Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 15: 439–454, 2002.© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

439

Is sensitivity to rhyme a developmental precursor to sensitivity tophoneme?: Evidence from individuals with Down syndrome

CLÁUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS, MIRELLE FRANÇA MICHALICK &TATIANA CURY POLLOUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

Abstract. This study investigated sensitivity to rhyme and phoneme among readers andnonreaders with Down syndrome (DS) and normally developing children. Three tasks wereadministered to evaluate sensitivity to rhyme and phoneme: a rhyme detection task, an initialphoneme detection task, and a middle phoneme detection task. Results for the normallydeveloping children replicated the results of previous studies suggesting that the ability todetect rhyme is a developmental precursor of the ability to detect phonemes. Although alltasks were very easy for the children who had already started to read, the nonreaders foundthe rhyme detection task significantly easier than either the initial or the middle phonemedetection task. On the other hand, there was scarcely any indication that the individuals withDS found the rhyme detection task easier than either one of the phoneme detection tasks.While all tasks were very difficult for the nonreaders with DS, the DS individuals who hadalready started to read found the rhyme detection task significantly more difficult than boththe initial and the middle phoneme detection tasks.

Key words: Down syndrome, Phoneme detection, Rhyme detection

Introduction

There is increasing evidence that phonological awareness is not an all-or-none phenomenon (e.g., Gough, Larson & Yopp 1995). Instead, phonologicalawareness seems to develop gradually, with awareness of larger phonologicalunits preceding the development of the ability to consciously attend to thephonemic constituents of speech (e.g., Liberman, Shankweiler, Fisher &Carter 1974; Treiman & Zukowski 1991).

This developmental pattern suggests that young children’s sensitivity tolarger phonological units paves the way for the development of phonemeawareness. There is indeed evidence that young children’s sensitivity torhyme predicts their sensitivity to phoneme later on. For example, in Bryant,MacLean, Bradley & Crossland’s (1990) study, sensitivity to rhyme at 4years, 7 months predicted the ability to segment and manipulate phonemesat 5 years, 11 months, even after differences in the children’s intelligence,vocabulary and socioeconomic background were taken into account.

440 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

Morais and his colleagues (e.g., Cary, Morais & Bertelson 1989; Morais1991) have, however, questioned the hypothesis of a developmental connec-tion between young children’s early awareness of larger phonological unitsand their later emerging ability to consciously attend to phonemes. In theiropinion, early forms of phonological awareness, such as the ability to appre-ciate and produce rhymes, and later awareness of phonemes are distinctphenomena that are influenced by different kinds of experience. It is quitepossible, in fact, that the correlation between early awareness of rhyme andlater phoneme awareness results from the fact that both kinds of awarenesspresuppose the ability to pay attention to language structure, as opposed tomeaning, and not so much from the fact that awareness of phoneme developsout of awareness of rhyme.

In support of their point of view, Morais has reported the existence ofilliterate poets who, in spite of being extremely good at detecting and produc-ing rhyme, perform very poorly on tasks of phoneme awareness. Howevercompelling this evidence is, it does not completely invalidate the hypoth-esis of a causal connection between awareness of rhyme and awareness ofphoneme. For example, it is possible that sensitivity to rhyme alone is notsufficient for the development of phoneme awareness. In addition, the tasksthat Morais and his colleagues used to assess illiterate adults’ awarenessof rhyme and phoneme involved very different procedures. While rhymeawareness was measured with rhyme detection tasks, their tasks of phonemeawareness clearly presupposed the ability to segment and manipulate thephonemic constituents of speech. It is thus possible that the dissociation theyfound between their measures of rhyme and phoneme awareness resultedfrom the fact that, in contrast to the measures of rhyme awareness, theirmeasures of phoneme awareness were cognitively very demanding.

More convincing evidence for the independence of phoneme awarenessfrom earlier developing forms of phonological awareness would be theexistence of individuals who perform better on measures of phoneme aware-ness than on measures involving larger phonological units that are usuallyperformed successfully by young, preschool children. The study describedbelow investigated this possibility among individuals with Down syndrome(DS).

There is some indication that exposure to nursery rhymes and languagegames promotes the development of sensitivity to rhyme among youngchildren (MacLean, Bryant & Bradley 1987). It is likely that individuals withmoderate to severe mental retardation are less exposed to this sort of languageexperience and use than normal children of the same mental age. Instead,the education of mentally retarded individuals is more likely concerned withthe development of skills that are important for independent daily life func-

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 441

tioning. It is therefore possible that, in contrast to young preschool children,preliterate individuals with DS have difficulty detecting rhyme. At the sametime, many individuals with DS are now being taught to read and write. Giventhat the experience of learning to read seems to play a particularly critical rolein the development of phoneme awareness, individuals with DS who havealready started to read may find tasks of phoneme awareness relatively easierthan tasks of rhyme awareness.

There is evidence that individuals with DS who have not started to readhave difficulty in tasks that purposely evaluate young children’s sensitivity torhyme. For example, in Cardoso-Martins’ (1996) study, only 2 (i.e., 5%) ofthe individuals with DS who had not started to read performed above chancelevel on a simple rhyme detection task. In contrast, the readers with DS whoparticipated in Cardoso-Martins & Frith’s (1999) study performed relativelywell on both a task of phoneme detection and a task of rhyme detection.They did, however, perform significantly better on the phoneme detection taskthan on the rhyme detection task, suggesting that individuals with DS whohave started to read may indeed find it easier to pay attention to phonemesthan to larger phonological units. Cardoso-Martins & Frith suggested that thedifference favoring the phoneme detection task could have derived from thefact that the individuals with DS who participated in their study had learnedto read through a phonics approach. They suggested that the high emphasison letter-sound correspondence rules that is characteristic of the phonicsapproach likely contributed to making their participants more sensitive tophoneme-sized units than to larger phonological units. One problem with thisinterpretation is that the tasks that Cardoso-Martins & Frith used to assessrhyme and phoneme detection involved slightly different procedures. In thephoneme detection task, the subject was asked to find, among three differentwords, the one that began with a phoneme that was explicitly enunciated bythe examiner. Awareness of rhyme was also assessed with a categorizationtask: the subject was asked to identify, between two different words, the onethat rhymed with a standard word. However, in contrast to the phoneme detec-tion task, the segment shared by the standard word and the target rhymingword was not enunciated by the examiner. It is possible that the procedure ofexplicitly enunciating the target phoneme made the phoneme detection taskparticularly easy for the individuals with DS. In addition, Cardoso-Martins &Frith’s tasks confounded size of the phonological unit with position. In otherwords, it is possible that their participants performed relatively better on thephoneme detection tasks, not because individuals with DS find it easier toattend to phonemes than to larger phonological segments, but because theyfind it easier to attend to sounds in the beginning as opposed to the end of thewords.

442 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

The study described below assessed sensitivity to rhyme and phonemeamong readers and non-readers with DS on tasks that involved exactly thesame procedure. Two phoneme detection tasks – one assessing sensitivityto phonemes in the beginning of words, and one assessing sensitivity tophonemes in the middle of words – were administered. The performanceof the DS participants was evaluated against the performance of normallydeveloping children who had or had not started to read. Based on the resultsof previous studies, we expected that the normally developing children wouldfind it easier to detect rhyme than phoneme. We were not so sure about theindividuals with DS. Based on the previous discussion, the individuals withDS who had not started to read should find both kinds of tasks equally diffi-cult. On the other hand, we expected the individuals with DS who had alreadystarted to read to perform well on both the rhyme and the phoneme detectiontasks. However, if Cardoso-Martins & Frith’s (1999) suggestion that learningto read through a phonics approach might contribute to making individualswith DS more sensitive to phoneme-sized than to larger phonological units,our readers with DS should find the phoneme detection tasks easier thanthe rhyme detection task. As described below, they all had learned or werelearning to read through a phonics approach.

Methods

Participants

Chronological age and education. Two groups of individuals with DS partici-pated in the study: one group of readers and one group of non-readers. Thereaders with DS were participating in a study investigating spelling abilityin Down syndrome. The 39 readers (17 males, 22 females) participating inthe study varied in age from 8 years, 7 months to 35 years, 7 months. Allreaders could read by phonological recoding, as defined by the ability to readat least one pronounceable pseudoword (see below). The nonreaders were 19males and 11 females with DS who could not read more than 3 words in alist of words frequently found in children’s books (see below). Most couldnot read any of the words in the list. They varied in age from 6;1 to 20;7years. Both the readers and the nonreaders were attending private schools forhandicapped children in a major Brazilian city.

