Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 175–195 | Cite as

The influence of the morphological structure of words on the dynamics of handwriting in adults and fourth and sixth grade children

  • Pauline QuémartEmail author
  • Eric Lambert


Grapheme and syllable units have been shown to influence the dynamics of handwriting in adults and children, but the influence of morphemes remains to be clarified. We tested the ability of French-speaking adults and fourth and sixth grade children to process the morphological structure of words during writing. They were asked to copy three types of words on a digitizer: morphologically complex words, morphologically simple words matched for the bigram at the syllabic boundary, and morphologically simple words matched for the bigram at the morphemic boundary. Latencies were shorter for morphologically complex words than for simple words only in adults. Requiring individuals to process morphological structure increased the time taken to write the letter before a morphemic boundary in adults and sixth graders. In contrast, fourth graders wrote the letter before the syllabic boundary more quickly for complex words than for simple words. These results indicate that words are represented in a decomposed form in the lexicon, and that the morphological structure of words regulates the dynamics of handwriting.


Handwriting Morphology Copy task French 



We thank France Loury (University of Poitiers, France) for her help in data collection, and the children and university students who participated in this study. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers whose comments/suggestions helped improve and clarify this manuscript.


  1. Afonso, O., Suárez-Coalla, P., González-Martín, N., & Cuetos, F. (2017). The impact of word frequency on peripheral processes during handwriting: A matter of age. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1275713.
  2. Alamargot, D., Chesnet, D., Dansac, C., & Ros, C. (2006). Eye and pen: A new device for studying reading during writing. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 287–299.Google Scholar
  3. Álvarez, C. J., Cottrell, D., & Afonso, O. (2009). Writing dictated words and picture names: Syllabic boundaries affect execution in Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 205–223.Google Scholar
  4. Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 232.Google Scholar
  5. 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(4), 390–412.Google Scholar
  6. Badecker, W., Hillis, A., & Caramazza, A. (1990). Lexical morphology and its role in the writing process: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 35(3), 205–243.Google Scholar
  7. 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 Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141–163.Google Scholar
  8. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A., et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 652–666.Google Scholar
  9. Beyersmann, E., Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2012). Morphological processing during visual word recognition in developing readers: evidence from masked priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(7), 1306–1326.Google Scholar
  10. Beyersmann, E., Cavalli, E., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2016). Embedded stem priming effects in prefixed and suffixed pseudowords. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20(3), 220–230.Google Scholar
  11. Bonin, P., & Fayol, M. (2002). Frequency effects in the written and spoken production of homophonic picture names. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(3), 289–313.Google Scholar
  12. Bonin, P., Laroche, B., & Perret, C. (2016). Locus of word frequency effects in spelling to dictation: Still at the orthographic level! Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 1814–1820.Google Scholar
  13. Burani, C., Marcolini, S., & Stella, G. (2002). How early does morpholexical reading develop in readers of a shallow orthography? Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 568–586.Google Scholar
  14. Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Villa, G., & Romani, C. (1987). The role of the Graphemic Buffer in spelling: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 26(1), 59–85.Google Scholar
  15. Carlisle, J. F. (1987). The use of morphological knowledge in spelling derived forms by learning-disabled and normal students. Annals of Dyslexia, 37(1), 90–108.Google Scholar
  16. Carlisle, J. F. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 189–209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2016). Morphemes matter: How morphological knowledge contributes to reading and writing. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 265–282). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 428–449.Google Scholar
  19. Casalis, S., & Louis-Alexandre, M. F. (2000). Morphological analysis, phonological analysis and learning to read French : A longitudinal study. Reading and Writing, 12, 303–335.Google Scholar
  20. Colé, P., Bouton, S., Leuwers, C., Casalis, S., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2012). Stem and derivational suffix processing during reading by French second and third graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(1), 97–120.Google Scholar
