Content uploaded by Trelani F. Milburn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Trelani F. Milburn on Apr 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
First Language
2014, Vol. 34(2) 178 –197
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0142723714525945
fla.sagepub.com
FIRST
LANGUAGE
Relationships between
preschoolers’ oral language
and phonological awareness
Kathleen Hipfner-Boucher
University of Toronto, Canada
Trelani Milburn
University of Toronto, Canada
Elaine Weitzman
The Hanen Centre, Canada
Janice Greenberg
The Hanen Centre, Canada
Janette Pelletier
University of Toronto, Canada
Luigi Girolametto
University of Toronto, Canada
Abstract
This study examines the relationship between complex oral language and phonological
awareness in the preschool years. Specifically, the authors investigate the relationship
between concurrent measures of oral narrative structure (based on measures of both
story retell and generation), and measures of blending and elision in a sample of 89
children between 4 and 6 years of age. A hierarchical linear regression was conducted
to determine whether oral narrative structure explained unique variance in skill in
Corresponding author:
Kathleen Hipfner-Boucher, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, 160-500
University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1V7.
Email: k.hipfner.boucher@utoronto.ca
525945FLA0010.1177/0142723714525945First LanguageHipfner-Boucher et al.
research-article2014
Article
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 179
blending and elision over and above that explained by vocabulary and after controlling
for a number of factors known to contribute to phonological awareness outcomes
(age, nonverbal reasoning ability, phonological memory, letter knowledge, word
reading). The results of the study support the authors’ hypothesis of an association
between narrative structure and phonological awareness, and between vocabulary and
phonological awareness. The findings are interpreted within a theoretical framework
that posits that common structural and processing demands underlie oral narrative
discourse and phonological awareness.
Keywords
Emergent literacy, oral narrative discourse, phonological awareness, vocabulary
The emergent literacy framework is predicated on the assumption that children come to
the formal school setting with knowledge, skills, and attitudes that set the stage for the
eventual mastery of conventional forms of literacy (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Teale &
Sulzby, 1986; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Researchers identify two statistically dis-
tinct strands of knowledge that emerge in the preschool years to support the acquisition
of conventional literacy (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
[NICHD] Early Child Care Research Network, 2005). The first of these is a range of
code-related skills comprising awareness of the conventions of print, alphabet knowl-
edge, letter and name writing ability, letter-sound knowledge, and phonological aware-
ness (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). Previous research
attests to the wide variety of home language and literacy experiences that promote these
skills (Levya, Reese, & Wiser, 2011; Sparks & Reese, 2012).
There is general agreement that emergent literacy skills are implicated in the initial
print-driven phase of literacy acquisition (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000; National
Early Literacy Panel [NELP], 2008). In particular, the critical role played by phonologi-
cal awareness in the acquisition of decoding skill has received considerable attention in
the empirical literature (Ehri et al., 2001; Share, 1995; Torgesen et al., 1999). Phonological
awareness refers to the ability to attend to, isolate, and manipulate the sound structure of
oral language (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Research demonstrates a progres-
sion in the order in which children acquire phonological awareness, such that awareness
of larger speech segments (words, syllables) precedes awareness of smaller segments
(onset-rimes, phonemes) (Goswami, 1999; Lonigan, Burgess, Anthony, & Baker, 1998;
Schuele & Boudreau, 2008).
The second strand of knowledge emerging in the preschool years that supports con-
ventional literacy is oral language. Oral language encompasses receptive and expressive
vocabulary, knowledge of morpho-syntax, and narrative discourse, defined as the ability
to understand and tell stories (Pellegrini & Galda, 1993). Research has demonstrated a
predictive relationship between preschool oral language skills and reading comprehen-
sion in the middle elementary grades, by which time decoding skills are typically well on
their way to becoming automated and reading shifts from a predominantly print-driven
180 First Language 34(2)
endeavor to a meaning-making endeavor (Griffin, Hemphill, Camp, & Wolf, 2004;
NELP, 2008; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
It is widely acknowledged among researchers that code-related skills that emerge
in the preschool years are anchored in oral language (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001;
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). In
particular, growth in phonological awareness has been linked to growth in vocabulary
in preschool children (Carroll, Snowling, Hulme, & Stevenson, 2003; Lonigan, 2007;
McDowell, Lonigan, & Goldstein, 2007). The lexical restructuring model has been
proposed to account for this relationship. The model posits that phonological repre-
sentations become more fully specified as breadth of vocabulary increases in order to
avoid confusion of similar sounding lexical items (Metsala, 1999). Beyond vocabu-
lary, however, relatively little is known about the specific oral language skills that
support the development of phonological awareness in the early years. This gap in the
research literature was noted in the NELP’s (2008) report, leading the authors to rec-
ommend more ‘careful study’ (p. 78) of the role of a broader range of oral language
skills in early reading development. The recommendation was motivated by research
evidence suggesting that preschool complex oral language skills, such as narrative
discourse skills, have more substantial predictive relations with both decoding and
reading comprehension in the initial learning-to-read phase than does vocabulary. In
the present study, we sought to determine whether a similar relationship existed at an
earlier point in the development of reading. Therefore, we investigated whether a
particular preschool complex oral language competency (i.e., oral narrative discourse)
predicted concurrent phonological awareness outcomes, after controlling for a num-
ber of variables known to contribute to skill in phonological awareness. Specifically,
we aimed to determine whether narrative story structure explained variance in skill in
blending and elision, over and above that explained by vocabulary. Knowledge of the
ways specific complex oral language competencies support the emergence of phono-
logical awareness could potentially enhance our understanding of the processes that
drive the development of reading in its earliest stages. Moreover, an understanding of
the possible interplay between particular aspects of complex oral language and pho-
nological awareness in the preschool years could directly inform early childhood edu-
cational and clinical practice.
From a theoretical perspective, the work of Bialystok (1986, 1993, 1999) provides a
framework to support an association between narrative story structure and phonological
awareness. The framework is premised on two assumptions: (a) that metalinguistic
awareness is continuous with children’s developing language proficiency, an assumption
corroborated by empirical data (e.g., Chaney, 1992; Farrar, Ashwell, & Maag, 2005); and
(b) that common underlying cognitive processes, referred to as representational analysis
and cognitive control, support all language use (Bialystok, 1993). Representational anal-
ysis refers to the ability to represent the structure of language; cognitive control refers to
the ability to attend to relevant aspects of a representation in problem solving. These
processes work in tandem to enable children to progress along the language continuum
from simple, contextualized conversation, to complex decontextualized discourse, to the
highly analyzed language that is required for metalinguistic tasks (Bialystok, 1999).
Phonological awareness tasks, which require children to selectively attend to the sound
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 181
structure of language while disregarding meaning, place particularly high demands on
both representational analysis and cognitive control.
Storytelling, like phonological awareness, requires selective attention to structure
insofar as successful storytelling is dependent on the narrator’s attention to story struc-
ture (McKeough, Tourigny, Bird, & Romaine, 2008). In the research literature, attention
to story structure is assessed in terms of the narrator’s ability to incorporate the discrete
elements of story grammar (e.g., character, setting, problem, resolution) into a storytell-
ing to produce an organizationally coherent whole that adequately conveys the temporal
sequencing of actions and events and the causal relationships among them (Mandler &
Johnson, 1977; Stein, 1982; Stein & Albro, 1997). Thus, it is possible that children’s nar-
rative skill reflects their awareness of large-segment, discourse-level language structure.
Furthermore, the emergence of narrative discourse skill precedes that of phonological
awareness (Roth, 2009; Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). This developmental progression, in
conjunction with their structural parallels and common processing demands, raises the
possibility that large-segment awareness implied by narrative skill may contribute to the
emergence of awareness of the smaller sound segments of language tapped by tasks of
later developing phonological awareness. The influence of larger-segment awareness on
later developing smaller-segment awareness has been demonstrated in the literature
within the domain of phonological awareness (Goswami, 1999; Lonigan et al., 1998;
Schuele & Boudreau, 2008). It has also been demonstrated empirically across the
domains of vocabulary and phonological awareness (e.g., Metsala, 1999; Walley,
Metsala, & Garlock, 2003). We propose a similar influence across the domains of narra-
tive discourse and phonological awareness.
A relatively small body of research has examined the interrelationships between broad
measures of oral language and phonological awareness in the years prior to formal read-
ing instruction (Chaney, 1992, 1994; Cooper, Roth, Speece, & Schatschneider, 2002;
Lonigan et al., 2000; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Snow, Tabors,
Nicholson, & Kurland, 1995). For example, Chaney (1992, 1994) found that perfor-
mance on the Preschool Language Scale, a standardized, comprehensive test of receptive
and expressive language, predicted concurrent scores on a composite phonological
awareness measure in a sample of typically developing 3-year-old children. Working
with a slightly older sample, Cooper et al. (2002) reported that kindergarten general oral
language skill, a composite made up of expressive and receptive vocabulary, syntax, and
morphology, accounted for significant, unique variance in scores on a concurrent meas-
ure of phonological awareness comprising blending and elision. In a large-scale study
conducted by the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2005), a comprehensive
measure of language examining skill in syntax, morphology, vocabulary, and communi-
cative ability was administered to children at 36 months of age. Performance on the
comprehensive language measure was found to predict phonological awareness, as
measured by a word completion task, at 54 months.
Taken together, these studies provide preliminary evidence that preschool oral lan-
guage may exert a significant influence on the development of phonological awareness.
However, since composite measures tapping a broad range of oral language skills were
used, it is difficult to tease apart the contribution of component skills. In addition, because
vocabulary was a component of the composite measures used in some of these studies,
182 First Language 34(2)
little clear evidence is available to quantify the contribution of complex oral language to
the development of phonological awareness, over and above the well-documented con-
tribution of vocabulary. To date, we are aware of only two studies that have examined the
relation between phonological awareness and complex oral language competency. In a
study involving verbally precocious infants and toddlers, Dale, Crain-Thoreson, and
Robinson (1995) found that mean length of utterance (MLU) of a spontaneous language
sample at 24 months predicted outcomes on a phoneme deletion task at 4.5 years.
Similarly, Farrar et al. (2005) found that among typically developing preschoolers, MLU
at 27 months was significantly correlated with rhyme awareness at 4 years, after control-
ling for vocabulary. Taken together, these studies suggest that grammatical complexity
may be implicated in the development of phonological awareness.
Recently, research has examined the predictive relationship between preschool narra-
tive discourse, and concurrently developing skill in phonological awareness. Narrative
discourse represents an important domain of complex oral language that has been shown
to relate to general academic and reading achievement in older children, as well as to
early mathematical ability (Cain & Oakhill, 1996; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999;
Feagans & Appelbaum, 1986; Griffin et al., 2004; Justice, Bowles, Pence, & Gosse,
2010; O’Neill, Pearce, & Pick, 2004). In the research literature, one of two procedures is
typically used to elicit an oral narrative. In story retell, an experimenter narrates a story
before requiring the child to retell the same story. In story generation (or storytelling)
children are instructed to compose their own story based on a prompt, a series of illustra-
tions, or a wordless picture book. The results reported in the current study are based on
both story retell and generation tasks.
A relatively small body of empirical work has examined the relationship between nar-
rative discourse and phonological awareness in the preschool years (Kendeou, van den
Broek, White, & Lynch, 2009; Lynch et al., 2008; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Tabors,
Roach, & Snow, 2001). In their study, Tabors et al. (2001) reported a small but significant
correlation between narrative production and a composite emergent literacy measure that
included phonological awareness. Storch and Whitehurst (2002) used structural equation
modeling to map the relationship between performance on an oral language measure
comprised of receptive and expressive vocabulary and narrative retell, and a measure of
print-related skills that included word segmentation and rhyme identification. Their final
model posited direct, concurrent paths between oral language and code-related skills in
pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. More recently, Lynch et al., (2008) found small but
statistically significant correlations between the accuracy of responses to comprehension
questions, a measure of narrative discourse comprehension, and initial sound recognition
in their sample of 4-year-old preschool children. Finally, Kendeou et al. (2009) reported
that at age 4, oral language skills (a composite comprised of receptive vocabulary and
narrative retell) predicted a significant proportion of variance in initial sound recogni-
tion. Taken together, these studies provide evidence of a potential association between
narrative discourse and phonological awareness in the years preceding formal literacy
instruction. However, with the exception of the Lynch et al. (2008) study, they use com-
posite measures that fail to isolate the specific contribution of narrative discourse. This
limitation highlights the need for more research in this area. The purpose of the present
study, therefore, was to investigate the relationship between measures of oral narrative
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 183
discourse and phonological awareness. To do so, hierarchical linear regression was used
to examine associations among concurrent measures of vocabulary, narrative story struc-
ture derived from oral narrative retell and narrative generation tasks, and blending and
elision among a sample of 4- and 5-year-old children.
The current study
The study asked whether oral language abilities contribute to the prediction of skill in pho-
nological awareness. We assessed 4- and 5-year-old children’s expressive vocabulary and
narrative discourse skill, as well as skill in blending and elision. Blending involves combin-
ing discrete units of sound to create words. Elision involves deleting discrete units of sound
from words to create new words. Two narrative retells measures were used, one standard-
ized, the other experimental. An experimental narrative generation measure was also admin-
istered. The decision to assign narrative as an independent variable and phonological
awareness as the dependent variable was based on empirical considerations. First, since
previous research has demonstrated an effect of segment size on the development of phono-
logical awareness (Schuele & Boudreau, 2008), we expected larger-segment, discourse-
level awareness to support the emergence of smaller-segment phonological awareness.
Second, the direction of influence between oral language and code-related emergent literacy
skills has been argued to flow from the former to the latter since oral language skills develop
earlier than code-related skills (Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Indeed, previous studies that
examined the relationship between narrative discourse and phonological awareness have
assumed this direction of influence (Kendeou et al., 2009; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
However, it is important to keep in mind that the direction of the relationship could be oppo-
site to that which is proposed and remains to be determined by future research.
Based on the results of previous studies relating narrative discourse and phonological
awareness (e.g., Kendeou et al., 2009; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002), we hypothesized that
a specific aspect of kindergarten narrative discourse (story structure) would make a sig-
nificant contribution to the prediction of concurrent skill in blending and elision. Story
structure is captured in scores reflecting the inclusion of story grammar elements in a
narration. More specifically, it was hypothesized that children’s ability to incorporate the
elements of story grammar into their narrations would account for variance in outcomes
on tasks of blending and elision, over and above vocabulary.
Method
Participants
A total of 89 children (47 females) between 46 and 71 months (M = 57.83, SD = 6.52)
participated in the study. The children were part of a larger research project examining
the efficacy of a professional development program for preschool educators. This study
enrolled 129 children. Twenty-eight children were excluded from the current analysis
because their parents reported that a language other than English was heard and spoken
most often by the child in the home, three were excluded because they were in childcare
for the full day, and nine were excluded because they did not tell all three stories.
184 First Language 34(2)
The data reported in this study were collected in late fall, prior to the program implemen-
tation. The study received necessary ethical approval prior to the commencement of
recruitment of subjects. Informed consent to participate was received from the parents of
all children and verbal assent was received from each child at the time of testing. A sum-
mary of the participant characteristics is given in Table 1.
All children were recruited through the childcare centers in which they spent one half
of their day. The other half of their day was spent in junior or senior kindergarten class-
rooms. Junior (JK) and senior kindergarten (SK) programs are publicly funded, play-
based, early learning programs that implement government mandated curricula targeting
specific learning outcomes. Junior kindergarten is intended for 4-year-olds, while senior
kindergarten is intended for 5-year-olds. The educators responsible for recruiting the
children completed a shortened version of the Speech and Language Assessment Scale
(SLAS) (Hadley & Rice, 1993) to evaluate the children’s receptive and expressive lan-
guage skills. All children in the sample received a rating of 3 or above (i.e., normal
development) on the SLAS, indicating typical language development.
As part of the recruitment process, the parents completed a questionnaire requesting
demographic information, including maternal education level and detailed information
about the home language and literacy environment. Maternal education was rated on an
eight-point scale with 0 representing grade 8 or less and 7 a graduate degree. As a meas-
ure of the quality of the home literacy environment, the frequency of shared storybook
reading in the home was included in the preliminary analyses to determine if home lit-
eracy contributed to phonological awareness outcomes. The latter item was scored on a
five-point rating scale with 0 representing not at all, 2 representing four to six times/
Table 1. Summary characteristics of the participants.
Child characteristic Min.–max. M (SD)
Age in months 46–71 57.83 (6.52)
Nonverbal reasoning SS 75–130 102.53 (11.61)
Expressive vocabulary SS 61–145 96.57 (14.76)
Median
Maternal education 0–7 5
Frequency storybook reading 0–4 2
Gender n
Male 42
Female 47
Grade
Junior kindergarten (4 yrs) 45
Senior kindergarten (5 yrs) 44
Home language exposure
English only 49
English + other language 40
Notes: A median maternal education score of 5 corresponds to a 2-year, post-secondary diploma. A median
frequency score of 2 for storybook reading corresponds to four to six times/week.
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 185
week, and 4 representing more than once daily. As well, parents were asked to complete
a book titles recognition task that was adapted from the work of Sénéchal, LeFevre,
Hudson, and Lawson (1996). The task is a measure of parents’ knowledge of children’s
storybooks and is assumed to index child exposure to shared reading in the home
(Sénéchal et al., 1996). Parents were given a list of 52 storybook titles (45 real titles and
17 foils), and were asked to check off the titles that they knew to be real. A score was
calculated by subtracting the number of foils incorrectly identified as real titles from the
number of real titles correctly identified (i.e., total score = number correct – incorrect).
Finally, 45% of parents reported that their child had some exposure to a language other
than English at home. However, all parents identified English as the language their child
heard and spoke the most (i.e., at least 75% and 90% of the time, respectively). The eth-
nic composition of the sample was as follows: 38% Caucasian, 20% Asian, 18% African
heritage, 14% Southeast Asian, 7% Hispanic, and 3% Arabic.
Measures
The children were tested individually on a battery of language and literacy measures in
two separate sessions lasting approximately 30 minutes each. The order of presentation
of the tests within each session was fixed; however, the order in which the two sessions
were conducted was random. Trained research assistants who were blind to the design
and broader goals of the study tested all children in their childcare setting.
Nonverbal reasoning ability. The Matrices subtest of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test,
Second Edition, (KBIT-2) (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) was administered to obtain a
measure of nonverbal intelligence. The test requires children to choose one of five pic-
tures that is associated with a stimulus picture or to complete 2 × 2 analogies presented
in the form of illustrations/figures (e.g., bird is to cage as fish is to aquarium).
Phonological memory. The Memory for Digits subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Pho-
nological Processing (CTOPP) (Wagner et al., 1999) was used as a test of verbal mem-
ory. The experimenter orally presented strings of numbers of increasing length. The
children were asked to repeat them in the order in which they were heard. The strings
ranged in length from two to eight digits.
Alphabet knowledge. The Alphabet Knowledge subtest of the Phonological Awareness
Literacy Screen (PALS) (Invernizzi, Sullivan, Meier, & Swank, 2004) was used to assess
letter-naming ability. The 26 uppercase letters of the alphabet were presented in sequence
in a fixed random order. The children were asked to name the letter.
Word reading. The Word Identification subtest of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test
(Woodcock, 1998) was administered according to standardized procedures. The children
were required to read isolated words of increasing difficulty.
Phonological awareness. Two tests were used to assess phonological awareness. The Pho-
nological Awareness subtest of the Test of Preschool Early Literacy (TOPEL; Lonigan,
186 First Language 34(2)
Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 2007) was administered according to standardized proce-
dures. The test includes measures of blending and elision. The blending task requires
children to combine words (e.g., star + fish), onset-rimes (e.g., h + at, f + ox), or indi-
vidual phonemes (e.g., f + i + sh) spoken by the experimenter to form a single word. For
the elision task, children were asked to repeat a word presented by the experimenter.
They were then required to delete specified units of sound within the word before saying
it again (e.g., saying sunflower without flower, tease without /z/). Scores for phonologi-
cal awareness represent the number of correct responses on the blending and elision
subtests combined. The blending and elision subtests of the Comprehensive Test of Pho-
nological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner et al., 1999) were also administered. The tasks
are similar to their TOPEL counterparts, but the majority of items on both required pho-
neme level analysis. The raw scores of all subtests were combined to create a single
phonological awareness score.
Vocabulary. The Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test – III (Brownell, 2000)
was administered according to standardized procedures. Children were asked to name a
series of illustrations depicting a single object, a category of objects, a single action, or a
category of actions. Scores for expressive vocabulary represent the number of items cor-
rectly named.
Narrative retell. Two narrative retell measures were administered in separate test ses-
sions. One was a standardized test, the other experimental. The standardized test was the
Renfrew Bus Story (Cowley & Glasgow, 1994). This test required that the child look at
a series of 12 pictures illustrating a short story that was read aloud by the examiner. The
child was then asked to retell the story with the support of the illustrations. The child’s
story was audiotaped for later transcription. The Bus Story narratives were awarded an
information score, as per instructions in the test manual. The information score reflected
inclusion of key elements of the story in sequence. Identical procedures were used to
elicit a second retell based on the wordless picture book, Frog, where are you? (Mayer,
1969). A corresponding story script, available on the Systematic Analysis of Language
Transcripts (SALT) website, was used to elicit the retell. Both the story and script were
shortened to 16 illustrations in view of the young age of the participants. A scoring
scheme was created to capture episodic structure. Points were awarded for the inclusion
of specific information reflecting the elements of story grammar. Mention of characters,
settings, internal responses, and reactions was awarded one point. Mention of initiating
events, attempts, and consequences was awarded a maximum of two points. The scoring
scheme appears in Appendix 1.
Narrative generation. Children’s oral narrative skills were also assessed using a story gen-
eration task. In order to elicit a narrative, the children were presented with the wordless
picture book One frog too many (Mayer & Mayer, 1975), which was shortened to 16
pages due to the young age of the children. The children were asked to look carefully at
the pictures in the book, after which they were asked to tell their story. The child’s story
was audio recorded for later transcription by a research assistant. A scoring scheme was
created that was parallel to the scoring scheme for the Frog Retell task (see Appendix 2).
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 187
Transcription and scoring. A research assistant transcribed all narratives using the SALT
software (Miller & Chapman, 2002). Twenty percent were randomly selected and tran-
scribed independently by a second research assistant for reliability purposes. Both
research assistants were blind to the objectives of the study. Inter-rater reliability was
calculated at the word level and utterance boundary level. Reliability was calculated
using the following formula: [number of agreements/(number of agreements + disagree-
ments)] × 100 (Sackett, 1978). The calculation yielded agreement reliability of 86% for
words (n = 2406 words) and 93% for utterance boundaries (n = 451 utterances) for the
Renfrew Bus Story, 87% for words (n = 2273) and 92% for utterance boundaries (n =
437) for the Frog Retell, and 90% for words (n = 2670) and 92% for utterance boundaries
(n = 456) for the Frog Generation.
The narratives were scored for story structure by the first author. Twenty percent were
then randomly selected and rescored by a research assistant for reliability purposes. The
inter-rater reliability for the Renfrew Bus Story was 93%. The corresponding reliabilities
for the Frog Retell and Frog Generation were 93% and 95% respectively.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all dependent and independent variables are presented in
Table 2. Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine potential group differences
in performance on the basis of language status and gender. A series of independent
samples t-tests revealed no statistical differences between children who were exposed
exclusively to English in the home and those who were exposed to English and an
additional language, on any of the dependent or independent variables, ts(87) = −1.27–
.63, ps = .20–.96. Similarly, independent samples t-tests revealed no statistical differ-
ences in outcomes based on gender, ts (87) = −.81–.73, ps = .42–.97. Therefore,
language exposure and gender were not included as control variables in the regression
equations.
Table 3 presents the zero-order correlations of all predictor and outcome variables.
Neither maternal education nor the measure of the home literacy environment (i.e., fre-
quency of storybook reading in the home) correlated significantly with the variables of
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for predictor and outcome variables.
Variable (max.) Min. Max. M (SD)
Nonverbal reasoning (46) 5 27 14.64 (3.85)
Phonological memory (21) 3 16 9.03 (2.46)
Book titles recognition test (45) 0 23 7.60 (6.01)
Alphabet knowledge (26) 2 26 21.43 (6.66)
Word reading (73) 0 60 5.37 (11.21)
Expressive vocabulary (170) 15 84 48.74 (13.29)
Narrative structure (101) 4 75 41.67 (15.55)
Phonological awareness (67) 0 58 25.44 (11.92)
Note: All scores are raw scores.
188 First Language 34(2)
interest. Thus, maternal education and exposure to storybook reading in the home were
excluded from subsequent analyses. The correlation table yielded moderate to strong
correlations between the outcome and all other predictor variables (rs = .30–.63) with the
exception of the titles recognition checklist score, which yielded only a weak correlation
with vocabulary (r = .27). The correlations between phonological awareness and vocabu-
lary (r = .60) and phonological awareness and narrative story structure were particularly
strong (r = .63).
The results of the fixed-order hierarchical regression analysis predicting phonological
awareness are presented in Table 4.1 Age, nonverbal reasoning ability, and the book titles
recognition score were entered first into the regression equation as control variables in
separate steps. Phonological memory, alphabet knowledge, and word reading were
entered in that order in each of the subsequent steps since past research has demonstrated
an association between each of these domains of competency and blending and elision
outcomes (Dickinson, McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Ehri
et al., 2001; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994). Finally, vocabulary and narrative
structure were entered in that order in the final two steps of the equation. The linear
combination of measures was significantly related to phonological awareness, F (7, 81)
= 21.16, p < .001. The model accounted for 65% of the variance. Age, nonverbal reason-
ing, phonological memory, word reading, vocabulary, and narrative story structure pre-
dicted significant portions of the variance in phonological awareness. Vocabulary
accounted for a statistically significant 8% of the variance in phonological awareness
outcomes. Narrative story structure, entered last in the equation, accounted for a further
3.6%. Furthermore, the final beta weights revealed that the story structure score made a
unique contribution to the prediction equation, t = 2.88, p = .002, as did expressive
vocabulary, t = 2.04, p = .05, and word reading, t = 3.81, p = .000. The results of the
regression analysis indicate that in the preschool years, children’s narrative story struc-
ture is uniquely predictive of phonological awareness outcomes over and above the con-
tribution of vocabulary.
Table 3. Pearson product moment correlations between predictor and outcome variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age –
2. MEd −.08 –
3. Frequency SBR −.16 .06 –
4. Book titles recognition .02 .14 .39** –
5. Nonverbal reasoning .48** −.02 −.11 −.00 –
6. Phonological memory .38** .10 .14 .17 .47** –
7. Alphabet knowledge .32** .11 .06 .02 .24* .24* –
8. Word reading .44** .08 −.10 .01 .34** .31** .34** –
9. Vocabulary .42** .13 .16 .27* .35** .40** .34** .27** –
10. Story structure .54** −.12 .03 .15 .47** .34** .27** .23** .67** –
11. PA .55** .06 .12 .10 .56** .50** .30** .54** .60** .63**
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Notes: MEd: maternal education; SBR: shared book reading; PA: phonological awareness.
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 189
Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between vocabulary,
narrative discourse, and phonological awareness at a single point in time in 4- and 5-year-
old children. We hypothesized that children’s larger-segment awareness may support the
emergence of awareness of the smaller sound segments of language tapped by tasks of
phonological awareness. The results of the study supported our hypothesis. In particular,
narrative story structure, a measure that reflected the inclusion of elements of story
grammar in storytelling and retelling, was found to make a significant and unique contri-
bution to concurrent skill in blending and elision, over and above the contribution of
vocabulary, after controlling for a number of relevant variables. Both expressive vocabu-
lary and narrative story structure were shown to account for unique variance in phono-
logical awareness outcomes, suggesting that although the two were strongly intercorrelated
(r = .67), the contribution of each to skill in blending and elision was somewhat distinct.
The results of the current study, therefore, corroborate previous studies relating lexical-
level knowledge to sublexical phonological awareness skills (e.g., Metsala, 1999). At the
same time, they extend previous findings by demonstrating a similar relationship between
discourse-level and sublexical-level skills. To our knowledge, this study is unique in
demonstrating such a relationship and in teasing apart the contributions of lexical and
discourse-level oral language measures to phonological awareness outcomes.
The current findings are consistent with the widely held position that the two strands
of knowledge that comprise emergent literacy, oral language and code-related skills, are
interrelated in the preschool years. More importantly, they indicate that the strong rela-
tionship between preschool complex language and early conventional reading outcomes
suggested by the work of the NELP (2008) may be rooted in a similar relationship between
complex language and the precursor skills of conventional literacy that emerge prior to
formal instruction. In particular, our findings point to the possibility that preschool oral
narrative discourse may play an explanatory role in concurrent skill in phonological
awareness, the precursor skill most closely associated with early reading achievement.
At the same time, our results are consistent with findings of previous studies that
reported a predictive relationship between broad measures of oral language, some of
which included a measure of narrative discourse, and phonological awareness in the
Table 4. Regression analysis summary predicting phonological awareness.
Variable ΔR2βt
Age in months .298** .046 .514
Book titles recognition .007 −.027 −.382
Nonverbal reasoning .118** .172 2.035*
Phonological memory .040* .143 1.785
Alphabet knowledge .006 −.015 −.211
Word reading .062** .295 3.813**
Expressive vocabulary .080** .197 2.035*
Narrative structure .036** .289 2.875**
*p < .05; **p < .01.
190 First Language 34(2)
preschool years (e.g., Cooper et al., 2002; Kendeou et al., 2009; Storch & Whitehurst,
2002). Motivated by the call for ‘careful study’ (NELP, 2008, p. 78) of the role of com-
plex oral language in early reading achievement recommended by the NELP (2008), the
current study extended the work of previous studies by clarifying the relationships among
vocabulary, narrative discourse, and phonological awareness. By examining relation-
ships between specific skills through the use of single-construct measures of oral lan-
guage rather than composite measures that encompass a range of linguistic competencies,
it is possible to draw more fine-grained conclusions about the interplay between particu-
lar components of the two strands of emergent literacy skills.
Knowledge of the ways specific components of complex oral language support the
emergence of phonological awareness has the potential to enhance our understanding of
the processes that drive the development of reading in its earliest stages. Our results sug-
gest that the influence of larger-segment awareness on smaller-segment awareness that
has been demonstrated in the literature within the domain of phonological awareness
(e.g., Schuele & Boudreau, 2008) and across the domains of vocabulary and phonologi-
cal awareness (e.g., Metsala, 1999), may be at work across the domains of narrative
discourse and phonological awareness. Moreover, the contribution of narrative structure
was found to be significant, over and above that of vocabulary. These findings suggest
that a comprehensive model describing the development of emergent literacy skills
should take into account the role of oral language competency at the discourse level, as
well as at the lexical level.
What are the cognitive underpinnings of the relationship between storytelling ability
and phonological processing? It is evident that much more work needs to be done in an
effort to fully answer this question. However, the work of Bialystok (e.g., Bialystok,
1999) provides a useful theoretical framework within which to interpret the results of the
current study. The framework places both storytelling and phonological awareness on the
higher end of the language-use continuum, and suggests that the structural parallels
between the two, in conjunction with the common demands they place on the processing
skills of representational analysis and control of attention, may account for the relation-
ship between them.
An alternative, perhaps complementary, theory that explains the current findings pos-
its that the cognitive processes underlying the two tasks may be largely grounded in
reasoning relating parts to a whole (Devlin, 2000, cited in O’Neill et al., 2004). Tasks
tapping phonological awareness require the child to consider the various components of
the lexical item in isolation (be they syllables, onset-rimes, phonemes), as well as in
relationship to one another. In the case of phonological awareness, the relationship
between the component parts is primarily temporal. Similarly, story (re)telling tasks
require the child to consider the constituent elements of the story (words, utterances,
events) in isolation and in relation to one another. In this case, the relationships govern-
ing the component parts are both temporal and causal. Having identified the parts and the
relation between them, blending and elision tasks, like narrative discourse tasks, require
an aligning of the parts to create a whole. Essential to both is an understanding of the
relationship of the parts to one another and to the whole. Within this explanatory frame-
work, it is not surprising that performance on the task of nonverbal reasoning was found
to make a significant contribution to the prediction equation for phonological awareness
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 191
since the matrices subtest of the KBIT required children to engage in the same part-to-
whole reasoning required by the narrative and phonological awareness tasks.
This explanation is similar to one previously offered in the narrative literature, albeit
in relation to somewhat different data. In discussing the finding that aspects of narrative
competence measured at 3 and 4 years of age predict mathematical ability 2 years later,
O’Neill et al. (2004) evoked the theoretical work of Devlin (2000, cited in O’Neill et al.,
2004) who argued that mathematical reasoning requires, among other things, the ability
to identify the constituent elements of a problem (abstract objects, in this case) and to
follow the temporal and causal relationships among them in order to reach a resolution.
O’Neill et al. (2004) reason, as we do here, that these same abilities underlie narrative
competence and that they are reflected in measures of story structure. We take this argu-
ment one step further and suggest that similar abilities underlie phonological awareness.
While tentative, this explanation of the narrative-phonological awareness connection
opens the door to further research.
Limitations of the study and future research
A number of important limitations of our study must be addressed. First, the small sam-
ple size in the current study precluded investigation of differential patterns of prediction
across the age groups represented in this study. Ouellette and Haley (2013, p. 10) empha-
size the ‘time sensitive nature’ of prediction of phonological awareness. It would be of
interest to explore potential differences in the patterns of prediction between 4- and
5-year-olds on the narrative indices and phonological awareness. Second, the current
study explored relationships among sublexical, lexical and discourse-level units of lan-
guage. It did not, however, consider the contribution of sentence-level skill. Inclusion of
such a measure would have provided additional evidence to support or refute the rela-
tionship between narrative structure and phonological awareness. Future research is
needed to determine the contribution of sentence-level processing relative to narrative
discourse in phonological processing.
A further limitation of the current study relates to its design. Data were collected at a
single point in time. Because of its concurrent nature, the study cannot address the ques-
tion of causality between the variables or determine the direction of the relationship. Our
decision to examine oral language predictors of phonological awareness was motivated
by previous research (e.g., Schuele & Boudreau, 2008; Storch & Whitehurst, 2002).
Given the well-documented reciprocal relationship between vocabulary and phonologi-
cal awareness, we would hypothesize a reciprocal relationship between narrative dis-
course and phonological awareness. However, the direction of the relationship remains
to be confirmed by longitudinal and intervention studies.
