Prosodic sensitivity, or the ability to perceive suprasegmental features of speech such as lexical tone in Cantonese and lexical stress in English, has been recognized as an essential component of reading acquisition. However, the specific pathways by which it influences reading comprehension remain unclear. This study evaluates how prosodic sensitivity contributes to reading comprehension in both a first language (L1), Chinese, and a second language (L2), English, through segmental phonological awareness and morphological awareness among bilingual children in Hong Kong. A group of 227 Hong Kong fourth graders was assessed on prosodic sensitivity, segmental phonological awareness, morphological awareness, vocabulary, word reading, and reading comprehension in both L1 and L2, as well as nonverbal intelligence and working memory. Within-language structural equation modeling analyses revealed that Cantonese lexical tone awareness significantly contributed to Chinese word reading via morphological awareness, constituting a morpholexical pathway. Conversely, English prosodic sensitivity significantly contributed to English word reading through segmental phonological awareness, establishing a phonolexical pathway. Word reading within each language significantly predicted reading comprehension. The cross-language model further indicated that Cantonese lexical tone awareness contributed directly to English reading comprehension and indirectly through English phonological awareness and English word reading. In contrast, English prosodic sensitivity significantly contributed to Chinese reading comprehension through Chinese morphological awareness and Chinese word reading. The results underscore the primacy of suprasegmental elements in reading acquisition across languages, highlighting the pivotal roles of morphological awareness in Chinese and segmental phonological awareness in English. These findings suggest that intervention aimed at improving reading skills in bilinguals may consider the contributions of prosodic sensitivity across different linguistic contexts. https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.29792549.
Deng et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: