Cognitive-Linguistic Profiles Underlying Reading Difficulties Within the Unique Characteristics of Hebrew Language and Writing System

Abstract

While the multiple cognitive deficits model of reading difficulties (RD) is widely supported, different cognitive-linguistic deficits may manifest differently depending on language and writing system characteristics. This study examined cognitive-linguistic profiles underlying RD in Hebrew, characterised by rich Semitic morphology and two writing versions differing in orthographic consistency-a transparent-pointed version and a deep-unpointed version. A two-step cluster analysis grouped 96 s graders and 81 fourth graders based on their phonological awareness (PA), rapid naming (RAN), orthographic knowledge (OK) and morphological-pattern identification (MPI) abilities. Word-reading accuracy and fluency in both writing versions were also examined. The analysis revealed substantial variation in cognitive-linguistic functioning levels, identifying distinct homogeneous profiles at both ages. PA and RAN deficits were most significant across grades. A distinct OK deficit profile emerged among fourth graders, particularly manifested in Hebrew's deep-unpointed script. Moreover, the findings converge on the conclusion that while the phonological deficit is primary and persists over time, its importance is secondary to the main morphological deficit, reflecting a central independent factor in explaining RD in Hebrew. These results support a hybrid-dynamic perspective, emphasising how the relevance of different cognitive-linguistic deficits underlying RD varies with development, influenced by Hebrew's unique orthographic and morphological characteristics.

Keywords: naming; phonological awareness; phonology; reading; reading difficulties.

FIGURE 1

The cognitive‐linguistic performance of the four profiles in the second grade.

FIGURE 2

The cognitive‐linguistic performance of the five profiles in the fourth grade.

FIGURE 3

Differences between the profiles in the accuracy measures in the second grade. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 4

Differences between the profiles in the fluency measures in the second grade. *p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001.

FIGURE 5

Differences between the profiles in the accuracy measures in the fourth grade. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.