Content area
Any interaction relaying communication involves language. In view of the communicative nature of reading it would stand to reason that reading should be considered a process of language. Regardless of the apparent self-evidence of this relationship, language and reading are such extensive processes that the points of their relationship are often debated if not completely denied. This study attempts to find specific areas of correlation between reading and listening, the receptive language processes, using semantics and syntax as a common ground in which to make comparisons.
Method. In order to measure the relationship between aural comprehension (listening) and reading ability two specific tests were given to twenty-eight (28) third and fourth grade, students. By administering a shortened form of an Informal Reading Inventory, a student's oral miscues were determined in the reading process. From the data collected, a miscue analysis was conducted to determine a student's appropriate application of syntactic and semantic cues in oral mis-readings. The second test was designed by the author to test a student's aural understanding of semantics and syntax in the listening process. The test, entitled the Receptive Language Test, served to generate student interpretations of specific passages read from the Informal Reading Inventory.
The null hypothesis stated that there would be no significant relationship between a student’s correct interpretation of semantic and syntactic passages in the listening process and his or her correct use of semantics or syntax in oral miscues in reading.
Results. Due to the broad nature of the null hypothesis the variables within the two tests were compared in every possible combination to determine where significant correlations occurred. Of the ten correlations tested by Pearson’s correlation coefficient, five specific relationships were found significant at the .05 level of significance, Strong positive correlations existed in the relationship of semantics to syntax within each respective test. One negative correlation appeared which indicated that while semantic interpretation was high the total number of errors made by students in oral reading was low.
The findings suggest that while correlations appeared in the statistical analysis the general implication of the null hypothesis must be accepted. However, acceptance of the null hypothesis does not imply that students lack the potential for conscious application of language skills in reading. On the contrary, the strongest implication of this study rests in the realization that students do not tend to use their existing intuitive knowledge of word meaning and sentence structure while engaged in the reading process. The implications of this project urge parents and teachers to assist students in identifying reading as a language process wherein language skills can function as a meaningful unit.