Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Learning to Spell
Research, Theory, and Practice Across Languages
Edited by
Charles A. Perfetti
University of Pittsburgh
Laurence Rieben
University of Geneva
Michel Fayol
University of Bourgogne, Dijon
CONTENTS
Contributors ix
Introduction
Perfetti, Rieben, Fayol xi
I
Theoretical Foundations: Writing Systems, Psycholinguistics, and
Neuropsychology 1
1
From Writing to Orthography: The Functions and Limits of the Notion
of System
Jaffr 3
2
The Psycholinguistics of Spelling and Reading
Perfetti 21
3
The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Spelling
Zesiger and de Partz 39
II
The Acquisition of Spelling 59
4
Spelling Acquisition in English
Treiman and Cassar 61
CONTRIBUTORS
Jesus Alegria Free University of Brussels
Linda Allal University of Geneva
Danielle Bchennec National Institute for Pedagogical Research, Paris
Iris Berent Florida Atlantic University
Miriam Bindman University of London
Anna M.T. Bosman University of Nijmegen
Peter Bryant University of Oxford
Marie Cassar Wayne State University
Marie-Pierre de Partz University Hospital of St.-Luc, Brussels
Linnea C. Ehri City University of New York Graduate School
Nick Ellis University of Wales
Michel Fayol University of Bourgogne
Ram Frost Hebrew University
Jean Emile Gombert University of Bourgogne
Jean-Pierre Jaffr CNRS-HESO, Paris
Karin Landerl University of Salzburg
INTRODUCTION
The word spelling can evoke images of classroom drill and testing, children writing strings of letters as a teacher pronounces
words ever so clearly. In parts of the United States, it can also bring an image of specialized wizardry and schoolroom
competition, the spelling bee. For countless adults, who confess with self-deprecation to being terrible spellers, it is a reminder
of a mysterious but minor affliction that the fates have visited on them. Beneath these popular images, spelling is a human
literacy ability that reflects language and nonlanguage cognitive processes. This collection of chapters presents a sample of
contemporary research, across different languages, that addresses this ability.
To examine spelling as an interesting scientific problem, we think several important perspectives are required. For one, spelling
is the use of conventionalized writing systems that encode languages. Thus, part of the spelling problem is how an orthography
(the details of a writing system) reflects the structure of a spoken language. This issue entails an examination of writing systems
and the influences writing systems and their orthographies might place on spelling. This constitutes one perspective in this
volume.
A second perspective is to ask how children learn to spell. If the designs of writing systems and their orthographies are
important in spelling, the learning-or acquisition-question is best addressed across different languages that have adapted
different writing systems. In addition to the work done in the English-speaking world on spelling, research in other languages is
now available to permit a broader comparative examination. We can begin
Acknowledgments
The editors wish to express their appreciation to their respective institutions in Pittsburgh (The Learning Research and
Development Center and the Department of Psychology), Geneva (the University of Geneva), and Dijon (the University of
Bourgogne) for their support in this project. For very important help in tracking and organizing the contributions during the
early phases, we are grateful to Kathy Rud of the Department of Psychology of the University of Pittsburgh. To Mara Georgi, of
the Learning Research and Development Center, we express our appreciation for contributions to all phases of the project,
especially in editing chapter drafts, proofing final chapters, and preparing the index. So critical were her efforts on behalf of this
volume, that we think of her as the fourth editor.
CHARLES A. PERFETTI
LAURENCE RIEBEN
MICHEL FAYOL
PART I
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS: WRITING SYSTEMS, PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, AND NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Chapter 1
from Writing to Orthography: The Functions and Limits of the Notion of System
Jean-Pierre Jaffr
CNRS-HESO, Paris
Written language, even today, is regarded as a poor relation in linguistics. The importance of written language in other fields of
research, however, adds irony to this situation. The reasons for it are to be found in the history of linguistic ideas over the last
few decades.
In France, as in many other countries, the ''Golden Age'' of linguistics coincided with the reign of structuralism that, following
the Saussurian model, primarily concerned itself with spoken language, relegating writing to a secondary level. Saussure's
(1972) now famous axiom, "The linguistic object is not both the written and the spoken forms of words; the spoken forms alone
constitute the object" (p. 45)1 is echoed by that of Bloomfield (1970): "Writing is not language, but merely a way of recording
language by means of visible marks" (p. 25).
a more abstract notion such as Catach's (1988) prime language. Only glottographic traces, unlike semasiographic traces, can be
defined as writing. The former are visible representations of linguistic utterances, whereas the latter represent ideas that may be
oralized, but cannot be translated word for word (Sampson, 1985).
Writing, therefore, is defined by its ability to represent linguistic units (phonemes, syllables, words, etc.), and typologies of
writing (or writing systems) have been made along these lines. Hence, we have logographic, syllabic, or alphabetic writing
(Gelb, 1973; Pulgram, 1976; Sampson, 1985), or even morphemic or phonemic writing (Hill, 1967). A script is defined by the
special relationship that it has either with the basic spoken units or with the meaningful elements of a language and, in
particular, with its morphology.
The fact that writing represents different kinds of units from language has often led to a misunderstanding of mixed systems.
Thus, Scholfield (1994) defined mixed systems as "more than one writing system used at once" (p. 56) and gave Japanese,
which uses both kanji (the logographic system) and kana (the syllabic system), as examples. However, DeFrancis (1989)
distinguished two ways of transmitting meaning using a single writing system: by symbols that represent sounds (and, therefore,
function as oral substitutes) and by symbols that supply information of a nonphonemic type. He insisted, rightly, that all scripts
result from the combination of these two tendencies, in varying proportions, and he called this the "Duality Principle." Thus, the
poorer a system is, from a phonemic point of view, the more it must compensate on a nonphonemic level. However, DeFrancis
retained a distinction between pure and mixed systems and, therefore, remains very strongly attached to the correspondence of
writing with spoken language.
Catach (1988) made better use of the concept of mixed systems by introducing the idea of "Protean" scripts.6 She set out a
range of modes of coexistence between nonmeaningful and meaningful units, ranging from virtual transparency (e.g., Finnish) to
virtual bilingualism (e.g., Chinese),
6 Proteus was a mythological god who often changed his appearance. So, the word Protean points out that writing can
take different forms.
Conclusions
Linguistics describes facts and constructs systems that can give rise to working hypotheses in other fields, particularly that of
language acquisition. It is, moreover, increasingly likely that present studies on acquisition will lead us to modify some of our
linguistic hypotheses. Although the linguist's analyses are necessarily different from those of the psychologist, the theoretical
options each chooses can help both of them to see eye to eye on certain matters. The linguistics of writing has tended to favor
the methods of structural linguistics (and in particular the concept of synchrony) in order to be recognized as a discipline in its
own right. Because of this, there is now an unfortunate division between the theories of writing and the studies of the history of
writing, whether scripts or orthographies. It is now time to build another kind of linguistics, and this chapter has shown how this
may be possible (see Jaffr, 1995). All orthographies and all scripts are part of a bigger picture by which they are conditioned
and which can help us to gain a better understanding of how they function. If we want to construct this bigger picture, we must
first create a general theory of writing that can encompass all research carried out until now on writing systems, old and new.
We must also, however, consider each script in its own right as a unique merger of semiological processes with a particular
language. We must also bear in mind that languages themselves have general characteristics that can be described by linguistic
typologies.
Today, the linguistics of writing is at a turning point, for two reasons. First, its theoretical foundations are not quite solid
enough, as the often difficult debate over the relations between spoken and written language shows only too well. Second, too
few studies have as yet been carried out in this field, and those that have are very divergent, if at all necessary. It would be
useful, for example, to update existing works on general models of writing systems, such as that of Gelb (1973), in order to
construct new typologies that are more representative of the complex and mixed nature of scripts. We must also carry out more
detailed studies on contemporary scripts, with a different epistemological approach from the works on orthographies and their
formation. We also need a wider range of studies, so that large-scale comparisons can be made. The linguistics of writing needs,
above all, more studies on scripts and orthographies such as Arabic, Hebrew,
References
Andr-Leickman, B. (1982). Les critures cuniformes [Cuneiform writings]. In Naissance de l'criture. Cuniformes et
hiroglyphes (pp. 73-114). Paris: Editions des Muses nationaux.
Anis, J., Chiss, J.L., & Puech, C. (1988). L'criture, thories et descriptions [Writing: Theories and descriptions]. Bruxelles: De
Boeck Universit.
Baddeley, S. (1993). L'orthographe franaise au temps de la Rforme [The French orthography at the Reform time]. Genve:
Droz.
Beaulieux, C. (1967). Histoire de l'orthographe franaise: Formation de l'orthographe, des origines au milieu du XVIme
sicle, 2 [The history of French orthography from the origin to the middle of the sixteenth c.]. Paris: Champion.
Berman, R.A. (1985). The acquisition of Hebrew. In D.I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 2:
The Data (pp. 255-372). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bloomfield, L. (1970). Le langage [Language]. Paris: Payot.
Bottro, J. (1987). Msopotamie: L'criture, la raison et les dieux [Mesopotamia: Writing, reason and gods]. Paris: Gallimard.
Bottro, J. (1994). Babylone et la Bible: Entretiens avec H. Monsacr [Babylone and the Bible: Talks with]. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
apan, S. (1989). A linguistic study of reading and writing disorders in Turkish, an agglutinative language. In P.G. Aaron &
R.M. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 191-202). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer.
Catach, N. (1968). L'orthographe Franaise l'poque de la Renaissance [French orthography at the Renaissance age]. Genve,
Switzerland: Droz.
Catach, N. (1980). L'orthographe Franaise: Trait thorique et pratique [French orthography: Theoretical and practical
treatise]. Paris: Nathan.
Catach, N. (1988). L'criture en tant que plurisystme, ou thorie de L prime [Writing as a plurisystem or the theory of L']. In N.
Catach (Dir.), Pour une thorie de la langue crite (pp. 243-259). Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique.
Catach, N. (1992). Les systmes d'criture [Writing systems]. Paris: Centre National de Documentation Pdagogique.
Catach, N. (1995). L'criture et la double articulation du langage [Writing and double articulation of language]. Linx, 31, 37-48.
Chapter 2
The Psycholinguistics of Spelling and Reading
Charles A. Perfetti
University of Pittsburgh
One would expect that psycholinguistics, as the study of the psychological processing of linguistic structures, is a natural home
for the study of spelling. Instead, spelling has been rather neglected within mainstream psycholinguistics. The surge of research
in spelling since the 1980s, to be sure, was important in correcting this neglect, even if this research was only implicitly
psycholinguistic (Ehri, 1980; Frith, 1985; Henderson, 1981). Moreover, Treiman's (1993) work on spelling development shows
an explicitly psycholinguistic approach: It links the acquisition of spelling to linguistic structures by specific hypotheses about
linguistic units. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that there has been a relative neglect of the psycholinguistic components of
spelling. One finds little coverage of the topic in textbooks on psycholinguistics. More telling is the Handbook of
Psycholinguistics (Gernsbacher, 1994), which covers the basic topics of the field in 34 chapters, none of which include spelling.
Indeed, the reader searches in vain for an entry in the index under spelling.
The reasons for this relative neglect are manifold but include at least the scientific privilege, inherited from linguistics, given to
spoken language. (Ironically, however, written language has actually dominated the empirical studies of adult psycholinguistics.)
Spelling may be seen less as a scientific problem of language use than as a literacy convention or a school subject. A second
reason may be that the deceptive simplicity of spelling has masked its intriguing problems, making it seem less challenging than
the higher
Fig. 2.1.
The general relationship among writing systems, orthographies, and languages.
Languages provide multilevel units in phonology (phonemes, syllables, onsets,
rimes not represented and morphology). Writing system principles select
one or more levels of language for encoding into elementary writing units.
Orthography is the system of constraints on the writing units, including their
mapping to language units.
Chinese (logographic or morphophonological), Japanese kana (syllabic), and Italian (alphabetic) belong to different writing
systems. However, written English, Italian, and French (all alphabetic systems) can be said to have different orthographies.1
The study of spelling (and reading as well) has been dominated by studies of one kind of writing system, the alphabetic, and one
orthography, English. The effect of this one-orthography research has been to give a distinctive character to conclusions about
spelling. For example, one of the most influ-
1 Further distinctions are sometimes confused. Thus, alphabetic systems are not the same as alphabets: Russian, written in
the Cyrillic alphabet, and French and English, written in the Roman alphabet, are equally alphabetic, and the differences
in orthographies are no greater, in principle, across than within alphabets. Finally, the actual visual form of the written
units, as opposed to the rules that map them to language units, is a matter of script. Thus one can refer to the Cyrillic-
Roman contrast as a difference in script as well as the contrast between Hebrew and Arabic, which are both consonant-
based "incomplete" alphabetic systems. Korean is alphabetic, but its arrangement of graphic units (letters) into uniform
nonlinear spaces is a variation in script.
Fig. 2.2.
The spelling-reading relationship. Both processes use a lexical representation
that contains orthographic (O) and phonological (Ph) constituents. Both
spelling and reading use both sets of constituents, and both have a
verification stage.
Summary
Spelling is a psycholinguistic problem involving multilayered linguistic units (morphology and phonology) and writing units.
Writing systems constrain the general form of the mapping between units, but all writing systems, including nonalphabetic ones,
have evolved to encode speech as well as meaning. Within alphabetic writing systems, linguistic constraints are embedded at
different levels. Well-known examples from Italian illustrate how these constraints can affect reading and spelling at fairly
abstract levels. The relationship between spelling and reading is one of shared lexical representations and different processes.
Implications of a model of reading, the R-I model, suggest that both orthographic and phonological constituents play roles in
both reading and spelling. Furthermore, a verification process appears to be part of both spelling and reading. Because this
verification process combines information from spelling and reading, it gives specific definition to the claim that reading and
spelling are similar.
References
Besner, D. (1987). Phonology, lexical access in reading, and articulatory suppression: A critical review. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 39A, 467-478.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1979). The independence of reading and spelling in backward and normal readers. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 21, 504-514.
Bryant, P.E., & Bradley, L. (1980). Why children sometimes write words which they do not read. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive
processes in spelling (pp. 355-370). London: Academic Press.
Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp.
151-216). New York: Academic Press.
Cossu, G., Gugliotta, M., & Marshall, J.C. (1995). Acquisition of reading and written spelling in a transparent orthography: Two
nonparallel processes? Reading and Writing, 7, 9-22.
Cossu, G., & Marshall, J.C. (1985). Dissociation between reading and written spelling in two Italian children: Dyslexia without
dysgraphia? Neuropsychologia, 23, 697-700.
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Ehri, L.C. (1978). Beginning reading from a psycholinguistic perspective: Amalgamation of word identities. In F.B. Murray
(Ed.), The development of the reading process. (International Reading Association Monograph No. 3, pp. 1-33). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Ehri, L.C. (1980). The development in orthographic images. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 311-388).
London: Academic Press.
Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 495-516). London:
Academic Press.
Chapter 3
The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Spelling
Pascal Zesiger
University of Geneva
Marie-Pierre de Partz
University Hospital of St.-Luc, Brussels
Neuropsychologists began to get truly interested in spelling in the 1980s. Until then, the dominant position was that the
production of written language1 was essentially dependent on the mechanisms responsible for the production of oral language.
Consequently, the disorders of written production the agraphias2 were mainly viewed as being secondary to the deficits
affecting oral language the aphasias resulting themselves from lesions of the left hemisphere. Nonfluent agraphias were usually
associated with frontal lesions and fluent agraphias with more posterior lesion sites (Benson & Cummings, 1985; Hcaen,
Angelergues, & Douzenis, 1963). However, even if most authors admitted that the intensity and the types of disorders affecting
the oral and the written domains could vary (Marcie & Hcaen, 1979), the existence of selective deficits of written production,
called pure agraphias, was difficult to conciliate with this perspective. That is why some authors, following Exner (1881),
hypothesized the existence of an autonomous center for writing located in the base of the second frontal convolution.
1 The production of written language requires a set of pragmatic, syntactical, semantic, and lexical processes as well as
perceptuomotor mechanisms allowing the movements necessary for the production of letters in the graphic space of the
page. We limit ourselves to considering the processes responsible for the generation of strings of graphemes forming
words or pseudowords.
2 The term agraphia has been used to qualify the disorders of different aspects of written production. A distinction was
usually drawn between aphasic agraphia (deficits of the linguistic aspects), apraxic agraphias (disorders related to the
production of letters), and spatial agraphias (disruption affecting the arrangement of letters in graphic space).
Fig. 3.1.
Schematic diagram representing the minimal cognitive architecture
of the spelling processes.
the signal resulting from this analysis activates the phonological representation of the word in a phonological input lexicon. The
activated unit (or, more correctly stated, the unit for which activation level is the highest because this model rests on the
principle of passive parallel activation) within this lexicon transmits the information necessary for the activation of the meaning
of the word stored in a semantic system.4 This activation is then transmitted to an orthographic (or graphemic) output lexicon
that would contain the orthographic representations of words. The selected sequence of graphemes is temporarily stored in an
orthographic (or graphemic) buffer whose function is to maintain a trace of this sequence during the processing time necessary
to the processes responsible for the transformation of graphemes into sequences of movements leading to the production of
letters (peripheral processes).
4 This would be the first level activated in spontaneous writing production.
Fig. 3.2.
Structure of the orthographic representation of the word
witness according to Caramazza and Miceli (1990) and
McCloskey et al. (1994).
different from the previous one. It is a multidimensional structure coding the following tiers (see Fig. 3.2b): the graphemes'
identity, their position (represented by X), their number, and their CV status. Consequently, McCloskey et al. did not make any
assumption on the representation of the grapho-syllabic boundaries and suggested that the position of the graphemes within the
word be explicitly defined, even for geminate letters. It is probably too early to try to choose between these two alternative
models, which are very similar to each other. Nevertheless, it should be noted that data collected by other researchers fit quite
well in one or the other of these frameworks, in particular the ones concerning the specification of the CV status (Cubelli, 1991)
and the special mode of representation dedicated to geminate letters (Venneri, Cubelli, & Caffarra, 1994).
Conclusion
This brief examination of the studies done with a cognitive perspective in the neuropsychology of spelling allows a first
evaluation. Within less than two decades, researchers have managed to elaborate consistent, empirically testable, models that
present the advantage of integrating a considerable number of observations and experimental facts. As we have attempted to
show, these models are still being elaborated and, are, therefore, liable to be modified and enriched at any moment. It is obvious
that much research is still necessary in order to define more precisely the structure and the functioning of each of the
components as well as their connections.
Nevertheless, these models begin to have an impact on clinical neuropsychological practice, in particular on the evaluation and
remediation of spelling disorders. A methodology of clinical evaluation in which the theoretical models are used by clinicians to
make inferences about the functional origin of individual, pathological behaviors is developing. A number of recent studies
(Behrmann, 1987; de Partz, Seron, & Van der Linden, 1992; Hatfield, 1982) showed that a cognitive interpretation can be used
in developing a remediation goal in two ways: By specifying the impaired processes
References
Allport, D.A., & Funnell, E. (1981). Components of the mental lexicon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
(London), B295, 397-410.
Assal, G., Buttet, J., & Jolivet, R. (1981). Dissociations in aphasia: A case report. Brain and Language, 13, 223-240.
Badecker, W., Hillis, A., & Caramazza, A. (1990). Lexical morphology and its role in the writing process: Evidence from a case
of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 35, 205-243.
Barry, C., & Seymour, P.H.K. (1988). Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling. The
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A(1), 5-40.
Basso, A., Taborelli, A., & Vignolo, L.A. (1978). Dissociated disorders of speaking and writing in aphasia. Journal of
Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 41, 556-563.
Baxter, D.M., & Warrington, E.K. (1985). Category specific phonological dysgraphia. Neuropsychologia, 23, 653-666.
Baxter, D.M., & Warrington, E.K. (1987). Transcoding sound to spelling: Single or multiple sound unit correspondence? Cortex,
23, 11-28.
Baxter, D.M., & Warrington, E.K. (1988). The case for biphoneme processing: A rejoinder to Goodman-Schulman. Cortex, 24,
137-142.
Beauvois, M.F., & Drouesn, J. (1981). Lexical or orthographic agraphia. Brain, 104, 21-49.
Behrmann, M. (1987). The rites of righting: Homophone remediation in acquired dysgraphia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9,
209-251.
Benson, D.F., & Cummings, J.L. (1985). Agraphia. In J.A.M. Frederiks (Ed.), Handbook of clinical neurology, 1(45), 457-472.
Clinical neuropsychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bolla-Wilson, K., Speedie, L.J., & Robinson, R.G. (1985). Phonological agraphia in a left-handed patient after a right
hemisphere lesion. Neurology, 35, 1778-1781.
Brown, G.D.A., & Loosemore, R.P.W. (1994). Computational approaches to normal and impaired spelling. In G.D.A. Brown &
N.C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process, and intervention (pp. 319-335). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Bub, D., & Kertesz, A. (1982). Deep agraphia. Brain and Language, 17, 146-165.
Campbell, R. (1983). Writing nonwords to dictation. Brain and Language, 19, 153-178.
Campbell, R., & Butterworth, B. (1985). Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia in a highly literate subject: A developmental
case with associated deficits of phonemic processing and awareness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A,
435-475.
Caramazza, A., & Hillis, A.E. (1991). Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature, 349, 788-790.
Caramazza, A., & Miceli, G. (1990). The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition, 37, 243-297.
Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., & Villa, G. (1986). The role of the (output) phonological buffer in reading, writing, and repetition.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 37-76.
Caramazza, A., Miceli, G., Villa, G., & Romani, C. (1987). The role of the graphemic buffer in spelling: Evidence from a case
of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 26, 59-85.
Coltheart, M., & Funnell, E. (1987). Reading and writing: One lexicon or two? In D.A. Allport, D.G. MacKay, W. Prinz, & E.
Scheerer (Eds.), Language perception and production: Relationships between listening, reading and writing. London: Academic
Press.
PART II
THE ACQUISITION OF SPELLING
Chapter 4
Spelling Acquisition in English
Rebecca Treiman
Marie Cassar
Wayne State University
Having been given the opportunity to write a short chapter about spelling acquisition in English, we are pleased to report that
this task is now near to impossible. The reason we are happy is that, in the past, the field of spelling suffered from a dearth of
research. There was much more work on the acquisition of reading and word recognition than on the acquisition of writing and
spelling. However, the body of research on spelling in English-speaking children is now so large that it would be foolish to
presume to do it justice within a single chapter. Given this limitation, we chose three main topics for discussion. These are the
use of letter names as an entry into the writing system, young children's knowledge of the orthographic patterns of their
language, and children's use of morphological strategies to guide their spelling. We chose these three topics because each plays
a major role in existing theories of spelling development. We review experimental evidence to suggest that young spellers have
more knowledge in each of these areas than portrayed by existing theories. Children's knowledge, we argue, provides a
foundation for the development of spelling skills.
To accomplish our goal, it is first necessary to review what the existing theories have to say about spelling development.
Current research on the topics of letter-name spellings, knowledge of orthography, and morphological knowledge is then
discussed. In the final section, we address the implications of the findings for views of spelling development.
Orthographic Knowledge
By orthographic knowledge, we mean children's understanding of the conventions used in the writing system of their language.
Proficient writers possess a good deal of information about the orthography, including knowledge about the spacing of words,
the orientation of writing, acceptable and unacceptable letter sequences, and the variety of ways in which certain phonemes may
be represented, depending on such factors as their position in a word. It is widely held that individuals develop orthographic
knowledge based on their experiences with the printed language. This knowledge, in addition to phonology, then influences
spelling.
The theories of spelling development we have described (Ehri, 1986; Gentry, 1982; Henderson, 1985) maintain that
orthographic knowledge does not begin to affect a child's spelling until the child has accumulated a considerable number of
words that are recognized by sight. These theorists describe orthographic knowledge as the learning of complex sequences such
as the -ight of words such as light and learning when to double consonants in polysyllabic words. Very likely, knowledge of
complex orthographic patterns such as these does develop late relative to other spelling skills. However, the theories fail to
account for the possibility that young children possess knowledge about simpler conventions of the orthography.
Treiman (1993) examined early spellings for evidence of adherence to relatively simple orthographic conventions. She looked at
the writings produced over the course of the school year by first graders. These first graders were in a curriculum in which they
were encouraged to write but their spelling was not corrected. The children tended to produce spellings that were consistent with
the regularities of the English writing system. For instance, vowels and consonants that are more likely to occur as doublets in
English, such as e and l, were more likely to occur as doublets in the
Morphological Knowledge
The theories of spelling development we have reviewed depict the use of morphology to guide spelling as a late development. In
fact, Henderson (1985) advised teachers that children need to be taught about the morphological relations among words. The
relations to which Henderson referred are those such as the relation between courage and courageous. These connections may
not be obvious to children, and so it may be best to point them out. However, not all morphological relations are this complex.
Some, such as the relations between rain and rained or bar and bars, are simpler. Children can handle these kinds of
morphological alternations in their speech from an early age (Berko, 1958). Hence, young children might take advantage of such
relations in their spelling as well.
Consider the verb wait. By adding the suffix -ed, we create the past tense form waited. The addition of -ed also changes the
pronunciation of the /t/ to a flap, a quick tap of the tongue against the top of the mouth. The flap of waited, which is voiced, is
similar to /d/, which is also voiced. If young spellers use only sound-based information, they should spell the flap of waited with
a d. However, if children understand the relation in meaning
Conclusions
Existing theories of spelling development (Ehri, 1986; Gentry, 1982; Henderson, 1985) portray children as passing through a
series of qualitatively different stages as they learn to spell. During an early period, children are
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this chapter was supported by NSF Grant SBR-9020956. We thank Ruth Tincoff for her comments on a draft of
the manuscript.
References
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150-177.
Bissex, G.L. (1980). Gnys at wrk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chapter 5
How Learning to Spell German Differs from Learning to Spell English
Heinz Wimmer
Karin Landerl
University of Salzburg
Psychological research on the acquisition of spelling is quite anglo-centric due to the simple fact that the majority of findings
come from children who learn to spell English. The present study questions some of the English conclusions by contrasting them
with German findings. German offers an interesting test case for conclusions about the role of orthographic consistency and of
phonology in the development of spelling because, due to the partly common roots of German and English, there are similarities
with respect to phonology, although German is written in a more consistent manner than English.
The consistency with which phonemes map onto graphemes is of obvious importance for spelling both within and between
writing systems. For example, Treiman (1993), in her landmark study on early spelling, concluded from the regularity effect
observed in the spellings of her first-grade sample "that a writing system with one-to-one relations from phonemes to graphemes
would be easier for children to learn than a writing system with one-to-many relations from phonemes to graphemes" (p. 59).
German is certainly not a writing system with one-to-one relations from phonemes to graphemes. For nearly every phoneme
there are at least two possible spellings. For example, /a:/ can be spelled as a, aa, and ah, and for /b/, as for most other
consonants, possible spellings are b and bb. However, doubling of consonant letters only occurs after short vowels (e.g., Sommer
[summer], Butter [butter]), and most of the different spellings for vowels have to do
Discussion
The main finding of the reported research is that after about 8 or 9 months of instruction, German children tend to produce
correct or phonemically acceptable word spellings and give little indication of phonologically caused spelling difficulties.
Because German is rather similar to English with respect to phonology, but different with respect to phoneme grapheme
consistency, it can be concluded that the latter factor is responsible for the ease with which German children, in comparison to
English children, learn to spell. The role of instruction also has to be considered but may not be fully independent from
orthographic consistency. Before discussing these broader issues, the main findings are discussed.
Spelling of Vowel Phonemes. In the Introduction, it was noted that specifically for vowels, the German writing system is much
more consistent than English. This higher consistency was reflected in two sets of findings. Study 1 compared how English and
German children spelled the vowels in words with similar pronunciation and spelling in English and German and established
two main findings. One was that German children tended to have less difficulty with correct vowel spelling than English
children. This was due to the fact that difficulties for the German children were limited to the few words where phoneme
grapheme correspondences were ambiguous. Directly related to the difference in consistency was the further finding
Acknowledgments
The manuscript profited from the comments of the editors of the present volume. The research reported in this manuscript was
supported by a grant from the Austrian Science Foundation to Heinz Wimmer (PO9911-H15).
References
Kibel, M., & Miles, T. R. (1994). Phonological errors in the spelling of taught dyslexic children. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling
(Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 105-127). London: Whurr.
Snowling, M. J. (1994). Towards a model of spelling acquisition: The development of some component skills. In G. D. A.
Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention (pp. 111-128). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Does dyslexia exist? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35, 579-595.
Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 1-33.
Wimmer, H., & Goswami, U. (1994). The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development: Word recognition in
English and German children. Cognition, 51, 91-103.
Wimmer, H., & Hummer, P. (1990). How German-speaking first graders read and spell: Doubts on the importance of the
logographic stage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 349-368.
Wimmer, H., Landerl, K., Linortner, R., & Hummer, P. (1991). The relationship of phonemic awareness to reading acquisition.
More consequence than precondition but still important. Cognition, 40, 219-249.
Chapter 6
The Development of the Understanding of Number Morphology in Written French
Corinne Totereau
Marie-Genevive Thevenin
Michel Fayol
University of Bourgogne
Studying how to learn and how to use written language morphology is one of the less frequently explored fields of research in
psycholinguistics. Yet, morphology plays an essential role in written French, especially since many written markers have no
corresponding pronunciation (Catach, 1986; Dubois, 1965). This predominantly silent morphology has two general
consequences: (a) For children, the learning of these markers and of their functions must be performed without an oral reference
(e.g., the absence of phonetic realization of the nominal plural -s in les chiens (the dogs) and of the verbal plural -nt in ils jouent
(they play); (b) for adults, the implementation and the control of these markers take place only in reference to the written
language. Despite the crucial character of morphology for the mastery of writing, the studies that concern it remain rare and
mainly involve the counting of spelling errors or developing taxonomies of errors (Chervel & Manesse, 1989; Girolami-
Boulinier, 1984; Jaffr, 1992). In short, there is, to the best of our knowledge, no psycholinguistic approach of the acquisition
and implementation of written French morphology.
Experiment 1
This first experiment was designed to study the acquisition of written French morphology. Six- to 8-year-old children were
administered tests dealing with comprehension and production of written morphology.
Method
Participants. Sixty native French-speaking first, second, and third graders who never repeated a year participated in Experiment
1. There were 20 children from each grade. The mean age of children was 6.4 for first grade (range: from 6.2 to 7.1), 7.4 for
second grade (range: from 7.1 to 8.5) and 8.4 for the third grade (range: from 8.4 to 9.3) at the beginning of the experiment.
Material and Procedure. The material and the procedure were developed from Berko's (1958) and Keeney and Wolfe's (1972)
studies.
In the production tasks, the children had to produce, in writing, the number inflections for the nouns and verbs. For every trial, a
drawing depicting objects, persons, or actions, the corresponding oral formulation, and the written beginning of the phrases (e.g.,
C'est un _/Il y a deux _ [This is a _/ There are two _]) or sentences (e.g., La chemine _/ Les chemines_[The chimney _/ The
chimneys_]) were supplied. (See Figs. 6.1a and 6.1b). The children had to write down the last word of the orally given
phrases/sentences.
In comprehension tasks, children were presented with pictures depicting one or several objects, persons, or actions. Children had
to select from two pictures the one that corresponded to the one linguistic item provided with the drawings. The linguistic item
could take one of four different forms and was either a noun or a verb:
1. The noun presented alone in either the singular form or plural form (e.g., poisson vs. poissons [fish vs. fishes]).
2. The verb presented alone in either the singular form or plural form (e.g., vole vs. volent [flies vs. fly]).
Fig. 6.1.
Types of tasks used in Experiment 1 (1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d) and Experiment 2
(1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, and 1f).
Fig. 6.2.
Mean number of correct responses out of 10 as a function of grade and type of
task.
because a ceiling effect occurred when the nouns were preceded by an article and verbs by a pronoun; (c) the items were
significantly easier in the presence of articles (for the nouns) in first graders (p < .01) and pronouns (for the verbs) in second
graders (p < .05) than in the absence of these markers. The main trends are displayed in Table 6.2.
Finally, according to Siegler's (1987) suggestions, individual profiles were developed session by session, in order to determine
whether the trends observed for the groups were true for individual participants as well. There are three types of patterns an
individual could display that are incompatible with our hypotheses: higher scores on production than on comprehension; better
performance in non redundant situations (noun or verb presented alone) than in redundant situations (article + noun or pronoun +
verb), or better results with verbs than with nouns. We determined that a child showing only one of these three patterns was
enough to reject it as fitting our hypotheses. Only 10 patterns out of 160 (6.25%) were rejected, that is, only 10 patterns violated
one of these expectations. This shows that our expectations were true concerning most individual patterns of performance.
In summary, the individual profiles as well as the global analyses confirm that for the acquisition of French number morphology
for nouns and verbs, comprehension precedes production, nominal plural is acquired earlier than verbal plural, and the
redundancy of markers makes comprehension easier.
The fact that comprehension of plural markers precedes production suggests that the recognition of markers is easier than recall
of the same
Experiment 2
Traditionally, tasks testing comprehension consist in presenting a linguistic item in the singular or plural form and then asking
the participants to select the corresponding drawing depicting a singular or plural situation from two available drawings. In
general, the two pictures only differ in relation to the relevant dimension (here, the numerosity of the sets of objects, persons or
actions). Thus, it is surprising to observe so many errors in written French among 6- and 7-year-old children who have been
using the oral number morphology for a long time. Indeed, even if the written nominal and verb markers are most often not
audible, their number is very limited and their occurrence is frequent and regular. Consequently, they should be acquired very
rapidly, at least in comprehension. However, at the end of first grade as well as at the beginning of second grade, performance
remains weak, in particular for nouns presented alone (about 7 out of 10), pronoun + verb configurations (6.5 out of 10) and,
especially, verbs presented alone (6 out of 10).
It could be that these weak results are due to the fact that the task consisted of the presentation of only one linguistic item
(singular or plural), so the child had to evoke the complementary marker (respectively plural or singular) in order to select the
corresponding illustration. This hypothesis predicts that performance should be better when the task presents the two different
terms (e.g., le chien/les chiens [the dog/the dogs]) and only one picture and then asks the participants to match this picture with
the relevant linguistic item.
Method
Participants. Two hundred and seventy-two French native-speaking children (136 first graders and 136 second graders) from
eight different schools participated in Experiment 2. The mean age of children was 6.6 for first grade (range: from 5.5 to 8) and
7.7 for second grade (range: from 6.8 to 8.11).
Fig. 6.3.
Proportion of correct responses as a function of grade and type of task.
Conclusion
The results of the two experiments indicate that there are three phases in the acquisition of written morphology for nominal and
verbal number. First, children process number markers ( vs. -s, vs. -nt) only in comprehension tasks (i.e., in linguistic item
picture-matching tasks), but they do not use them in production tasks. Even then, the use in comprehension is constrained by the
simultaneous presence of the two linguistic items ( vs. -s for nouns; vs. -nt for verbs). It is as if children had acquired the
marker-situation associations (singularity ; plurality -s/-nt), but they were able to interpret these markers only when
both singular and plural forms were present.
However, the first stage occurred only with verbs ( vs. -nt), and plural markers for nouns were understood even by the
youngest children in this study. It is likely that the same trends would appear with nouns ( vs.-s) in an earlier period.
In the second phase, performance on comprehension improved alone, without a corresponding increase on production scores.
The improvement
References
Abdi, H. (1987). Introduction au traitement statistique des donnes exprimentales [Introduction to the statistical treatment of
experimental data]. Grenoble: P.U.G.
Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, J. R. (1992). Automaticity and the ACT theory. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 165-180.
Baird, K. (1972). On the role of chance in imitation-comprehension-production test results. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior, 11, 474-477.
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150-177.
Beers, C. S., & Beers, J. W. (1992). Children's spelling of English inflectional morphology. In S. Templeton & D. R. Bear
(Eds), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy (pp. 231-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bourdin, B., & Fayol, M. (1994). Is written language production more difficult than oral language production? A working
memory approach. International Journal of Psychology, 29, 591-620.
Brittain, M. M. (1970). Inflectional performance and early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 34-48.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Catach, N. (1986). L'orthographe franaise [The French spelling]. Paris: Nathan.
Cazden, C. B. (1972). Child language and education. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chervel, A., & Manesse, D. (1989). Comparaison de deux ensembles de dictes 1873-1987 [Comparison of two sets of
dictations 1873-1987]. Paris: INRP.
De Villiers, J., & De Villiers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 267-278.
Dubois, J. (1965). Grammaire structurale du Franais: Nom et pronom [Structural grammar of French: Noun and pronoun].
Paris: Larousse.
Fayol, M., Largy, P., & Lemaire, P. (1994). When cognitive overload enhances subject-verb agreement errors. A study in
French written language. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 437-464.
Ferguson, C. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1973). Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Fernald, J. (1972). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production: Problems of replication. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 606-613.
Fraser, C., Bellugi, V., & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension and production. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 121-135.
Girolami-Boulimier, A. (1984). Les niveaux actuels dans la pratique du langage oral et crit [The present levels in the practice
of oral and written language]. Paris: Masson.
Graves, M. F., & Koziol, S. (1971). Noun plural development in primary grade children. Child Development, 42, 1165-1173.
Jaffr, J. P. (1992). Didactiques de l'orthographe [Didactics of spelling]. Paris: Hachette.
Jarema, G., & Kehayia, E. (1992). Impairment of inflectional morphology and lexical storage. Brain and Language, 43, 541-
564.
Keeney, T. J., & Smith, N. D. (1971). Young children's imitation and comprehension of sentential singularity and plurality.
Language and Speech, 14, 372-383.
Chapter 7
Lexical Spelling Processes in Reading Disabled French-speaking Children
Jesus Alegria
Philippe Mousty
Free University of Brussels
The lexical spelling processes of reading disabled French-speaking children were examined by asking the participants to spell
frequent and infrequent words containing nondominant transcriptions of inconsistent graphonemes (e.g., /k/ spelled ''qu'' as in
"quatre," the dominant spelling for /k/ being "c"). These children were matched with normal controls on their reading ability
level. Spelling at the lowest reading level already depended on word frequency in both groups of children. As reading ability
progressed, the effects of word frequency increased. However, this increase was weaker in the reading disabled than in the
control children. A tentative explanation supposes that word identification processes differ in the two groups. Disabled readers
use partial cues that allow reading but do not supply the orthographic lexicon with complete representations of words.
French orthography belongs to the family of deep orthographic systems (Gleitman & Rozin, 1977; Klima, 1972). It represents
language at the phonological level but simultaneously includes aspects of morphology and syntax. This fact often creates
conflicting situations. For instance, the morphological and syntactic aspects of language not marked at the phonological level
can, nevertheless, be orthographically represented. For example, the second and third person singular as well as the third person
plural are homophonous in several tenses of French verbs: "tu manges" (you eat), "il mange" (he eats), "ils mangent" (they eat)
are all pronounced /mase */. Different spellings, however, are systematically associated with each morpheme: "es," "e," and
"ent" (see Totereau, Thvenin, & Fayol, chap. 6, this volume).
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 38 reading disabled and 75 control children. Reading disabled participants came from a special school
for dyslexic children. According to a routine procedure in Belgium, these children had been detected by an official institution
that decided to send them to this special school. They have reading and spelling problems but are of normal intelligence (they
must have an IQ of at least 85). The group of control children included 19 participants tested at the beginning of Grade 2, 22 at
the end of Grade 2, 18 in Grade 3, and 16 in Grade 5. They came from an elementary school where a phonics teaching method
was used.
For each participant, overall reading efficiency was assessed with a forced-choice sentence completion test (subtest L3 from the
ORLEC battery; Lobrot, 1973). This test consists of 36 sentences with a missing word. Five alternatives are proposed on each
trial and the children have to fill as many sentences as they can in 5 minutes. The score is the percentage of correct responses
obtained in this fixed period of time. As the test goes along, the complexity of the task increases; words become less frequent
and syntactic, cognitive and pragmatic aspects of the sentences become more complex. The test thus provides a global measure
of reading comprehension that includes both specific (efficient written-word identification processes) and nonspecific (general
linguistic and cognitive knowledge) abilities.
Three reading level subgroups of reading disabled and control children were then matched on the basis of their Lobrot reading
scores. Table 7.1 provides the characteristics of these subgroups.
2 The notation adopted here concerning the phonemic part of graphonemes specifies the orthographic context in which
phonemes are included. For example, /s/e, i represents the phoneme /s/ followed by the letter e or i Similarly, / /#
represents the phoneme / / at the end of a word.
Conditions
The spelling task consisted of 20 words included in sentences. Six (or four) words, half high-frequency and half low-frequency,
were selected for each of the four graphonemes: /s/e, i-> "c," /z/e, i-> "z," /k/a, o-> "qu," and / /#-> ''ain" (see Table 7.2). The
classification of words as a function of frequency was made according to frequency counts collected on a corpus of French
literary texts (Trsor de la langue franaise, 1971) and available in the computerized lexical database BRULEX (Content,
Mousty, & Radeau, 1990). Obviously, literary texts do not correspond very well to the printed materials primary school children
usually see. For this reason, a group of 50 fourth graders were presented with the whole list of words used in the experiment.
They were asked to evaluate on a 5-point scale the frequency with which they had earlier seen these printed words: (1) never
seen, (2) rarely, (3) from time to time, (4) often, (5) very often. The results are summarized in Table 7.2.
The four graphonemes examined were inconsistent and nondominant. That is, they all have a competitor that is more frequent.
The first two items, /s/ and /z/, are spelled "s" more often than "c" and "z," respectively. This has been established both on the
basis of statistical counts (Vronis, 1986) as well as empirically in a pseudoword spelling task (Alegria & Mousty,
TABLE 7.2
Mean Subjective Frequencies (on a 5-point scale) for the
Low- and High-Frequency Words Used for Each Graphoneme
Graphoneme High-Frequency Words Low-Frequency Words
/s/-> "c" ciel cirque cinma 3.72 cigale macdoine citerne 2.11
/z/-> "z" douze gazette 2.75 chimpanz trapziste 2.26
/k/-> "qu" quotidien quatre 3.24 quotient marquage 1.83
/ /-> "ain" main bain pain 4.01 fusain poulain tain 1.92
Results
The mean percentages of correct responses per graphoneme for frequent and infrequent words as a function of group and
reading level are presented in Fig. 7.1. A first ANOVA was run with group (control vs. reading disabled children) and reading
level (1st, 2nd, and 3rd level) as between-subject factors, and frequency (low vs. high) and graphonemes (/s/-> "c," /z/-> "z,"
/k/-> "qu," and / /-> "ain") as within-subject factors. As expected, the effects of frequency and reading level were highly
significant: F(1, 107) = 550.73; p < .001, and F(2, 107) = 80.37; p < .001, respectively, as well as their interaction, F(2, 107) =
23.77; p < .001. An important question in this experiment concerned the presence of frequency effects at the lowest reading
level. Partial analysis showed that frequency was already significant at the first reading level, F(1, 24) = 28.76; p < .001. The
main graphoneme effect was significant, F(3, 231) = 34.95; p < .001, as well as its interaction with frequency, F(3, 321) =
31,88; p < .001.
The main group effect was significant, F(1, 107) = 20.89; p < .001, indicating that the percentage of correct responses was
greater in the control group than in the reading disabled group even though their reading level had been
Fig. 7.1.
Mean percentage of correct spelling per graphoneme as a function of word
frequency and reading level for reading disabled and control children matched on
reading level.
equated. The group-by-reading-level interaction was significant, too, F(2, 107) = 5.55; p < .001, indicating that the difference
between groups increases with reading level. Two interactions (group by frequency and group by graphoneme), however, were
nonsignificant (Fs < 1).
These results reveal that reading level gives different predictions concerning lexical spelling in normal and disabled readers.
Inspection of Fig. 7.1 suggests that the performance with low-frequency words allows us to predict rather precisely the
performance on frequent words, independently
Conclusion
In order to spell an important proportion of French words, lexical representations containing orthographic specifications are
necessary. Earlier studies (Alegria & Mousty, 1994, 1996) have shown that children at the lowest reading level do not possess
these representations. Children strongly tend to spell inconsistent nondominant graphonemes (i.e., /s/e-i- > "c") using their
dominant transcription (/s/e-i- > "s"). Subsequent studies have compared reading disabled and normal children matched on
reading level. When asked to spell low-frequency and high-frequency words containing inconsistent nondominant graphonemes,
reading disabled children were inferior to normal children, despite their matched reading level (Alegria & Mousty, 1996). The
present study was conducted to extend the comparison of these two groups in lexical spelling.
Previous results suggested that children start spelling with a simplified set of rules, probably acquired through classroom
instructions, and without any lexically based spelling. The present results partially confirm these notions. The results obtained
with inconsistent, nondominant graphonemes
Fig. 7.2.
High-frequency word spelling (top graph) and reading (bottom graph)
by low-frequency word spelling, with regression lines for reading disabled
(solid line) and control children (dashed line).
Acknowledgments
The writing of this chapter was supported by the National Fund for Scientific Research (Loterie Nationale, convention
8.4505.92) and by the Ministry of Education of the Belgian French-speaking Community (Concerted Research Action,
convention 91/96-148). Josiane Lechat, Eva Debaix, and Nicole Dedonder participated in data collection. We are grateful to the
staff and children from the schools Etablissement d'Enseignement Primaire Spcial (Court-St-Etienne) and Ecole de la Sainte
Famille (Braine-Lalleud).
Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Jesus Alegria or Philippe Mousty, Laboratoire de Psychologie
Exprimentale, Universit Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 50, C. P. I. 191, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium. Electronic
mail may be sent to alegria@ulb.ac.be or pmousty@ulb.ac.be
References
Aaron, P. G. (1993). Is there a visual dyslexia? Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 110-124.
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1994). On the development of lexical and non-lexical spelling procedures of French-speaking, normal
and disabled children. In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention (pp.
211-226). Chichester, NY: Wiley.
Chapter 8
Learning to Spell in the Classroom
Linda Allal
University of Geneva
Skill in spelling, even more than skill in reading or in mathematics, is primarily a product of school learning. One might argue
that all research on spelling acquisition, even when conducted in a developmental perspective, is invariably concerned with
learning shaped in a classroom setting. The focus of the present chapter is on the conditions of learning to spell in the
classroom, particularly during the first 6 years of schooling. It examines alternative instructional approaches, proposed activities
and tools, aims and observed outcomes. The chapter is based on literature reviews and presentations of research conducted both
in English-speaking and in French-speaking countries. Without attempting to cover all curricular trends, it identifies the main
features of the most widely adopted instructional methods.
Over the past 20 years, a large number of publications have presented instructional approaches designed to foster students'
writing competency (e.g., Chiss, Laurent, Meyer, Romian, & Schneuwly, 1987; Dipardo & Freedman, 1988; Englert, Raphael, &
Anderson, 1992; Graves, 1983; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986; Turco, 1988). In most cases, priority is given to higher order
processes of text production (planning, revising, sentence generation), whereas lower order processes such as spelling tend to be
neglected. Researchers in the area of language instruction often seem to share the attitudes of teachers and students for whom
spelling is a necessary but altogether disliked component of the school curriculum (Downing, DeStefano, Rich, & Bell, 1984).
As a school subject, spelling can cover varying ranges of content, thus making it difficult to compare research conducted in
different countries.
Fig. 8.1.
Two instructional approaches for spelling acquisition.
Phases Principles
1. Before text production
Define the communication setting: Create a functional communication
- aim and audience, situation by defining the rhetorical
- type of text (e.g., description, constraints and the characteristics of
narration, dialogue, cooking recipe). the
intended text.
Plan the content to be dealt with: By preliminary content planning,
collective discussion enumerating decrease the cognitive load required
ideas for
and lexical items likely to be used in the generation of ideas during writing,
writing the text. and thereby facilitate the students'
focus
on sentence transcription, including
spelling.
Present the targeted spelling Establish reference criteria for the
objectives regulations intervening during and
and specify the corresponding after
reference tools. text production.
2. During text production
Implement different means of Foster the development of spelling
regulating writing, based on the skills
student's interactions: that are fully integrated in the
- with the teacher, processes
- with other students, of drafting and text revision.
- with instructional tools. Enhance (across 8 successive
production
situations) the progressive
internalization
of self-regulation strategies.
3. After text production
Carry out various text-based Use deferred and detached follow-up
activities: activities to consolidate students'
analysis, classification and reflection spelling skills; differentiate the tasks
based on excerpts from student texts according to student needs.
and on other supplementary material
(specific exercises if needed).
Fig. 8.2.
An instructional approach integrating spelling acquisition in text production.
overall orientation of these integrated approaches (hereafter abbreviated as I approaches) as compared to that of the specific M,
R, and D approaches (hereafter grouped as S approaches) with respect to the four features of our conceptual framework.
Didactical Transposition. S approaches imply the transposition of specific components of knowledge concerning the
conventions of written language. I approaches entail a more complex process of transposition involving not only orthographic
knowledge but also the multiple levels of semantic, syntactic, and discursive knowledge required for text production. Analysis
of all aspects of this process is beyond the scope of this chapter, but two brief remarks can be made. First, implementation of I
approaches requires teacher education that articulates the different areas of literacy instruction and links them to general
strategies for regulating learning-teaching pro-
References
Allal, L., Michel, Y., & Saada-Robert, M. (1995). Autorgulation en production textuelle: Observation de quatre lves de 12
ans [Self-regulation in text production: Observations of four twelve-year-old students]. Cahier d'Acquisition et de Pathologie du
Langage, 13, 17-35.
Allal, L., & Saada-Robert, M. (1992). La mtacognition: Cadre conceptuel pour l'tude des rgulations en situation scolaire
[Conceptual framework for studying processes of regulation in school]. Archives de Psychologie, 60, 265-296.
Allen, D., & Ager, J. (1965). A factor-analytic study of the ability to spell. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25,
153-161.
Bean, W., & Bouffler, C. (1987). Spell by writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Berset Fougerand, B. (1993). Ecrire haute voix: Intgration de l'orthographe dans la production crite [Writing out loud:
Integration of spelling in written production]. In L. Allal, D. Bain, & P. Perrenoud (Eds.), Evaluation formative et didactique du
franais (pp. 171-196). Neuchtel, Switzerland: Delachaux & Niestle.
Btrix Khler, D. (1995). Orthographe en questions [Spelling in questions]. Lausanne, Switzerland: Centre vaudois de
recherches pdagogiques.
Bled, B. (1988). Adapter les stratgies d'enseignement aux stratgies d'apprentissage des lves [Adapting teaching strategies to
students' learning strategies]. Repres, No. 75, 55-65.
Bronckart, J.-P., & Schneuwly, B. (1991). La didactique du franais langue maternelle: L'mergence d'une utopie indispensable
[Didactics of French as mother tongue: Emergence of an indispensable utopia]. Education et Recherche, 13(1), 8-25.
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research
on teaching (pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
Chapter 9
Spelling and Grammar The Necsed Move
Terezinha Nunes
University of London
Peter Bryant
University of Oxford
Miriam Bindman
University of London
Fig. 9.1.
A story by a 7-year-old child that illustrates the depiction of past verb endings,
which is characteristic for that age.
Syntactic Awareness and the Spelling of Morphemes Our Hypothesis and How to Test it
The hypothesis that we adopted at the start of our research was that there is a definite stage at which children come to grips with
the spelling of morphemes and that this new development is based on their grammatical or, more specifically, on their
morphosyntactic awareness. Children have to understand that some words end in "ed" because they are past tense
in a "d" sound. In addition, we included words that ended with a sound similar to the past tense verbs in our list, but they were
not past tense verbs. This made six categories, and our idea was that there were markedly different patterns in the way that
children spelled these different kinds of words at different ages. At first, they spelled them phonetically, later they introduced the
conventional "ed" spelling, particularly with past tense verbs, and finally they learned that there are some exceptions to the rule
that past verbs end with an "ed'' spelling.
In addition, we included some interrogatives, most of which began with a /w/ sound (the exceptions were "who" and "how") and
in their written form started with the "wh" spelling (the exception is "how") because they
We also frequently found another, much more surprising kind of error, which we called overgeneralization (and which, in truth,
did not surprise us at the time, for we had found it before in some pilot work). This took the form of children sometimes
spelling the endings of nonverbs as "ed" ("sofed" for soft, "necsed" for next and "ground" for ground). This particular mistake
was less common than the other two kinds, but it was frequent enough and widespread enough to merit a great deal of attention.
Why do some children apply the conventional, but unphonetic, spelling for past tense verbs to words which are not verbs at all?
When we tried to answer this question, we used as a starting point the fact that these errors apparently increase and then
decrease with age as Table 9.3 shows. This suggests an intermediate stage somewhere between phonetic spelling and
grammatical spelling.
The idea we arrived at was that there is a time when children who have learned to use letter sound correspondences become
aware that these are sometimes violated and that one such infringement is that some words,
us because we wrote the criteria, given in footnote 1, into the program that selected the children for the different groups. In both
sessions, we found that very few children did not meet the criteria for any of the stages. In the first session, 92.8% (337 out of
363) of the children and in the next session, 95% (307 out of 323) of the children were easily assigned a position in our
sequence of stages.2
Our notion that these stages are developmental was supported by the fact that as Table 9.5 shows, there was a direct relationship
between the stage that the children were assigned, according to our scheme, and their ages as well as their scores on a
standardized reading test. The higher the stage, the older, on the whole, the children were and the more advanced at reading they
were.
Our second prediction was also confirmed. Table 9.6 shows that the majority of the children conformed to our developmental
hypothesis. In fact, 87.7% of the children either stayed at the same stage over the two sessions or were at a higher stage in the
second session than in the first. Of the children who were at different stages in the two sessions, many more were at a higher
stage after 6 months than they had been in the first session: 34.7% changed in the direction that was right, according to our
hypothesis, and only 12.3% changed in the wrong direction. The existence of the relatively small number of backsliders is
awkward for us, but it may be due to these children being held back by extraneous problems. At any rate, the marked trend for
children to move up rather than down our developmental ladder is strong support for our developmental hypothesis.
2 We also found that many of the 26 children who could not be classified in our stages tended to spell the endings of
regular verbs that we had designated as ending in /t/ (e.g., learned) as "d" (e.g., "learnd"). It could be argued that these
spellings should be treated as phonetic transcriptions too. When we analyzed all ''d" or "t'' spellings at the ends of words
as phonetic transcriptions, we found that 14 of the 26 excluded children were now classified as being in Stage 2 the
phonetic stage. However, for our main analysis we decided to stick to a strict criterion for phonetic spellings (i.e., only
"t"s for words ending in /t/ sounds and only "d"s for words ending in /d/ sounds).
We should like to mention one other result that provides extra support for our idea that children come to grips with the
grammatical basis of certain spelling sequences during this period. The scores for spelling the "wh" sequence at the beginning of
interrogatives were rather low, but there was a very strong relationship (r = 0.74) between children's success in writing the "wh"
sequence and writing the ''ed" sequence at the end of the right words. This strong relationship held even when differences in age
and in performance in a standardized spelling test were controlled in a fixed-order multiple regression; even after controls for
these variables, the children's "wh'' scores still accounted for 38.3% of the variance in their "ed" scores. This connection
certainly supports the idea that children learn both the "ed" ending and the "wh" opening sequence in the same way, and this
way must have something to do with grammar. It looks as though the same factor or factors might govern children's progress in
learning about both spelling sequences. What can these factors be?
Table 9.8 presents the results of this comparison. It shows that, in all three tests, the children who advanced from a
pregrammatical stage at Time 1 to a grammatical stage at Time 2 had done better in the syntactic awareness task at Time 1 than
those who remained at a pregrammatical level. These differences between those who advanced and those who did not were
significant in each case and remained so in analyses of covariance in which the children's initial stage in the first session was
entered as a covariate. This means that these tests do predict who, later on, will make progress to a higher level of spelling and
who will not.
PART III
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPELLING AND READING
Chapter 10
Why Spelling is More Difficult than Reading
Anna M. T. Bosman
University of Nijmegen
Guy C. Van Orden
Arizona State University
Thinking is always limited by the quality of our metaphors, and this is no exception.
Robert James Waller (1988, p. 116)
Before you read this chapter, please get a pen and write down the name of the Indian nationalist and spiritual leader who
developed the practice of nonviolent resistance that forced Great Britain to grant independence to India. He is known as
Mahatma ____.
Campbell and Coltheart (1984) found that undergraduates of two London colleges, despite numerous exposures through ads and
newspaper articles following the release of the famous movie "Ghandi,"1 were unable to spell the name of the man who showed
India the way to freedom. The chance that you spelled his name correctly is between 14% and 44%. An example from the
Dutch language (the first author's native tongue) is the notorious misspelling of the word sperzieboon (green bean). The majority
of people, including greengrocers, misspell the word by writing a C instead of a Z
1 Actually, the proper spelling is GANDHI. Campbell and Coltheart (1984) explained the high percentage of "Ghandi"-
misspellings in English-speaking college students in terms of a high summed position-specific bigram frequency of this
pattern as compared to that of the correct spelling pattern "Gandhi." However, a similar test with Dutch-speaking
University students showed that they had the same tendency of spelling Gandhi's name as Ghandi (21 out of 24
misspellings); Dutch summed position-specific bigram frequency, however, favors the Gahndi-pattern (Klnhammer,
1990).
Fig. 10.1.
An illustration of the macro dynamic that describes reading and spelling
performance in a recurrent network. The boldness of the arrows indicates
the overall strength (self-consistency) of the relations between the
respective node families.
At the macro level of description, node families differ in overall strength and consistency of relations with other node families,
as illustrated by the relative boldness of arrows in Fig. 10.1. Overall, the relations between letters and phonemes in alphabetic
languages support the most powerful bidirectional correlations. The same letters and phonemes occur together in very many
words. Phoneme-semantic relations and letter-semantic relations are less strongly correlated. Phonemes and semantic features,
and letters and semantic features covary much less systematically. However, phoneme-semantic relations support stronger
correlations than letter-semantic relations. This is true because, essentially, we speak before and more often than we read.
Once in place, this asymmetry is self-perpetuating. Reading strengthens phoneme-semantic connections because phonology
functions in every instance of printed word perception. Thus, even the exceptional condition of a person who reads more than
she speaks supports phoneme-semantic connections that are at least as strong as letter-semantic connections. Also, in principle,
if a coherent positive feedback loop forms between phoneme nodes and semantic nodes, before the feedback loop between letter
nodes and semantic nodes, then printed or spoken discourse may proceed without settling the feedback loop between letter
nodes and semantic nodes. The absence of coherence in the latter feedback loop may preclude strengthening the connections
between letter nodes and semantic nodes (cf. Grossberg & Stone, 1986).
The relative strength of the relations between letter and phoneme nodes illustrates why phonology supplies such powerful
constraints on word perception. Stated differently, it explains why phonologic mediation is fundamental to reading (and
spelling). Strong bidirectional connections between nodes yield powerful feedback loops that cohere very early in a model's
dynamics. Abundant empirical evidence agrees with this claim (Berent &
Fig. 10.2.
A highly simplified illustration of micro dynamics that describe reading and spelling performance for the word Hi.
The indices refer to the positions of the letters or phonemes in the word Hi. A recurrent network model
presented with the written word Hi sends feed forward activation from letter nodes to phoneme nodes (Fig. 2a) and,
in turn, feeds back activation from phoneme nodes to letter nodes (Fig. 2b). Figure 2c illustrates a resonance that
emerges between letter and phoneme nodes corresponding to Hi.
Acknowledgments
We thank Iris Berent and Martin van Leerdam for their comments on a previous version of this article. We also thank Martin for
creating the figures. Preparation of this article was funded by a NATO fellowship N58-92 awarded to Anna M. T. Bosman and a
National Institute of Health FIRST Award CM 5 R29 NS26247-05 awarded to Guy C. Van Orden.
Anna M. T. Bosman, Department of Special Education, University of Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The
Netherlands, e-mail: a.bosman @ped.kun.nl; and Guy C. Van Orden, Cognitive Systems Group, Department of Psychology,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA, e-mail: guy.van.orden@asu.edu
References
Assink, E. M. H. (1985). Assessing spelling strategies for the orthography of Dutch verbs. British Journal of Psychology, 76,
353-363.
Assink, E. M. H. (1990). Learning to spell. In P. Reitsma & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Acquisition of reading in Dutch (pp. 65-76).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris Publications.
Azuma, T., & Van Orden, G. C. (in press). Why SAFE is better than FAST: Relatedness between a word's meanings affects
lexical decision performance. Journal of Memory and Language.
Bailet, L. L. (1990). Spelling rule usage among students with learning disabilities and normally achieving students. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 23, 121-128.
Barry, C. (1994). Spelling routes (or roots or rutes). In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory,
process and intervention (pp. 27-49). New York: Wiley.
Berent, I., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A Rose is a REEZ: The two-cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English.
Psychological Review, 102, 146-184.
Bosman, A. M. T. (1994). Reading and spelling in children and adults: Evidence for a single-route model. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Dissertatie reeks 1994-2, Faculteit Psychologie, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bosman, A. M. T., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1991). De ontwikkeling van woordbeelden bij beginnende lezers en spellers [The
development of orthographic images in beginning readers and spellers]. Pedagogische Studin, 68, 199-215.
Bosman, A. M. T., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Differential effectiveness of reading and non-reading tasks in learning to spell.
In F. Satow & B. Gatherer (Eds.), Literacy without frontiers. Widnes, Cheshire, UK: United States Kingdom Reading
Association.
Chapter 11
The Inhibition of Polygraphic Consonants in Spelling Hebrew: Evidence for Recurrent Assembly of Spelling and Phonology in
Visual Word Recognition
Iris Berent
Florida Atlantic University
Ram Frost
Hebrew University
Skilled spelling entails two subcomponents. One permits the spelling of new words and nonwords. A second subcomponent
entails the retrieval of idiosyncratic word-specific orthographic knowledge. Spelling models (e.g., Barry, 1994; Jorm, 1983;
Kreiner, 1992; Link & Caramazza, 1994) account for these two abilities by postulating two strategies for assigning an
orthographic representation to a word. One is a productive strategy that assembles a spelling representation by mapping the
word's phonemic constituents onto graphemes. Such a strategy is necessary to account for the spelling of nonwords such as
/blin/. Because /blin/ does not correspond to any English word, its spelling cannot be obtained by consulting the spelling of any
particular English word. Instead, it must be generated "from scratch." Spellers can do so by mapping each of the phonemes of
/blin/ onto a letter. There is evidence that the assembly strategy contributes also to the spelling of familiar words. Supporting the
contribution of the assembly process in spelling are the findings that most spelling errors among good (Barron, 1980; Frith,
1980) as well as poor (Bosman, 1994; Frith 1980) spellers are phonologically plausible, that a child's early spellings are affected
by the phonetic and phonological properties of the word (Read, 1971; Treiman, 1994), and
The Reliability of the Assembly Mechanism in Reading and Spelling Hebrew: The Effects of Hebrew's Orthographic Structure
Of the properties of Hebrew orthography, we note two features that are particularly important to spelling: its consonantal nature
and its consonantal polygraphy. The consonantal nature of Hebrew orthography is one of the most widely known characteristics
of this writing system. In Hebrew, letters represent mostly consonants, whereas vowels can be optionally superimposed on the
consonants as diacritical marks. The diacritical marks, however, are omitted from most reading materials and are found only in
poetry, children's literature, and religious texts. Thus, in its unpointed form, Hebrew orthography does not convey to the reader
the full phonemic structure of
Fig. 11.1.
The polygraphic consonants in Hebrew.
cal phonological difference between these consonants that were present in ancient Hebrew. In fact, some of these phonological
distinctions can be found in some Jewish communities originating from Arab-speaking countries
(footnote continued from previous page)
the following vowel letter. Thus, its mapping is more complex than that of k. The spelling of these consonants may further
be disambiguated by their position in the word and their frequency. The distributions of the two correspondences of /k/
are roughly complementary: The letter k appears in an environment in which c is mapped into /s/ (Venezky, 1970). In
addition, the mapping of /k/ to k is less common than /k/ to c. Further research is required to determine the effect of
consonantal polygraphy in such orthographies.
A Unified Model of the Assembly of Spelling and Phonology in Processing Hebrew Words
In this section, we outline a model that provides a unified account of the role of assembled information in spelling and reading
Hebrew words. We have noted that the information specified in the assembly of both spelling
Fig. 11.2.
A lexical model of polygraphic inhibition. The presentation
of the spoken word /kelev/ results in addressing the
representation of /kelev/ in the phonological lexicon,
which, in turn leads to two simultaneous patterns of
activation. One is the addressing of the orthographic
representation of /kelev/ in the orthographic lexicon. The
other is mapping the consonants of /kelev/ onto graphemes
by a sublexical assembly mechanism. Because the consonant
/k/ is polygraphic, its assembly yields the activation of two
graphemes, k and q. However, according to the lexical
model, the erroneous grapheme q is immediately suppressed
by a top-down activation from the orthographic lexicon
(inhibitory connections are notated as crossed-bold arrows).
This inhibition leaves the speller only with the correct
representation of klv. The spelling computed by the speller
(in the rectangular box) reflects the contribution of these
two sources of information.
Fig. 11.3.
A sublexical model of polygraphic inhibition. As in the lexical
account, the presentation of the spoken word /kelev/ results
in addressing the representation of /kelev/ in the phonological
lexicon, which, in turn leads to two simultaneous patterns of
activation. One is the addressing of the orthographic
representation of /kelev/ in the orthographic lexicon. The other
is mapping the consonants of /kelev/ onto graphemes by a
sublexical assembly mechanism. Because the consonant /k/ is
polygraphic, its assembly yields the activation of two
graphemes, k and q. In contrast to the lexical account, however,
note that the activation of each grapheme results in the
inhibition of its competitor (inhibitory connections are
marked by a bold-cross arrow). This inhibition occurs entirely
at the sublexical level of assembly. Because k and q inhibit each
other, the resulting output of the assembly mechanism actually
lacks a specification for the initial grapheme. However, this output
nevertheless permits addressing the orthographic lexicon and
retrieving the missing information. Thus, as in the lexical
account, the spelling computed by the speller (in the rectangular
box) reflects the contribution of both assembled and addressed
information.