  21. Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2006). This turnip’s not for turning: Children’s morphological awareness and their use of root morphemes in spelling. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 567–575.Google Scholar
  22. Deacon, S. H., Whalen, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2011). Do children see the danger in dangerous? Grade 4, 6, and 8 children’s reading of morphologically complex words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 467–481.Google Scholar
  23. Delattre, M., Bonin, P., & Barry, C. (2006). Written spelling to dictation: do irregularity effects persist on writing durations? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1330–1340.Google Scholar
  24. Forster, K., & Forster, J. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). A review of handwriting research: Progress and prospects from 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 7–87.Google Scholar
  26. Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). A dual-route approach to orthographic processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 54.Google Scholar
  27. Hamstra-Bletz, L., & Blöte, A. W. (1993). A longitudinal study on dysgraphic handwriting in primary school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(10), 689–699.Google Scholar
  28. Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1989). The Graphemic buffer and attentional mechanisms. Brain and Language, 36(2), 208–235.Google Scholar
  29. Kandel, S., Álvarez, C. J., & Vallée, N. (2006a). Syllables as processing units in handwriting production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 18–31.Google Scholar
  30. Kandel, S., Álvarez, C. J., & Vallée, N. (2008). Morphemes also serve as processing units in handwriting production. In M. Baciu (Ed.), Neuropsychology and cognition of language behavioral, neuropsychological and neuroimagingstudies of spoken and written language (pp. 87–100). Kerala, India: Research Signpost.Google Scholar
  31. Kandel, S., Peereman, R., Grosjacques, G., & Fayol, M. (2011). For a psycholinguistic model of handwriting production: Testing the syllable-bigram controversy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(4), 1310–1322.Google Scholar
  32. Kandel, S., & Perret, C. (2015). How does the interaction between spelling and motor processes build up during writing acquisition? Cognition, 136, 325–336. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.014.Google Scholar
  33. Kandel, S., Soler, O., Valdois, S., & Gros, C. (2006b). Graphemes as motor units in the acquisition of writing skills. Reading and Writing, 19(3), 313–337.Google Scholar
  34. Kandel, S., & Spinelli, E. (2010). Processing complex graphemes in handwriting production. Memory & Cognition, 38(6), 762–770.Google Scholar
  35. Kandel, S., Spinelli, E., Tremblay, A., Guerassimovitch, H., & Álvarez, C. J. (2012). Processing prefixes and suffixes in handwriting production. Acta Psychologica, 140(3), 187–195.Google Scholar
  36. Kandel, S., & Valdois, S. (2006a). French and Spanish-speaking children use different visual and motor units during spelling acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 531–561.Google Scholar
  37. Kandel, S., & Valdois, S. (2006b). Syllables as functional units in a copying task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 432–452.Google Scholar
  38. Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. K. (2012). Children’s morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 389–410.Google Scholar
  39. Kuo, L.-J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.Google Scholar
  40. Lambert, E., Kandel, S., Fayol, M., & Espéret, E. (2008). The effect of the number of syllables on handwriting production. Reading and Writing, 21(9), 859–883.Google Scholar
  41. Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A lexical database from French readers. Behavioral Research Methods, Intruments and Computers, 36(1), 56–166.Google Scholar
  42. Longtin, C.-M., Segui, J., & Hallé, P. A. (2003). Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(3), 313.Google Scholar
  43. Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Tyler, L. K., Waksler, R., & Older, L. (1994). Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. Psychological Review, 101(1), 3–33.Google Scholar
  44. Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school in English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(3), 304–330.Google Scholar
  45. Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. P. (2013). Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  46. Olive, T. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 173–194.Google Scholar
  47. Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2002). Concurrent activation of high- and low-level production processes in written composition. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 594–600.Google Scholar
  48. Orliaguet, J.-P., & Boë, L.-J. (1993). The role of linguistics in the speed of handwriting movements: Effects of spelling uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 82(1), 103–113.Google Scholar
  49. Pacton, S., & Deacon, S. H. (2008). The timing and mechanisms of children’s use of morphological information in spelling: A review of evidence from English and French. Cognitive Development, 23(3), 339–359.Google Scholar
  50. Pacton, S., Foulin, J.-N., Casalis, S., & Treiman, R. (2013). Children benefit from morphological relatedness when they learn to spell new words. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 696.Google Scholar
  51. Peereman, R., Lété, B., & Sprenger-Charolles, L. (2007). Manulex-infra: Distributional characteristics of grapheme–phoneme mappings, and infralexical and lexical units in child-directed written material. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 579–589.Google Scholar
  52. Pontart, V., Bidet-Ildei, C., Lambert, E., Morisset, P., Flouret, L., & Alamargot, D. (2013). Influence of handwriting skills during spelling in primary and lower secondary grades. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 818.Google Scholar
  53. Purcell, J. J., Turkeltaub, P. E., Eden, G. F., & Rapp, B. (2011). Examining the central and peripheral processes of written word production through meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–16.Google Scholar
  54. Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Colé, P. (2011). The role of form and meaning in the processing of written morphology: A priming study in French developing readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 109(4), 478–496.Google Scholar
  55. Quémart, P., Casalis, S., & Duncan, L. G. (2012). Exploring the role of bases and suffixes when reading familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence from French young readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(5), 424–442.Google Scholar
  56. Rapp, B., Purcell, J., Hillis, A. E., Capasso, R., & Miceli, G. (2015). Neural bases of orthographic long-term memory and working memory in dysgraphia. Brain, 139(2), 588–604.Google Scholar
  57. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8), 942–971.Google Scholar
  58. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1090–1098.Google Scholar
  59. Rey-Debove, J. (1984). Le domaine de la morphologie lexicale [Lexical Morphology]. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 45, 3–19.Google Scholar
  60. Roman, A. A., Kirby, J. R., Parrila, R. K., Wade-Woolley, L., & Deacon, S. H. (2009). Toward a comprehensive view of the skills involved in word reading in Grades 4, 6, and 8. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 96–113.Google Scholar
  61. Roux, S., McKeeff, T. J., Grosjacques, G., Afonso, O., & Kandel, S. (2013). The interaction between central and peripheral processes in handwriting production. Cognition, 127(2), 235–241.Google Scholar
  62. Sangster, L., & Deacon, S. H. (2011). Development in children’s sensitivity to the role of derivations in spelling. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 133–139.Google Scholar
  63. Sausset, S., Lambert, E., & Olive, T. (2013). Flexibility of orthographic and graphomotor coordination during a handwritten copy task: effect of time pressure. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 866.Google Scholar
  64. Sausset, S., Lambert, E., Olive, T., & Larocque, D. (2012). Processing of syllables during handwriting: Effects of graphomotor constraints. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(10), 1872–1879.Google Scholar
  65. Sénéchal, M. (2000). Morphological effects in children’s spelling of French words. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 76–86.Google Scholar
  66. Service, E., & Turpeinen, R. (2001). Working memory in spelling: Evidence from backward typing. Memory, 9, 395–421.Google Scholar
  67. Singson, M., Mahony, D., & Mann, V. (2000). The relationship between reading ability and morphological skills: Evidence from derivational suffixes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 219–253.Google Scholar
  68. Soler, O., & Kandel, S. (2012). A longitudinal study of handwriting skills in pre-schoolers: The acquisition of syllable oriented programming strategies. Reading and Writing, 25, 151–162.Google Scholar
  69. Taft, M. (2015). The nature of lexical representation in visual word recognition. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treimain (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 99–113). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Taft, M., & Forster, K. I. (1976). Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(6), 607–620.Google Scholar
  71. Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology on children’s spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(1), 141–170.Google Scholar
  72. Van der Plaats, R. E., & van Galen, G. P. (1990). Effects of spatial and motor demands in handwriting. Journal of Motor Behavior, 22(3), 361–385.Google Scholar
  73. Van Galen, G. P. (1991). Handwriting: Issues for a psychomotor theory. Human Movement Science, 10(2–3), 165–191.Google Scholar
  74. Verhoeven, L., & Carlisle, J. F. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Morphology in word identification and word spelling. Reading and Writing, 19(7), 643–650.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Poitiers, Université de Tours, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage (UMR 7295)Poitiers Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations