability to understand the detailed meaning and structure
of words. Morphemes, being the smallest units of meaning in language, allow students to
comprehend more than just the spelling-to-sound relationship; they also aid in identifying
morpheme boundaries (Hurrel, 2019; Venezky, 2011). Understanding the meaning of
prefixes, suffixes, and roots, and how they combine to create new words, is facilitated by
a working knowledge of morphemic characteristics.
Syntactic features. Vocabulary depth knowledge of lexical units is significantly influ-
enced by understanding syntactic features, which govern the arrangement and combina-
tion of words to form sentences (Wu & Juffs, 2022). By grasping how words function
in context and how their meanings can change based on sentence structure, learners can
develop a deeper understanding of syntax and enhance their vocabulary depth knowledge
(Farrow et al., 2020).
Semantic features. The development of vocabulary depth is influenced by the semantic
properties of words, which describe their meaning, category, properties, and relationships
to other words (Robert & Rico Duarte, 2016). Understanding semantic features allows
individuals to communicate ideas more effectively and with greater variety in their writing,
which is especially beneficial for language learners.
Collocational features. Collocations play a crucial role in developing a solid vocabulary
depth knowledge of the English language. They are expressions of words that frequently
occur together and significantly influence the meaning of sentences (Nesselhauf, 2006).
Collocations are characterized by fixedness and commutability, with transparency and
commutability being two key features. Transparency refers to whether the combination’s
elements and the combination itself have a literal or non-literal meaning, while commuta-
bility pertains to whether the substitution of the elements is restricted (Nesselhauf, 2006).
67REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
Vocabulary organization
The systematic storage and representation of words and morphemes in the learner’s brain
through vocabulary organization is a crucial component of English lexical competence.
Some scholars define lexical competence as the organization of lexical units based on the
degree of familiarity (Sevara et al., 2021). Learners with high vocabulary proficiency are
assumed to have dense and more organized networks of words and morphemes, allow-
ing them to quickly locate words and understand word relationships, thus enhancing their
communicative skills (Choudhury, 2015).
Morphology greatly influences the structure of English vocabulary. Morphological
knowledge enables learners to recognize morphemes and understand how they combine
to form new words. This understanding allows learners to systematically classify, and store
words based on their morphological components, leading to more effective and precise
word recall (Schmitt, 2014). For example, knowing the morpheme «-ness» helps learners
grasp the relationship of deadjectival nominalization (e. g., happy-happiness, sad-sadness).
Storage, connection and retrieval. Examining the storage, connection, and retrieval of
lexical items provides a deeper comprehension of vocabulary organization (Chapelle, 1999;
Qian, 2002; Rashidi & Khosravi, 2010). Storage pertains to how words are stored in the
mental lexicon, considering usage frequency, word relationships, and the strength of these
connections (Webb, 2020). Connection refers to the arrangement of words in the mind’s
lexicon, involving associations and relationships (Webb, 2020). Retrieval is the ability to
recall words quickly and accurately from memory (Webb, 2020). Examining these elements
helps researchers understand the intricate network of word and morpheme relationships in
the mental lexicon, influencing vocabulary organization and lexical competence.
Storage. Word storage involves mentally representing and organizing lexical units,
creating semantic networks where words connect based on shared characteristics (Fer-
rer-Xipell, 2020). Relationships among morphological, semantic, and syntactic components
influence this organization (Ferrer-Xipell, 2020). The quantity and accessibility of links
in the semantic network influence the mental lexicon’s arrangement (Holmström et al.,
2016). Word frequency, familiarity, and personal experience impact word organization
and storage. High-frequency words are stored more effectively and accessed faster than
low-frequency words.
Morphological awareness is crucial for word storage as affixes, roots, and stems are
part of a word’s mental representation (Farahian, 2011). Learners aware of morphological
norms can efficiently infer new word meanings and store them (Gabryś-Barker, 2005).
Vocabulary organization differences affect lexical access precision and speed (Pranoto &
Afrilita, 2019). Some rely on holistic storage, while others use an analytical approach,
breaking words down. Individual storage strategies play a role in vocabulary organization.
Connection. To comprehend word connection and its role in vocabulary organization,
semantic networks play a crucial role (Sevara B. et al., 2021). These networks consist of
linked words and ideas in the mind’s vocabulary (Sevara B. et al., 2021). Word associations
are formed based on shared meaning or grammatical characteristics, strengthened through
exposure and use (Ferrer-Xipell, 2020). Students’ cognitive development involves transi-
tioning from simpler syntagmatic associations to more complex paradigmatic connections.
Morphological awareness strengthens word connections in the mental lexicon by
recognizing the morphological structure of words (Gabryś-Barker, 2005). For example,
knowing that «act» denotes action enables understanding words like «action», «actor», and
«react». Recognizing morphological similarities builds a network of related lexical units,
facilitating retrieval and use in spoken and written language (Embick et al., 2021).
Words with similar meanings or frequent use are more tightly connected, enabling
quicker access from the mental lexicon (Choi, 2013). A well-connected vocabulary net-
work allows rapid word access in various contexts, while a poorly linked network may
68 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
lead to slower retrieval and production. Associations are influenced by usage, similarity,
and frequency (Pranoto & Afrilita, 2019). High-frequency words are strongly associated
with others. The exposure to language and how learners interact with lexical forms and
structures influence word connections in the mental lexicon (Holmström et al., 2016).
The strength of relationships between lexical units and ideas depends on the speaker’s
proficiency in both first and second languages.
Retrieval. Word retrieval involves recalling information from the mental lexicon when
encountering a word (Qian, 2002). To enable retrieval, students activate related terms
in the semantic network, starting with word recognition and followed by retrieval (Ga-
bryś-Barker, 2005). Characteristics such as word frequency, familiarity, and contextual
information can impact retrieval speed and accuracy (Cui, 2009). Phonologically-based
linkages in the mental lexicon can hinder fast word retrieval in natural conversation,
leading to non-native-like vocabulary usage. Restructuring the l2 mental lexicon based on
semantic or conceptual associations is crucial to improve retrieval. Interference from other
words or concepts can also affect retrieval (Navarrete et al., 2014). Multiple meanings of
a word may create interference, slowing down retrieval (Webb, 2020).
Context influences word retrieval. A sentence’s context can activate and recall words
syntactically or semantically related to the target word. Morphological awareness aids in
recalling words with similar structures and meanings (Palmovi & Marii, 2008). Efficient
word retrieval is essential for lexical competence, enabling quick and accurate access to
words in various contexts (Ferrer-Xipell, 2020). Vocabulary instruction with word re-
trieval strategies improves retention and usage (Nation, 2015). Understanding the pro-
cesses and factors influencing word retrieval is vital for effective vocabulary training and
enhancing lexical competence in efl learners.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The literature review on morphological awareness and English lexical competency pro-
duced numerous significant findings. To begin with, morphological awareness can be ex-
plained through three distinctive aspects: structure, analysis and decoding (Deacon et al.,
2017; Levesque & Deacon, 2022; MacKay et al., 2017). This framework serves for a fun-
damental understanding of the relationship between lexical competence and morpholog-
ical awareness. Besides, the aspects in which this variable has been circumscribed account
for both production (analysis and decoding) and reception (structure and analysis).
Furthermore, Morphological Awareness and English lexical proficiency consistently
showed a good cross-linguistic association in students’ biliteracy (S. (Echo) Ke et al.,
2021). For instance, one study discovered that children who got specific instruction in
morphology fared better than their classmates on vocabulary exams (Brandes & McMaster,
2017). Similarly, a different study by Varga et al. (2020) discovered that morphological
knowledge positively predicted reading comprehension in both English native speakers and
English as a Second Language (esl) students. Second, consciousness of morphemes might
have a stronger impact on word reading in English. According to one study, children who
got education in morphology enhanced their English vocabulary more than older children
who received the same instruction (Levesque et al., 2021). Besides, explicit teaching in
morphemes may help second language learners. A meta-analysis conducted by Ke et al.
(2021) revealed that morphological training increased esl students’ reading comprehension
and vocabulary development.
Although the results were generally encouraging, there were some contradictions
in the literature. For instance, some research discovered that English native speaker’s
morphological awareness outperforms that of non-natives, yet a study conducted on l2
69REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
learners from a morphologically more complicated l1 unveiled that even with much lesser
ability in the target language, they could exceed native speakers in their understanding of
relational morphology (Wu & Juffs, 2022). Different studies employed different tasks to
test knowledge on word formation knowledge; some used morpheme isolation tasks and
others utilized inflectional tasks (McBride–Chang et al., 2005; Sparks & Deacon, 2015).
The methods employed to measure English lexical proficiency varied as well, with some
research employing vocabulary tests and others using reading comprehension exams.
Morphological analysis and decoding was found to be more strongly associated to middle
school pupils’ reading comprehension than word knowledge in some studies (Deacon et al.,
2017; MacKay et al., 2017). These discrepancies indicate that additional study is required
to fully understand the connection between word structure knowledge and English lexical
competence, taking into consideration various age groups, task kinds, and vocabulary
measures. The results of this research study have major implications for teaching languages.
First, teachers ought to think about include explicit teaching in morpheme conscious-
ness in their curricula (Alsaeedi, 2017; Hurrel, 2019). The link between English lexical
proficiency and morphological analysis is favourable, indicating that education in this area
may improve students’ vocabulary breadth and word reading comprehension abilities (Azad
& Ahmadian, 2021). Second, teachers should be mindful that training along the different
dimensions of morphology may be more beneficial for students. Therefore, while devel-
oping and implementing teaching on morpheme knowledge, greater consideration should
be given to learners (Henry, 2019). Lastly, the results imply that specific morphological
decoding instruction is something that educators should think about doing given the rising
number of esl students in classrooms throughout the world.
There are numerous limitations on the literature review. It is challenging to demon-
strate a causal link between morphological awareness and English lexical proficiency be-
cause many of the research examined were correlational. Further limiting the generalizabil-
ity of the results are some of the studies’ limited sample sizes or concentration on certain
populations. Last but not least, the majority of the studies were carried out in academic
contexts, which might not accurately represent language use in everyday life.
The research review on the relationship between morphological awareness and
English lexical competence concludes by highlighting the significance of knowledge on
morphemes in lexical competence in English and reading overall (Ibrahim Rabadi, 2019;
Spencer et al., 2015). The results imply that morphological structure, analysis, and decod-
ing are crucial skills when it comes to teaching and may increase vocabulary learning and
reading comprehension abilities (Deacon et al., 2017; Levesque & Deacon, 2022; MacKay
et al., 2017). Nonetheless, further research is required to fully comprehend the connection
between morphological awareness and English lexical competence, especially when dif-
ferent age groups, task kinds, and measures of English lexical competence are considered.
CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion of morphological awareness in language teaching can facilitate and hasten
language learning. It is possible to learn and practice morphological analysis techniques to
increase one’s capacity for novel word recognition and analysis, word formation, and vo-
cabulary development. By looking at the structure of unfamiliar lexical units, educators can
also urge children to use their morphological abilities to improve reading comprehension.
efl students can improve their lexical competence and gain a deeper grasp of the subtle-
ties of the English language by means of the development of these skills.
Comprehension of the internal structure of words can greatly increase vocabulary
depth knowledge in a variety of ways. First of all, learners can guess the meaning of ex-
70 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
pressions they don’t know by studying the internal structure of them. Second, it enables
students to identify and evaluate various word forms, which aids in their deeper and more
accurate apprehension of their meaning and usage. Thirdly, word connections, under-
standing word relationships, and word collocations are all made possible by morphological
awareness. An individual’s vocabulary depth knowledge and language command can be
greatly improved by all of these elements. As a result, learners are better able to detect and
produce a wider variety of words when they have a solid understanding of morphological
structure, which includes rules and patterns for word construction such prefixes, suffixes,
and compounding.
By creating meaningful links and paradigms based on morphological relations, mor-
phological structure also helps students organize their vocabulary. For example, realizing
that «-er» creates nouns denoting «someone who does something» enables the creation of
words like «teacher», «writer», or «driver», while the understanding that «un-» signifies
negation can provide insight into words such as «unhappy», «clear», or «unfair».
Morphological analysis can enhance vocabulary knowledge in a variety of ways. At
first glance, by delving into the inner workings of lexical units, it can aid in identifying
and comprehending less frequent lexical items. They will be able to recognize and com-
prehend words they may not have come across before, broadening their vocabulary in the
process. Inferring the meaning of unfamiliar terms using morphological analysis, instead,
enables students to acquire new expressions more rapidly and with less effort. A deeper
knowledge of word form, meaning, and usage in a variety of contexts is facilitated by this
ability. Learners can infer the meaning of words like «impossible» by breaking them down
into their individual morphemes, «im-», «possible», and «-ble». The fact that «happiness» is
made up of the morphemes «happy» and «-ness» also aids students in understanding that
it refers to «the state of being happy».
For efl learners who have difficulty reading and spelling, morphological decoding can be
especially helpful. It can boost recognition, retrieval effectiveness, discrimination, vocabulary
accuracy, and reading fluency; in turn, this aspect enables students to employ morpholog-
ical hints to determine the pronunciation of unknown words, especially in languages with
complicated spelling as English proves to be. This ability is extremely useful for enhancing
word reading and reading comprehension by making use of the particular phonological and
orthographical features. Understanding the structure of morphologically complex lexical
items helps pupils read more quickly and effectively, discriminate between terms that appear
similar but have distinct meanings, organize and retrieve morphemes more effectively in their
mental lexicon, and recognize and understand lexical units more readily.
According to the analysis presented, it has been proved feasible the relationship be-
tween Morphological Awareness and Lexical Competence of the English language through
a set of aspects (structure, analysis, and decoding) in the case of ma, and dimensions
(vocabulary breadth, depth and organization) for lc. Morphological awareness plays a
vital role in enhancing lexical competence by expanding vocabulary breadth and depth,
improving word recognition, comprehension, and organization, and promoting effective
reading strategies. The acquisition of morphological awareness equips learners with a valu-
able set of skills that unlock the potential for a richer and more nuanced understanding of
the English language.
REFERENCES
Ahmed Badawi, M. F. (2019). The Effect of Explicit English Morphology Instruction on
efl Secondary School Students’ Morphological Awareness and Reading Comprehen-
sion. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 166. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p166
71REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
Apel, K. (2014). A Comprehensive Definition of Morphological Awareness: Implications
for Assessment. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(3), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1097/
TLD.0000000000000019
Azad, M. T., & Ahmadian, M. (2021). Comparing the Effect of Morphological Analysis and
Incidental Learning on the Acquisition of toefl Vocabulary, 45(3).
Berg, K., Buchmann, F., Dybiec, K., & Fuhrhop, N. (2014). Morphological spellings in
English. Written Language & Literacy, 17(2), 282-307. https://doi.org/10.1075/
wll.17.2.05ber
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in Phonological,
Orthographic, and Morphological Awareness in Grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholin-
guistic Research, 39(2), 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6
Berns, M. S., & Brown, K. (2010). Concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Elsevier.
Brandes, D. R., & McMaster, K. L. (2017). A Review of Morphological Analysis Strategies on
Vocabulary Outcomes with ells.
Brown, E. K., Barber, A., & Stainton, R. J. (2010). Concise encyclopedia of philosophy of
language and linguistics. Elsevier.
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words:
Impact on reading. 12, 169-190.
Carlisle, J. F., McBride-Chang, C., Nagy, W., & Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of Instruction in
Morphological Awareness on Literacy Achievement: An Integrative Review. Reading
Research Quarterly, 45(4), 464-487. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.4.5
Chapelle, C. A. (1999). Construct definition and validity inquiry in sla research. En L.
F. Bachman & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Interfaces between Second Language Acquisition and
Language Testing Research (1.a ed., pp. 32-70). Cambridge University Press. https://
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524711.004
Chapelle, C. A., & Sauro, S. (Eds.). (2017). The Handbook of Technology and Second Lan-
guage Teaching and Learning (1.a ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118914069
Choi, H.-Y. (2013). Effects of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary Knowledge on English Reading
Comprehension Among Korean High School Students, 49(3), 419-452.
Choi, W., Tong, X., Law, K. K.-S., & Cain, K. (2018). Within- and cross-language contri-
butions of morphological awareness to word reading development in Chinese–English
bilingual children. Reading and Writing, 31(8), 1787-1820. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11145-017-9770-0
Choudhury, A. S. (2015). Second/Foreign Language Lexical Competence: Its Dimensions
and Ways of Measuring it. I-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 5(3),
34-42. https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.5.3.3563
Cleary, A. M. (2014). The Sense of Recognition during Retrieval Failure. En Psychology
of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 60, pp. 77-112). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-800090-8.00003-2
Coch, D., Hua, J., & Landers‐Nelson, A. (2020). All morphemes are not the same: Accuracy
and response times in a lexical decision task differentiate types of morphemes. Journal
of Research in Reading, 43(3), 329-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12306
Cui, Y. (2009). The Development of Lexical Organization in Chinese efl learners at Tertiary
Level. 16, 57-73.
Deacon, S. H., Tong, X., & Francis, K. (2017). The relationship of morphological analy-
sis and morphological decoding to reading comprehension: Morphological Analysis
and Morphological Decoding. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 1-16. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9817.12056
Deng, T., Shi, J., Dunlap, S., Bi, H., & Chen, B. (2016). Morphological knowledge affects
processing of L2 derivational morphology: An event-related potential study. Journal
of Neurolinguistics, 37, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.09.001
72 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
Eguchi, M., Suzuki, S., & Suzuki, Y. (2022). Lexical competence underlying second
language word association tasks: examining the construct validity of response type
and response time measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 112-142.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000164
Ehri, L. C. (2017). Reconceptualizing the Development of Sight Word Reading and Its
Relationship to Recoding. In Reading Acquisition (p. 37). Routledge.
Embick, D., Creemers, A., & Davies, A. (2021). Morphology and The Mental Lexicon. En
The Oxford Handbook of the Mental Lexicon.
Farahian, M. (2011). Mental lexicon: Its organization and representation, 2(4), 56-59.
Farquharson, K., Centanni, T. M., Franzluebbers, C. E., & Hogan, T. P. (2014). Phono-
logical and lexical influences on phonological awareness in children with specific
language impairment and dyslexia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2014.00838
Farrow, J., Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2020). Exploring the unique contributions of
teachers’ syntax to preschoolers’ and kindergarteners’ vocabulary learning. Early Child-
hood Research Quarterly, 51, 178-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.08.005
Ferrer-Xipell, R. (2020). A review of the theories of lexical access and storage in bi-
linguals. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 40(3), 138-147. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2019.07.003
Gabryś-Barker, D. (2005). Gabryś-Barker, D. (2005). Aspects of multilingual storage, pro-
cessing and retrieval. Katowice: Wydawnictwo.
Goodwin, A. P., Petscher, Y., Carlisle, J. F., & Mitchell, A. M. (2017). Exploring the di-
mensionality of morphological knowledge for adolescent readers: Dimensionality of
Morphological Knowledge. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(1), 91-117. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467-9817.12064
Harkio, N., & Pietilä, P. (2016). The Role of Vocabulary Breadth and Depth in Reading
Comprehension: A Quantitative Study of Finnish efl Learners. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 7(6), 1079. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0706.03
Henry, M. K. (2019). Morphemes Matter: A Framework for Instruction, pp. 23-26.
Holmström, K., Salameh, E.-K., Nettelbladt, U., & Dahlgren Sandberg, A. (2016). A de-
scriptive study of lexical organization in bilingual children with language impairment:
Developmental changes. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(2), 178-
189. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2015.1060524
Hong, A. L., Rahim, H. A., Hua, T. K., & Salehuddin, K. (2011). Collocations in Malaysian
English learners’ writing: A corpus-based error analysis. 17.
Hurrel, B. (2019). The Crosslinguistic Role of Morphological Awareness in Reading: A State-
of-the-Art Review. Universitat of Barcelona.
Ke, S. (Echo), Miller, R. T., Zhang, D., & Koda, K. (2021). Crosslinguistic Sharing of
Morphological Awareness in Biliteracy Development: A Systematic Review and
Meta‐Analysis of Correlation Coefficients. Language Learning, 71(1), 8-54. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lang.12429
Kezhen, L. (2015). A Study of Vocabulary Knowledge and Reading Comprehension on efl
Chinese Learners.
Kieffer, M. J., & Box, C. D. (2013). Derivational morphological awareness, academic vo-
cabulary, and reading comprehension in linguistically diverse sixth graders. Learning
and Individual Differences, 24, 168-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.12.017
Kuo, L., & 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
Kusumawardhani, P. (2018). The error analysis of derivational morphology in efl english
narrative compositions. International Journal of Language Education, 22-30. https://doi.
org/10.26858/ijole.v2i1.4857
73REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
Leonard, L. B., & Deevy, P. (2020). Retrieval Practice and Word Learning in Children with
Specific Language Impairment and Their Typically Developing Peers. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 63(10), 3252-3262. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_
JSLHR-20-00006
Levesque, K. C., Breadmore, H. L., & Deacon, S. H. (2021). How morphology impacts
reading and spelling: Advancing the role of morphology in models of literacy devel-
opment. Journal of Research in Reading, 44(1), 10-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9817.12313
Levesque, K. C., & Deacon, S. H. (2022). Clarifying links to literacy: How does morpho-
logical awareness support children’s word reading development? Applied Psycholinguis-
tics, 43(4), 921-943. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716422000194
Li, L., & Wu, X. (2015). Effects of Metalinguistic Awareness on Reading Comprehension
and the Mediator Role of Reading Fluency from Grades 2 to 4. plos one, 10(3),
e0114417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114417
Liu, P. D., & McBride-Chang, C. (2010). What is morphological awareness? Tapping lexi-
cal compounding awareness in Chinese third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology,
102(1), 62-73. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016933
Loewen, S., & Sato, M. (Eds.). (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Instructed Second Lan-
guage Acquisition (1.a ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968
Lubliner, S., & Hiebert, E. H. (2011). An Analysis of English-Spanish Cognates as a Source
of General Academic Language. Bilingual Research Journal, 34(1), 76-93. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15235882.2011.568589
MacKay, E. J., Levesque, K., & Deacon, S. H. (2017). Unexpected poor comprehenders: An
investigation of multiple aspects of morphological awareness: Poor Comprehenders
and Morphological Awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 40(2), 125-138. https://
doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12108
Manolitsis, G., Grigorakis, I., & Georgiou, G. K. (2017). The Longitudinal Contribution
of Early Morphological Awareness Skills to Reading Fluency and Comprehension in
Greek. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1793. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01793
McCutchen, D., & Logan, B. (2011). Inside Incidental Word Learning: Children’s Strategic
Use of Morphological Information to Infer Word Meanings. Reading Research Quar-
terly, 46(4), 334-349. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.003
McCutchen, D., Northey, M., Herrera, B. L., & Clark, T. (2022). What’s in a word? Ef-
fects of morphologically rich vocabulary instruction on writing outcomes among
elementary students. Reading and Writing, 35(2), 325-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11145-021-10184-z
Menard, J., & Wilson, A. M. (2014). Summer Learning Loss among Elementary School
Children with Reading Disabilities. Exceptionality Education International, 23(1).
https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v23i1.7705
Müller, K., & Brady, S. (2001). Correlates of early reading performance in a transparent or-
thography, 14, 757-799.
Mussar, R., Sénéchal, M., & Rey, V. (2020). The Development of Morphological Knowl-
edge and Spelling in French. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 146. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.00146
Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2014). Morphological Knowledge and
Literacy Acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3-12. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022219413509967
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language.
Nation, P. (2015). Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading, 27(1),
136-145.
Nesselhauf, N. (2006). Collocations in a Learner Corpus: Machine Translation, 20(4),
301-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10590-007-9028-8
74 REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Morphological awareness for the development of the lexical competence of the English language
Newton, J. (2018). Teachers as Learners: The Impact of Teachers’ Morphological Aware-
ness on Vocabulary Instruction. Education Sciences, 8(4), 161. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci8040161
Ordóñez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of
vocabulary in two languages: Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(4), 719-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.719
Oz, H. (2014). Morphological Awareness and Some Implications for English Lan-
guage Teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 98-103. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.296
Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Putting Two and Two Together: Middle School
Students’ Morphological Problem-Solving Strategies for Unknown Words. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(7), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1002/JAAL.181
Palmovi, M., & Marii, A. (2008). Mental Lexicon and Derivational Rules. Coll. Antropol.
Pastizzo, M. J., & Feldman, L. B. (2004). Morphological processing: A comparison between
free and bound stem facilitation. Brain and Language, 90(1-3), 31-39. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00417-6
Polatovna, B. N., & Qizi, S. Z. J. (2020). Improving Lexical Competence of B2 Level En-
glish Learners in the Karakalpak Auditorium. Universal Journal of Educational Research,
8(11B), 6082-6090. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082244
Pranoto, B. E., & Afrilita, L. K. (2019). The Organization of Words in Mental Lexicon: Ev-
idence from Word Association Test. teknosastik, 16(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.33365/
ts.v16i1.130
Qian, D. D. (2002). Investigating the Relationship Between Vocabulary Knowledge and
Academic Reading Performance: An Assessment Perspective. Language Learning, 52(3),
513-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00193
Rashidi, N., & Khosravi, N. (2010). Assessing the Role of Depth and Breadth of Vocabulary
Knowledge in Reading Comprehension of Iranian efl Learners, 14(1), 81-108.
Robert, C., & Rico Duarte, L. (2016). Semantic Richness and Aging: The Effect of Number
of Features in the Lexical Decision Task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 45(2),
359-365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9352-8
Rothou, K. M., & Padeliadu, S. (2015). Inflectional morphological awareness and word
reading and reading comprehension in Greek. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(4), 1007-
1027. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000022
Rychka, T. I., & Lisovska, R. K. (2022). Formation of the foreign language lexical competence:
theoretical dimension, pp. 97-99. https://doi.org/10.32843/26636085/2022/43/2.20
Schiff, R., & Calif, S. (2007). Role of Phonological and Morphological Awareness in L2
Oral Word Reading: Role of Phonological and Morphological Awareness. Language
Learning, 57(2), 271-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00409.x
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge: What the Research Shows:
Size and Depth of Vocabulary Knowledge. Language Learning, 64(4), 913-951. https://
doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077
Sevara B., I., Guloza S., R., & Barno A., T. (2021). Development of Lexical Competence in
Students of Higher Educational Institutions, 12(03), 6.
Spalding, P. (2002). Transfer of Skills from Spanish to English: (Report for practitioners,
parents, and policy makers). Office of English Language Acquisition, Language En-
hancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.
Spencer, M., Muse, A., Wagner, R. K., Foorman, B., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., Tighe,
E. L., & Bishop, M. D. (2015). Examining the underlying dimensions of morpho-
logical awareness and vocabulary knowledge. Reading and Writing, 28(7), 959-988.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9557-0
Sun, X., Marks, R. A., Zhang, K., Yu, C.-L., Eggleston, R. L., Nickerson, N., Chou, T.-L., Hu,
X.-S., Tardif, T., Satterfield, T., & Kovelman, I. (2022). Brain bases of English morpho-
75REVISTA KRONOS 4(2), agosto 2023-enero 2024 | pISSN 12631-2840 | eISSN 2631-2859
Díaz C.
logical processing: A comparison between Chinese-English, Spanish-English bilingual, and
English monolingual children, pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13251
Ten Hacken, P. (2017). Compounding in Morphology. En P. Ten Hacken, Oxford Re-
search Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
acrefore/9780199384655.013.251
Tong, X., Tong, X., & McBride, C. (2017). Unpacking the relation between morphological
awareness and Chinese word reading: Levels of morphological awareness and vocab-
ulary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cedpsych.2016.07.003
Varga, S., Pásztor, A., & Steklács, J. (2020). An online instrument assessing the rela-
tionship between morphological structure awareness and reading comprehension
in Hungarian 2-4 graders. İlköğretim Online, 2322-2334. https://doi.org/10.17051/
ilkonline.2020.764232
Venezky, R. L. (2011). The Structure of English Orthography (Vol. 82). Walter de Gruyter.
Wagner, R. K., Muse, A. E., & Tannenbaum, K. R. (Eds.). (2007). Vocabulary acquisition:
Implications for reading comprehension. Guilford Press.
Webb, S. (Ed.). (2020). The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies. Routledge, Taylor &
Francis Group.
Wu, Z., & Juffs, A. (2022). Effects of l1 morphological type on l2 morphological awareness.
Second Language Research, 38(4), 787-812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321996417
Zareva, A., Schwanenflugel, P., & Nikolova, Y. (2005). Relationship Between Lexical
Competence and Language Proficiency: Variable Sensitivity. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 27(04). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050254
Zhou, Y., & Dai, Z. (2016). Empirical Studies on Correlations between Lexical Knowledge
and English Proficiency of Chinese efl Learners in Mainland China over the Past Two
Decades. Journal of Education and Practice.