ArticleNPJ science of learning2025
Morphology in children's books, and what it means for learning.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Morpheme knowledge is shaped by information available through orthography.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Can Large Language Models Generate Useful Linguistic Corpora?: A Case Study of the Word Frequency Effect in Young German Readers.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Breaking down complex words into smaller meaningful units (e.g., unhappy = un- + happy), known as morphemes, is vital for skilled reading as it allows readers to rapidly compute word meanings. There is agreement that children rely on reading experience to acquire morphological knowledge in English; however, the nature of this experience has remained unclear. We quantify the morphological information in 1200 popular children's books and offer the first concrete description of how readers may learn affix morphemes through real-life text input. Our account considers the realities of morpheme presentation in natural language, such as the low number of distinct words in which affixes appear and the fact that their identification often requires specialised linguistic knowledge. This theory further accounts for the challenge posed by spelling patterns that may lead to incorrect morphological parsing. We conclude by exploring the implications of our findings for instructional programmes in morphology.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.