Finally, we cannot rule out the possibility that the relationship between narrative
story structure and blending and elision is mediated by a third variable. One possible
candidate is metalinguistic awareness. It may be the case that increases in young chil-
dren’s general ability to objectify and reflect upon language that manifest themselves
in the late preschool period may support the emergence of awareness of its structural
properties, mediating development in both narrative discourse skill and phonological
awareness. Future research could explore this possibility by controlling for
192 First Language 34(2)
metalinguistic awareness using tasks that tap the processes of analysis of representa-
tional structure and cognitive control.
Implications for practice
The results of the current study point to potential implications for home language and
literacy practices and preschool and kindergarten instruction and intervention. They
suggest the importance of providing children with home- and classroom-based lan-
guage and literacy experiences that foster oral narrative competence from an early
age. Previous research indicates the important contribution of oral narrative ability to
literacy achievement in the elementary grades (Kendeou et al., 2009; Nation &
Snowling, 2004; Oakhill & Cain, 2012; Reese, Suggate, Long, & Shaughency, 2010),
and the association between early storytelling ability and later reading comprehension
has been demonstrated in recent studies (Griffin et al., 2004; Paris & Paris, 2003;
Tabors et al., 2001). The findings linking narrative discourse and later reading perfor-
mance underscore the long-term value of creating opportunities for children to both
hear and tell stories. Our findings suggest that the benefits of doing so may be more
immediate. It is possible that teaching children to attend to the elements of story
grammar may promote explicit knowledge of story structure and draw children’s
attention to the structure of language at the level of discourse. This knowledge in turn
may have a facilitative effect on the emergence of awareness of language structure at
the level of words and sounds. Previous research attests to the benefits of storybook
reading as a context within which to develop skills in phonological awareness. In a
study by Korat, Shamir, and Heibal (2013), children whose mothers received guid-
ance on shared reading were shown to make significant progress in phonological
awareness compared to children receiving only regular kindergarten literacy experi-
ences. Future research is needed, however, to determine the precise nature of the
relationship between oral narrative discourse and phonological awareness and to
investigate the potential effects of narrative interventions specifically targeting story
structure on the development of phonological awareness skills.
Funding
The research was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada (Grant #410-2010-0039).
Note
1. Initially, separate, fixed-order hierarchical linear regressions were run, entering one of the
three narrative scores as a predictor in the final step. However, the separate regressions
yielded virtually identical results and were deemed to be redundant. As a consequence, the
three story structure scores were summed, creating a composite narrative story structure score
and a single regression was run.
References
Bialystok, E. (1986). Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness. Child Development, 57,
498–510.
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 193
Bialystok, E. (1993). Metalinguistic awareness: The development of children’s representa-
tions of language. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children:
Development and use (pp. 211–233). London, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child
Development, 70, 636–644.
Brownell, R. (2000). Expressive one word picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
PsychCorp.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (1996). The nature of the relationship between comprehension skill and the
ability to tell a story. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 187–201.
Carroll, J. M., Snowling, M. J., Hulme, C., & Stevenson, J. (2003). The development of phonologi-
cal awareness in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 39, 913–923.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). The language basis of reading and
reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Study of Reading,
3, 331–361.
Chaney, C. (1992). Language development, metalinguistic skills, and print awareness in 3-year-
old children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 485–514.
Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic awareness, and emergent literacy skills
of 3-year-old children in relation to social class. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 371–394.
Cooper, D. H., Roth, F. P., Speece, D. L., & Schatschneider, C. (2002). The contribution of oral
language skills to the development of phonological awareness. Applied Psycholinguistics,
23, 399–416.
Cowley, J., & Glasgow, C. (1994). The Renfrew Bus Story – North American edition. Centreville,
DE: The Centreville School.
Dale, P., Crain-Thoreson, C., & Robinson, N. (1995). Linguistic precocity and the development of
reading: The role of extralinguistic factors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 173–187.
Devlin, K. (2000). The math gene: How mathematical thinking evolved and how numbers are like
gossip. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Poe, M. D. (2003).
The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocab-
ulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 95, 465–481.
Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore, MD: Paul
H. Brookes.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan,
T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250–287.
Farrar, M. J., Ashwell, S., & Maag, L. (2005). The emergence of phonological awareness:
Connections to language and theory of mind development. First Language, 25, 157–172.
Feagans, L., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1986). Validation of language subtypes in learning disabled
children. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78, 358–364.
Goswami, U. (1999). The relationship between phonological awareness and orthographic repre-
sentation in different orthographies. In M. Harris & G. Hatano (Eds.), Learning to read and
write: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 134–156). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Griffin, T. M., Hemphill, L., Camp, L., & Wolf, D. P. (2004). Oral discourse in the preschool years
and later literacy skills. First Language, 24, 123–147.
Hadley, P., & Rice, M. (1993). Parental judgments of preschoolers’ speech and language devel-
opment: A resource for assessment and IEP planning. Topics in Speech and Language, 14,
278–288.
194 First Language 34(2)
Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., Meier, J., & Swank, L. (2004). Phonological awareness literacy
screening. Richmond, VA: University of Virginia Printing and Copying Services.
Justice, L. M., Bowles, R., Pence, K., & Gosse, C. (2010). A scalable tool for assessing children’s
language abilities within a narrative context: The NAP (Narrative Assessment Protocol).
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 218–234.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test – Second Edition. San
Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., White, M. J., & Lynch, J. S. (2009). Predicting reading com-
prehension in early elementary school: The independent contributions of oral language and
decoding skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 765–778.
Korat, O., Shamir, A., & Heibal, S. (2013). Expanding the boundaries of shared book reading:
E-books and printed books in parent-child reading as support for children’s language. First
Language, 33, 504–523.
Levya, D., Reese, E., & Wiser, M. (2011). Early understanding of the functions of print: Parent-
child interaction and preschoolers’ notating skills. First Language, 32, 301–323.
Lonigan, C. J. (2007). Vocabulary development and the development of phonological awareness
skills in preschool children. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.),
Vocabulary acquisition, implications for reading comprehension (pp. 15–31). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and
early reading skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 596–613.
Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., Anthony, J. L., & Baker, T. A. (1998). Development of phonologi-
cal sensitivity in 2- to 5-year-old children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 294–311.
Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C.A (2007). Test of preschool early
literacy. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Lynch, J. S., van de Broek, P., Kremer, K., Kendeou, P., White, M. J., & Lorch, E. P. (2008). The
development of narrative comprehension and its relation to other early reading skills. Reading
Psychology, 29, 327–365.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and
recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Books for Young Readers.
Mayer, M., & Mayer, M. (1975). One frog too many. New York, NY: Dial Books for Young
Readers.
McDowell, K. D., Lonigan, C. J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Relations among socioeconomic status,
age, and predictors of phonological awareness. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 4, 1079–1092.
McKeough, A., Tourigny, E., Bird, S., & Romaine, A. (2008). Research review: Narrative devel-
opment 49–60 months. In L. M. Phillips (Ed.), Handbook of language and literacy develop-
ment: A roadmap from 0–60 months (pp. 1–9). London, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Language
and Literacy Research Network. Retrieved from http://www.theroadmap.ualberta.ca/narra-
tives/research/49-60
Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a func-
tion of vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19.
Miller, J., & Chapman, R. (2002). Systematic analysis of language transcripts. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills con-
tribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27, 342–356.
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 195
National Early Literacy Panel (NELP). (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National
Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Early Child Care Research
Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading.
Developmental Psychology, 41, 428–442.
Oakhill, J. V., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading ability in young readers: Evidence
from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91–121.
O’Neill, D., Pearce, M., & Pick, J. (2004). Preschool children’s narratives and performance on the
Peabody Individualized Achievement Test – Revised: Evidence of a relation between early
narrative and later mathematical ability. First Language, 24, 149–183.
Ouellette, G. P., & Haley, A. (2013). One complicated extended family: The influence of alpha-
betic knowledge and vocabulary on phonemic awareness. Journal of Research in Reading,
36, 29–41.
Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in young children. Reading
Research Quarterly, 38, 36–76.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and lit-
eracy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 162–175.
Reese, E., Suggate, S., Long, J., & Schaughency, E. (2010). Children’s oral narrative and reading
skills in the first 3 years of reading instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 23, 627–644.
Roth, F. P. (2009). Children’s early narratives. In P. Rhyner (Ed.), Emergent literacy and language
development (pp. 153–191). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Sackett, C. (1978). Observing behavior. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics.
Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3–20.
Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J.-A., Hudson, E., & Lawson, P. (1996). Knowledge of picture-books as a
predictor of young children’s vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology,
88, 520–536.
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition.
Cognition, 55, 151–218.
Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P. A., & Kurland, B. F. (1995). SHELL: Oral language and
early literacy skills in kindergarten and first grade children. Journal of Research in Childhood
Education, 10, 37–48.
Sparks, A., & Reese, E. (2012). From reminiscing to reading: Home contributions to children’s
developing language and literacy in low-income families. First Language, 33, 89–109.
Stein, N. (1982). What’s in a story: Interpreting the interpretations of story grammars. Discourse
Processes, 5, 319–335.
Stein, N., & Albro, E. (1997). Building complexity and coherence: Children’s use of goal-
structured knowledge in telling stories. In M. Bamberg (Ed.), Narrative development: Six
approaches (pp. 5–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to read-
ing: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology, 38,
934–947.
Tabors, P. O., Roach, K. A., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy environment final
results. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language (pp.
111–138). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
196 First Language 34(2)
Torgesen, R., Wagner, R., Lindamood, P., Rose, E., Conway, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing
reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and indi-
vidual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–593.
Wagner, R.K., Torgesen, J.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phono-
logical processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable
longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 30, 73–87.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of phonological
processing. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Walley, A. C., Metsala, J. L., & Garlock, V. M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in
the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 5–20.
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development, 69, 848–872.
Woodcock, R. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests – Revised/normative update. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Appendix 1. Story grammar scoring sheet for Frog, where are you? (story retell task).
SG element Acceptable references Score
Character 1 Boy 1
Character 2 Dog 1
Character 3 Frog 1
Setting bedroom/bed/sleeping/one night/next morning 1
Initiating event frog climbed out of jar/got out/jar was empty + boy &
dog wake up & discover frog is gone
2
Internal response Boy wants to find his frog 1
Attempt Boy (and dog) look for frog/call for frog 2
Setting go outside 1
Attempt grabs branches which are not actually branches + they
were deer antlers
2
Character 4 Deer (or any other animal) 1
Consequence boy is carried on deer’s head/picked up + falls over/
pushed over/thrown over a cliff
2
Consequence falls/lands in water/pond/on top of one another (must
mention falling + water/pond/lake/with a splash)
2
Initiating event hears sound/frog 2
Attempt boy quiets dog + looks behind/crawls over/climbs
onto (log/branch/stick)
2
Consequence Boy finds his frog with his family 2
Reaction Frog wants to be boy’s pet/boy is happy to have new pet 1
Hipfner-Boucher et al. 197
SG element Acceptable references Score
Character 1 boy 1
Character 2 dog/turtle 1
Character 3 big frog 1
Character 4 little frog 1
Initiating event boy opens present/pulls out little frog and introduces
him to other animals
2
Internal response big frog is jealous/doesn’t like little frog 1
Attempt tries to hurt little frog/bites little frog 2
Consequence others are angry at big frog 2
Setting pond/boat/raft/playing pirates 1
Attempt big frog kicks little frog into the water 2
Consequence others are angry with big frog 2
Attempt others look for little frog 2
Consequence little frog is not found/others leave/all are sad or angry 2
Setting home/bedroom/bed 1
Initiating event little frog returns 2
Reaction everyone is happy/surprised/all are friends 1
Appendix 2. Story grammar scoring sheet for One frog too many (story generation task).