Normally developing children who had or had not started to read werealso included in the study. Twenty-four boys and twenty-eight girls, matchedto the DS children for the ability to read infrequent words and pseudowords(see below), constituted the group of readers. They varied in age from 5;3 to10;6 years. Forty-two boys and thirty-six girls who had not started to read

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 443

were tested: The 3-year-olds (n = 32) varied in age from 3;3 to 3;11 years, the4-year olds (n = 29) varied from 4;0 to 4;11 years, and the 5-year-olds (n =17) from 5;2 to 5;8 years.1 All normally developing children were attending alarge private school. The nonreaders were enrolled in the preschool. Amongthe readers, 12 were enrolled in the preschool, 20 in kindergarten, and 20 ingrades 1 through 4.

Intelligence. All participants were administered the Peabody PictureVocabulary-III test (Dunn & Dunn 1997) – a test that assesses receptivevocabulary and is considered a good proxy of verbal intelligence. For theindividuals with DS who had already started to read, equivalent ages on thePPVT ranged from 2;11 to 10;6 years (mean 6;6 years). The nonreaders withDS scored considerably lower (mean equivalent age: 2;7 years; range = 1;9–5;3 years). Among the normal children, equivalent ages ranged from 2;9 to10;6 years (mean 7;6 years), for the readers and from 1;9 to 7;9 years (mean4;6 years), for the nonreaders.2

The individuals with DS and the normally developing children who hadalready started to read were also given a test of non-verbal intelligence –Raven’s Colored Matrices (Angelini et al. 1999). Percentiles ranged from 1to 60 (mean 15), for the individuals with DS and from 20 to 99 (mean 67;SD 25), for the normally developing children. Except for 10 individuals withDS, whose mean percentile was 4.3 (range: 1 to 10), the nonreaders werenot administered Raven’s Matrices.3 Table 1 summarizes the informationregarding the chronological age and intelligence of the sample, separatelyfor the readers and nonreaders with and without DS.

Table 1. Description of the sample: means and standard deviations (in parentheses)

Reading level/Group Chronological PPVT equivalent Raven’sage in age in years and matricesmonths months percentiles

Readers

DS (n = 39) 241.58 (87.77) 6;6 (2;3) 15 (11)

Controls (n = 52) 86.82 (15.36) 7;6 (2;3) 67 (25)

Nonreaders

DS (n = 30) 160.84 (71.26) 2;7 (1;3) 4.3 (2.7)∗Three-year-old controls (n = 32) 43.84 (3.03) 2;8 (1;3) –

Four-year-old controls (n = 29) 52.85 (3.48) 4;5 (1;3) –

Five-year-old controls (n = 17) 65.18 (2.25) 5;5 (1;3) –

∗n = 10.

444 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

Measures. All participants were administered a series of experimental tasksdesigned to assess their reading skill and their ability to detect rhyme andphoneme. The nonreaders were also administered a letter-name knowledgetask.

Literacy skills

Letter knowledge. The participants were shown 24 capital letters printedrandomly on a piece of paper and asked to name each one of them. A responsewas considered correct if the participant either named the letter or pronounceda syllable beginning with the phoneme corresponding to the target letter (e.g.,/fe/ for the letter f, whose name is /εf I/).

Single word reading

Frequent words. The participants were asked to read 30 words occurringfrequently in Pinheiro and Keys’ (1987) word frequency count for beginningreading books in Brazil. The words were printed in capital letters, at thecenter of individual cards. We showed the cards one at a time and asked theparticipant to read the word.

Infrequent words. Participants reading at least 3 frequent words correctlywere asked to read 30 infrequent words in Pinheiro and Keys’ (1987) wordfrequency count. The same procedure used with the frequent words was usedto assess the participant’s ability to read the infrequent words.

Pseudowords. Participants administered the infrequent words task were alsoasked to read 30 pseudowords (see Appendix). The pseudowords were createdby changing one or more phonemes in a real word, or by combining twoor more syllables into a pronounceable nonword. Like the real words, thepseudowords were printed in capital letters at the center of individual cards.We first explained the concept of a pseudoword, and then asked the participantto try to read each one of them.

Phonological awareness: Phoneme detection

Initial phoneme. Sensitivity to phonemes in the beginning of words wasassessed through a categorization task, consisting of three training items and12 experimental items. In each item, the participant heard four words, onestandard word and three test words. The participant’s task consisted of iden-tifying the test word that began with the same consonantal phoneme as thestandard word. Only three-syllable words, with the accent in the next to the

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 445

last syllable were used. In order to minimize working memory load, the wordsin each trial were presented pictorially as well as verbally. The order of thetarget word (and picture) varied across the items.

We told the participant: “We will play a game with words. You mustpay attention to the sound in the beginning of the words.” We then showedthe pictures corresponding to the first item, and after naming each drawingand asking the participant to name them aloud, we said: “The name buzinabegins with the sound /b/, doesn’t it? Which other name also begins with thesound /b/ as buzina?: coruja, peteca or banana?” The same procedure wasused in all items. During the training items, correct responses were praisedand incorrect responses were corrected. No feedback was given during theexperimental items.

Middle phoneme. The same procedure was used to assess the participants’ability to detect phonemic similarities in the middle of words. There werethree training items followed by 12 experimental items. In each item, theparticipant’s task consisted of identifying, among three different test words,the one that shared the same middle consonantal phoneme with the standardword. The words in each item were presented pictorially as well as verbally,and the order of the target word (and picture) varied across the items. Onlydisyllabic words with the accent in the first syllable were used.

We told the participant: “Today, you must pay attention to sounds in themiddle of words.” We then showed the pictures corresponding to the firstitem, and after naming each drawing and asking the participant to name themaloud, we said: “The name carro has the sound /h/ in the middle, doesn’t it?Which other word also has the sound /h/ in the middle as the name carro?:pilha, luva or terra?” Again, correct responses to the training items werepraised and incorrect responses were corrected. No feedback was givenduring the experimental items.4

Rhyme detection. Like the phoneme detection tasks, the rhyme detection taskconsisted of three training items followed by 12 experimental items, each oneof which comprised a standard word and three test words. The participant’stask consisted of identifying the test word that rhymed with the standardword. The words in each item were presented pictorially as well as verbally,and the order of the target word (and picture) varied across the items. As inthe initial phoneme detection task, only three-syllable words with the accentin the next to the last syllable were used.

The same procedure that was used to assess the participants’ ability todetect phoneme was used in the rhyme detection task. We told the participant:“Now you must pay attention to the sound at the end of the words.” We

446 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

then showed the pictures corresponding to the first item, and after namingeach drawing and asking the subject to name them aloud, we said: “Theword gorila ends with the sound ila, doesn’t it? Which other word also endswith the sound ila as gorila?: mochila, tucano or raquete?” Again, correctresponses to the training items were praised and incorrect responses werecorrected. No feedback was given during the experimental items.

Procedure. The individuals with DS were contacted through specialistschools for children with developmental disorders. As mentioned previously,the readers were participating in a study investigating the spelling ability ofindividuals with DS.

The controls for the DS readers were selected on the basis of their scoreson the infrequent words- and pseudowords-reading tasks. A normal child wasincluded in the group of control readers if we could find a match for himor her among the individuals with DS, that is, if his or her scores on boththe infrequent words- and pseudowords-reading tasks did not differ from thescores of an individual with DS by more than four points.

All tasks were administered individually. The tasks were generally admin-istered on separate days. However, the rhyme detection and the initialphoneme detection tasks were always administered on the same day. In eachgroup, the order of administering the two tasks was counterbalanced acrossparticipants. The middle phoneme detection task was administered a few daysafter the administration of the initial phoneme and rhyme detection tasks. Allindividuals were tested in the schools, in a quiet room.

Results

Table 2 presents the mean number of words read correctly in the readingtasks, separately for the individuals with DS and the normally developingchildren who had already started to read. There was no significant differencebetween the two groups of children on either the infrequent words- [t(89) =0.89, ns] or the pseudowords-reading task [t(89) = 0.69, ns]. However, theindividuals with DS performed significantly better than the controls on thefrequent words-reading task [t(89) = 2.07, P < 0.05]. Since the individualswith DS were considerably older than the normally developing children, itis likely that they had had more exposure to the words in our frequent wordstask than the control children. This would explain why, despite being matchedto the normally developing children on the ability to read infrequent wordsand pseudowords, they did relatively better on the frequent words-readingtask.

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 447

Table 2. Mean number of correct responses on the reading and phonological detectionmeasures for the readers (standard deviations in parentheses)

Measures Group

DS (n = 39) Normal (n = 52)

Reading frequent words (max. 30) 28.36 (2.43) 26.52 (5.14)

Reading infrequent words (max. 30) 22.05 (8.79) 22.31 (9.16)

Reading pseudowords (max. 30) 16.41 (8.35) 15.65 (9.49)

Rhyme detection (max. 12) 8.85 (2.58) 11.52 (0.96)

Initial phoneme detection (max. 12) 10.79 (1.44) 11.37 (1.21)

Middle phoneme detection (max. 12) 9.72 (1.89) 10.88 (1.35)

Table 3. Mean number of correct responses on the literacy and phonological detectionmeasures for the nonreaders (standard deviations in parentheses)

Measures Group

DS Normal

(n = 30) 3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds

(n = 31) (n = 26) (n = 21)

Letter knowledge (max. 24) 12.30 (7.50) 7.37 (8.18) 11.24 (6.82) 15.41 (7.74)

Reading frequent words (max. 30) 0.43 (1.01) 0.01 (0.25) 0.10 (0.41) 0.18 (0.73)

Rhyme detection (max. 12) 4.57 (1.17) 6.53 (2.82) 8.31 (3.31) 9.41 (2.78)

Initial phoneme detection (max. 12) 5.40 (1.96) 5.47 (1.97) 7.14 (2.22) 6.12 (2.34)

Middle phoneme detection (max. 12) 4.10 (1.27) 5.09 (2.25) 5.27 (2.25) 6.18 (1.88)

Table 2 also presents the readers’ mean number of correct responseson the phonological awareness tasks. As can be seen from this Table, thecontrols performed at ceiling on all three tasks. The individuals with DS alsoperformed quite well on the phonological awareness tasks, with the majorityalso scoring above chance according to the binomial (see Table 4). However,they performed significantly more poorly than the controls, especially on therhyme detection task (Mann–Whitney Tests, all P’s < 0.05).

Our main interest was in contrasting the two groups’ pattern of perfor-mance on the rhyme vs. phoneme detection tasks. In particular, we wereinterested in examining the possibility that the individuals with DS who hadalready started to read would find the phoneme detection tasks easier thanthe rhyme detection tasks, and that this pattern would differ from the patternfound for the normally developing children. As mentioned previously, thenormal children performed extremely well on all three tasks, rendering it

448 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

Table 4. Number of participants responding above chance according to the binomialtest on the phonological detection tasks, as a function of reading level and group

Reading level/Group Task

Rhyme Initial Middlephoneme phoneme

Readers

DS (n = 39) 26 37 33

Controls (n = 52) 52 51 51

Nonreaders

DS (n = 30) 1 6 0

Three-year-old controls (n = 31) 13 3 5

Four-year-old controls (n = 29) 15 12 5

Five-year-old controls (n = 17) 11 5 5

meaningless to compare their performance on the tasks. It is nonethelessnoteworthy that their scores on the middle phoneme detection task weresignificantly lower than their scores on the rhyme detection tasks (WilcoxonSigned Ranks Test, z = −3.23, P < 0.001).

The results of a repeated measures ANOVA confirmed our impressionthat performance of the readers with DS varied across the phonological tasks[F(2,76) = 15.38, P < 0.001].5 Matched pairs t-tests were thus calculated todetermine whether the mean on the rhyme detection task differed significantlyfrom the mean on each one of the phoneme detection tasks. The results ofthese tests showed that the individuals with DS found the rhyme detectiontask significantly more difficult than both the initial [t(38) = −5.04, P <

0.001] and the middle [t(38) = −2.44, P < 0.05] phoneme detection tasks.6

The results for the nonreaders appear in Tables 3 and 4. The rhyme andboth phoneme detection tasks were very difficult for the nonreaders with DS.In fact, the immense majority of the individuals with DS performed belowchance level according to the binomial on the three tasks, suggesting thatthey may not have understood them. As can be seen from Table 4, most of thethree-year-olds and quite a few of the four- and five-year-olds also respondedbelow chance level on the phonological tasks. In view of this, only the parti-cipants who responded above chance level according to the binomial in atleast one of the three tasks were included in the analysis reported below. Sixindividuals with DS and 43 controls (14 three-year-olds, 17 four-year-olds,and 12 five-year-olds) were selected on the basis of this criterion. Table 5presents their means and standard deviations in the phonological detectiontasks.

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 449

Table 5. Mean performance on the rhyme and phoneme detection tasks forthe nonreaders who responded above chance on at least one of tasks (standarddeviations in parentheses)

Measures Group

DS Normal

(n = 6) 3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds(n = 14) (n = 17) (n = 12)

Rhyme 4.83 (1.60) 9.21 (1.72) 10.53 (2.00) 10.83 (1.64)

Initial phoneme 8.33 (.52) 6.07 (2.09) 8.41 (1.73) 7.08 (1.88)

Middle phoneme 4.50 (1.05) 6.07 (2.56) 5.82 (2.45) 6.58 (1.88)

A two-way ANOVA was calculated on the number of items respondedcorrectly on the phonological detection tasks. The independent variables weregroup (DS nonreaders vs. normal three-year-olds vs. normal four-year-oldsvs. normal five-year-olds) and task (initial phoneme vs. rhyme vs. middlephoneme). The latter variable was a repeated measure.7 There were maineffects for both the group [F(3,45) = 6.17, P < 0.001] and the task [F(2,90) =32.46, P < 0.001] factors, reflecting the fact that performance differed acrossgroups as well as among tasks.

The group × task interaction also was significant [F(6,90) = 7.50, P< 0.001]. As can be seen from Table 5, while the nonreaders with DSfound the rhyme detection task significantly more difficult than the initialphoneme detection task [t(5) = 4.87, P < 0.01], and as difficult as the middlephoneme detection task [t(5) = 0.54, ns], all groups of normally developingpreschoolers found the rhyme detection task significantly easier than bothphoneme detection tasks [Rhyme vs. Initial phoneme: t(13) = 4.01, P <

0.001, for the three-year-olds; t(16) = 3.53, P < 0.01, for the four-year-olds;t (16) = 6.97, P < 0.001, for the five-year-olds; Rhyme vs. Middle phoneme:t(13) = 3.75, P < 0.01, for the three-year-olds; t(16) = 6.47, P < 0.001, forthe four-year-olds; and t(11) = 6.40, P < 0.001, for the five-year-olds].8

Discussion

This study investigated the ability to detect rhyme and phoneme amongnormally developing children and individuals with DS. The results for thenormally developing children confirmed the findings of previous investiga-tions that tasks that assess sensitivity to rhyme are generally easier than tasksthat assess sensitivity to phoneme. Among the normally developing children,

450 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

both the readers and the nonreaders found the rhyme detection task easier thanthe middle phoneme detection task. The nonreaders also found the rhymedetection task easier than the initial phoneme detection task. On the otherhand, there was scarcely any indication that the individuals with DS foundthe rhyme detection task easier than either one of the phoneme detectiontasks. Among the readers with DS, the rhyme detection task was significantlymore difficult than either the initial or the middle phoneme detection task. Allthree tasks were very difficult for the nonreaders with DS. However, amongthe participants who responded above chance in at least one of the tasks,performance on the rhyme detection task did not differ significantly fromperformance on the middle phoneme detection task, and was significantlypoorer than performance on the initial phoneme detection task.

Several factors may have contributed to the difficulty experienced by thenonreaders with DS on the rhyme detection task. Very likely, their intel-lectual limitations were one contributing factor. As mentioned previously,the majority of the three-year-old preschoolers, the most immature of thecontrol children, also performed poorly on the rhyme detection task. Thismay not however totally explain the difficulty of the individuals with DS onthe rhyme detection task. As a matter of fact, no difference was found onthe PPVT test between the nonreaders with DS who performed above chancelevel on the initial phoneme detection task and the nonreaders who performedrandomly. A more plausible explanation concerns the types of experience thatnonreaders with DS are exposed to as part of their education. As mentionedbefore, it is possible that individuals with DS are not exposed to the kinds oflanguage games that seem to promote sensitivity to rhyme among normallydeveloping preschoolers.

It is less clear why the individuals with DS who had already started toread found the rhyme detection task more difficult than the phoneme detec-tion task. One possibility has to do with the existence of differences in thefamiliarity of the words that were used in the three tasks. An examinationof the words’ frequency in books for kindergarten children revealed that thewords in the rhyme detection task were somewhat more infrequent than thewords in the other two tasks. It is nonetheless unlikely that this difference canaccount for the results of the present study. Only words commonly observedin young children’s oral vocabularies were included in the tasks. In addition,as mentioned previously, pictures – which were named by both the exam-iner and the subject – were used in order to alleviate working memory load.Finally, the most frequent words were by far the ones that were used in themiddle phoneme detection task. This notwithstanding, the middle phonemedetection task was more difficult than the initial phoneme detection task forall groups of participants.

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 451

Along with Cardoso-Martins & Frith (1999), we suggest that the differ-ence favoring phoneme detection over rhyme detection among the individualswith DS may have resulted from the way they were taught to read. As itis relatively common in Brazil, our readers with DS had been taught (orwere being taught) to read by a phonics method. It is possible that theemphasis on letter-sound correspondence rules that is characteristic of thephonics approach contributes to making individuals with DS more sensitiveto phoneme-sized units as opposed to larger phonological units. This maybe particularly true at the beginning stages of learning to read. In fact, thedifference in favor of the phoneme detection tasks was more pronouncedamong the poorer than among the better readers.

Our findings for the readers with DS are reminiscent of recent discussionsabout the development of phonological awareness (Duncan, Seymour & Hill1997, 2000). Researchers (e.g., Gombert 1992; Duncan et al. 1997, 2000)have distinguished between an implicit and an explicit level of phonologicalawareness. According to one point of view (Cardoso-Martins 1994; Morais1991), young children’s awareness of rhyme is best characterized as implicit,since it does not entail the ability to precisely identify the segment shared byrhyming words. Explicit awareness of rhyme may only develop in responseto the task of literacy acquisition (e.g., Cardoso-Martins 1994; Duncan &Seymour 1997; Duncan et al. 1997, 2000).

Seymour and his colleagues have suggested that, in contrast to what occursat the implicit level, explicit awareness of rhyme emerges after the devel-opment of explicit phoneme awareness. They based their argument on theresults of a study investigating 1st and 2nd grade children’s ability to reportthe sound shared by pairs of words (Duncan et al., 1997, 2000). Sometimesthe words rhymed (e.g., boat–goat); sometimes they shared a single phoneme(e.g., face–food). While phonemic segments were relatively easy to report, thechildren found it very difficult to report larger segments. Duncan et al. arguedthat these results reflect the emphasis on the ‘small-unit’ decoding strategythat is characteristic of the early stages of reading (see for a discussion of therole played by the reading regime on beginning readers’ decoding strategies,however, Goswami & East 2000). According to Duncan et al. (2000), explicitawareness of larger phonological units begins to emerge only at the 2nd grade,coinciding with emergent signs of the ‘large-unit’ decoding strategy.

In sum, our results suggest that sensitivity to rhyme is not necessarilya developmental precursor of the ability to pay conscious attention to thephonemic constituents of speech. As described previously, there was noevidence that the ability to detect rhyme preceded the development of theability to detect phoneme among the individuals with DS who participatedin the present study. Clearly, the experience of learning to read seems to

452 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

have as great an impact on the development of phoneme awareness as on thedevelopment of rhyme awareness in DS. This, in turn, may help explain therelatively greater difficulty of the rhyme detection task among our subjectswith DS. As mentioned previously, there is evidence that the ability ofnormally developing preschoolers to detect rhyme is based on a judgmentof global phonological similarity (e.g., Cardoso-Martins 1994). In contrast,because of its roots in the experience of learning to read in an alphabeticorthography, the ability to detect rhyme in DS may, from its very beginning,entail an analytical procedure.

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible thanks to a grant from the Conselho Nacionalde Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil. We thankthe staff and the students of the following schools in Belo Horizonte, MG,for their collaboration: Colégio Pitágoras, Instituto Educacional Despertar,Comunidade Comum Viver, Equipe de Assistência Psico-Pediátrica, and LarEscola Reeducacional.

Appendix: Words in the pseudowords reading task

1. lanha 11. quenito 21. horga2. palso 12. zatabel 22. lorão3. baranute 13. riquilante 23. safane4. chaqui 14. simpa 24. lisanjata5. darilho 15. moxã 25. citanho6. gisanto 16. janguba 26. funesco7. derraminto 17. calvilho 27. macatriz8. briseva 18. escruva 28. chiplato9. ledassa 19. gamitário 29. norriva

10. muriçaco 20. fanossaura 30. ximbu

Notes

1. Only 31 of the 3-year-olds were included in the analyses reported later. One child wasexcluded from the analyses because she was very distracted during the administration ofthe rhyme detection task.

2. Since there are no Brazilian norms for the PPVT, equivalent ages were calculated on thebasis of the American norms (Dunn & Dunn 1997). They should therefore be interpretedcautiously.

SENSITIVITY TO RHYME 453

3. Although most individulas with DS were older than 11 years of age, their percentiles werecalculated based on the norms for 11-year-old children, the oldest age for which there arenorms for Raven’s Colored Matrices. It is therefore possible that their percentiles aresomewhat inflated.

4. We had initially thought of developing a task requiring subjects to attend to the endingphoneme in the word. However, relatively few Portuguese words end with a consonant. Inaddition, the vowel is ususally reduced at the end of Portuguese words, making it difficultto pronounce it on its own.

5. No effect was found for the order in which the initial phoneme and rhyme detection taskswere administered [F(1,37) = 0.07].

6. Equivalent results were found with the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test [z = −4.09, P < 0.001for the rhyme vs. initial phoneme comparison, and z = −2.31, P < 0.05, for the rhyme vs.middle phoneme comparison].

7. Again, no significant effect was found for the order in which the rhyme and the initialphoneme detection task were administered [F(1,47) = −0.03, ns].

8. Given the small number of participants in each group, we also compared performance onthe rhyme and each one of the phoneme detection tasks with the Wilcoxon Signed Rankstest. Exactly the same results were obtained.

References

Angelini, A.L., Alves, I.C.B., Custodio, E.M., Duarte, W.F. & Duarte, J.L.M. (1999). Manualde matrizes progressivas coloridas de Raven: escala especial. São Paulo: Centro Editorde Testes e Pesquisas em Psicologia.

Bradley, L. & Bryant, P. (1991). Phonological skills before and after learning to read. In: S.A.Brady & D.P. Shankweiler (eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to IsabelleY. Liberman (pp. 37–46). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Bryant, P., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme, alliteration, phonemedetection and learning to read, Developmental Psychology 61: 164–173.

Cardoso-Martins, C. (1994). Rhyme perception: Global or analytical?, Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology 57: 26–41.

Cardoso-Martins, C. (1996). A sensibilidade à rima e ao fonema e a aquisição da leituraem crianças normais e em indivíduos com síndrome de Down: Um estudo correlacional.Unpublished manuscript. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil: Universidade Federal de MinasGerais.

Cardoso-Martins, C. & Frith, U. (1999). Consciência fonológica e habilidade de leitura nasíndrome de Down, Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica 12: 209–225.

Duncan, L.G., Seymour, P.H.K. & Hill, S. (1997). How important are rhyme and analogy inbeginning reading?, Cognition 63: 171–208.

Duncan, L.G., Seymour, P.H.K. & Hill, S. (2000). A small-to-large unit progression in meta-phonological awareness and reading?, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology53A: 1081–1104.

Dunn, L.M. & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 3rd edn. Circle Pines:American Guidance Service.

Cary, L., Morais, J. & Bertelson, P. (1989). As habilidades metafonológicas dos poetas analfa-betos: suas implicações para o estudo dos processos linguísticos envolvidos na leitura.

454 CLAUDIA CARDOSO-MARTINS ET AL.

Simpósio Latino-Americano de Psicologia do Desenvolvimento. Anais (pp. 160–166).Recife: Editora Universitária da UFPE.

Gombert, J.E. (1992). Metalinguistic development. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Goswami, U. & East, M. (2000). Rhyme and analogy in beginning reading: Conceptual and

methodological issues, Applied Psycholinguistics 21: 63–93.Gough, P., Larson, K. & Yopp, H. (1995). A estrutura da consciência fonológica. In: C.

Cardoso-Martins (ed.), Consciência fonológica e alfabetização. Petrópolis: Vozes.Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme

segmentation in the young child, Journal of Experimental Child Development 18: 201–212.

Morais, J. (1991). Constraints on the development of phonemic awareness. In: S. Brady & D.Shankweiler (eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman(pp. 5–27). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Pinheiro, A. & Keys, K. (1987). A word frequency count in Brazilian Portuguese. Unpublishedmanuscript. Dundee: University of Dundee.

Seymour, P.H.K. & Duncan, L.G. (1997). Small versus large unit theories of readingacquisition, Dyslexia 3: 125–134.

Treiman, R. & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In: S. Brady & D.Shankweiler (eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman(pp. 67–83). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Address for correspondence: Cláudia Cardoso-Martins, Universiade Federal de Minas Gerais,Departamento de Psicologia, Av. Antonio Carlos, 6627, Bairro Pampulha, Belo Horizonte,MG 31270-901, BrazilE-mail: cacau@fafich.ufmg.br