Fig. 11.4.
An illustration of the three types of masks used for the target /kelev/.
The Assembly of Polygraphic Phonemes Results in the Inhibition of their Graphemic Competitors
The primary goal of our first experiment is to demonstrate the existence of an inhibitory mechanism in Hebrew and determine its
locus. An additional question concerns the generality of the inhibition in respect to the orthographic transparency of the target
words and their frequency. To investigate these questions, we examined the effect of three types of masks (pseudohomophone,
graphemic, and control masks) on the recognition of targets that contrast in terms of their frequency (high vs. low) and the
presence of vowels (explicit vs. implicit). The results of this study are represented in Fig. 11.5.
According to the lexical account, performance with the pseudohomophone should be at least as good as with the graphemic
mask. In contrast, the sublexical account predicts inhibition in target recognition by the pseudohomophone. Contrary to the
predictions of the lexical account, the masking of the target by its pseudohomophone resulted in a decrease of 5.3% in its
recognition accuracy compared to its graphemic control. Furthermore, the magnitude of the inhibition caused by the
pseudohomophone was similar across the two levels of word frequency (D = 4.43%, D = 6.6%, for high- and low-frequency
words, respectively). The observation of such a general inhi-
Fig. 11.5.
Recognition accuracy as a function of mask type in Experiment 1.
bition of target recognition by nonwords suggests that the locus of the inhibitory mechanism is in the sublexical connections
between phonemes and graphemes.
If the inhibition operates at a sublexical level of spelling assembly, then its presence may help detect the generality of
phonological assembly in reading as well. Specifically, if the conversion of graphemes to phonemes occurs only in scripts in
which the assembly of the word's phonology is highly predictable, then the inhibition should be limited to words containing
vowel information. In contrast, if consonantal information is sufficient for assembly, then the inhibition should be obtained even
when vowel information is absent. Supporting the general contribution of assembly to reading, the size of the inhibition effect
was relatively unaffected by the presence of vowels in the scripts. The pseudohomophone mask resulted in an inhibition of 4.8%
in the recognition of targets containing no vowel letters and 6% for targets in which some vowel information is present.
The results of this experiment suggest the existence of an inhibitory mechanism between phonemes and their competitor
graphemes in Hebrew. The fact that nonword orthographic stimuli can inhibit the recognition of targets containing competitor
graphemes suggests that the inhibitory mechanism reflects generalized knowledge operating at a sublexical level of phoneme-
grapheme connections rather than specific lexical knowledge with the spelling of familiar words. The generality of the inhibition
in respect to
Fig. 11.6.
Recognition accuracy as a function of mask type in Experiment 2.
Fig. 11.7.
Recognition accuracy as a function of mask type for each of the vowel x
length target types.
Conclusions
The existence of polygraphic consonants in Hebrew presents spellers with a severe ambiguity in assembling the spelling of
many Hebrew words. To prevent the omission of spelling errors, spellers have developed an inhibitory mechanism whereby the
activation of a polygraphic consonant results in the suppression of its competitor grapheme via an inhibition from the common
phoneme. Our findings demonstrate the activation of such an inhibitory mechanism in the recognition of familiar words. Clearly,
such a mechanism is required only if assembled spelling contributes to the recognition of the word. Thus, the inhibitory
mechanism is prima facie evidence that skilled spellers assemble a graphemic representation in spelling familiar Hebrew words.
In addition, this mechanism provides a definition of skilled spelling in Hebrew. Although the consultation of word-specific
knowledge seems necessary to support skilled spelling in such a deep orthography, this source of knowledge is insufficient for
skilled spelling. The assembly of words' spelling appears to be an important source of constraint even in the recognition of
familiar words. Thus, skilled Hebrew spelling entails recognizing the potential sources of ambiguity in spelling Hebrew words
and automatically preventing the effect of misleading information through inhibition.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 8811042 to Charels A. Perfetti. Correspondence should
be addressed to Iris Berent, Department of Psychology, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Rd., Boca-Raton, FL 33431-
0991.
Chapter 12
Children's Use of Analogy in Learning to Read and to Spell
Jean Emile Gombert
Universit de Bourgogne
Peter Bryant
University of Oxford
Nicola Warrick
University of Oxford
Fig. 12.1.
The learning to read process.
to allow the reading of some new words that are phonological neighbors of already known words.
At first, there is no reason that the reader must have any awareness of the analogies made between spelling patterns and between
spoken words. In fact, in a recent study, Seymour and Evans (1994) showed that it is later on that the child becomes able to
perform conscious, intrasyllabic analysis. Complementary evidence comes from Cardoso-Martins (1994) who, in comparing
performance on different rhyme categorization tasks in kindergartners and first graders, provided results that suggest that rhyme
detection does not involve attention to segments. She concludes that this kind of
Conclusion
Almost everybody agrees with the idea that analogies are used at some level of learning to read and to spell. The controversy
concerns the timing of this use. In fact, this debate is part of a more general debate on analogical reasoning in children. Whereas
some people taking a Piagetian perspective suggest that this kind of reasoning is late developing (cf. Inhelder & Piaget, 1958),
others think that it appears early (cf. Brown, 1989). Goswami (1991a) resolved this contradiction by proposing an analogical
development that allows early analogical competence and that also postulates the later development of metalogical skills.
Learning to read and to spell is the acquisition of knowledge in a formal domain, and, as in other acquisitions of this sort, it is
likely that analogy plays a central role (cf. Halford, 1992; Suzuki, 1994). The written environment, as with other learning
environments, is a very complex one, and so it is difficult, and perhaps impossible, for the beginner to fully understand the
relevance of the rules the teacher tries to explain. Analogical processes permit the beginner to go beyond his or her own explicit
knowledge in apprehending written material. This kind of functioning is efficient first in reading; because of memory load it
appears in spelling only later when the child is able to produce each graphic unit to be used in the spelling pattern to be written.
The existence of early analogical processes in learning to read does not contradict the idea that other analogical processes can
appear later as a consequence of alphabetic reading experience. The development of orthographic knowledge through alphabetic
reading, and above all spelling, adds to the basis of knowledge available for making analogies. Therefore, it is not astonishing
that analogy use seems to be more frequent in skilled readers than in beginners. The important point is to recognize that the
early occurrence of analogies in learning to read and to spell provides a way of explaining how an information processing
system, which can neither read nor activate written concepts to be graphically reproduced (as that system exists in prereaders),
can be transformed into a reading and spelling machine.
This view implies the affirmation of the universal character of this way of learning to read and to spell. As shown by the results
of Goswami et al.
References
Baron, J. (1977). What we might know about orthographic rules. In S. Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 557-
572). London: Academic Press.
Bentin, S., Bargai, N., & Katz, L. (1984). Orthographic and phonemic coding for lexical access: Evidence from Hebrew.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 353-368.
Bentin, S., & Frost, R. (1987). Processing lexical ambiguity and visual word recognition in a deep orthography. Memory and
Cognition, 15, 13-23.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419-421.
Brown, A. L. (1989). Analogical learning and transfer: What develops? In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and
analogical reasoning (pp. 369-412). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Besner, D. (1987). The assembly of phonology in oral reading: A new model. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and
performance XII: The psychology of reading (pp. 471-489). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1992). Learning to pronounce words: The limitations of analogies. Reading Research Quarterly, 27,
375-388.
Bryant, P. E. (1993). Reading and development. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of representation in children:
Development and use (pp. 235-250). New York: Wiley.
Bryant, P. E., Bradley, L. L., MacLean, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Nursery rhyme, phonological skills and reading. Journal of
Child Language 16, 407-428.
Bryant, P. E., & Goswami, U. (1987). Beyond grapheme-phoneme correspondence. Cahier de Psychologie Cognitive, 7, 439-
443.
Campbell, R. (1985). When children write nonwords to dictation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 40, 133-151.
Cardoso-Martins, C. (1994). Rhyme perception: Global or analytical. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 26-41.
Coenen, M. (1994, October). Reading and spelling in Dutch first graders and second graders. Paper presented at the NATO
ASI Conference, Alvor/Algarve, Portugal.
Content, A., Morais, J., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1982). Accelerating the development of phonetic segmentation skills in
kindergartners. Cahier de Psychologie Cognitive, 2, 259-269.
Dowker, A. (1989). Rhymes and alliterations in poems elicited from young children. Journal of Child Language, 16, 181-202.
Feldman, L. B., & Turvey, M. T. (1983). Word recognition in Serbo-Croatian is phonologically analytic. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 288-298.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.),
Surface dyslexia: Cognitive and neuropsychological studies of phonological reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Chapter 13
Learning to Read and Learning to Spell are One and the Same, Almost
Linnea C. Ehri
City University of New York Graduate School
Over the years, I have conducted several studies investigating how children learn to read words. I designed these studies to
include information about students' memory for spellings of the words they learned to read in the belief that I was studying more
general word learning processes in which treatments would influence spelling as well as reading. Results of these studies
confirmed my belief. The purpose of this chapter is to consider the relationship between reading and spelling. A conceptual
framework distinguishing the important behaviors, processes, and types of knowledge is presented. Similarities and differences
between reading and spelling concepts and phenomena are examined to achieve a clearer understanding of how reading and
spelling are linked during development. Various studies are examined for evidence bearing on these relationships. I build a
partly theoretical, partly empirical case for the claim that learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost.1
1 My presentation does not include a comprehensive review of the literature on this topic. I apologize to researchers who
have published relevant findings that are not cited. The space available precluded such a treatment. The research cited to
support claims is thought to be consistent with other research not cited. I welcome being notified of discrepant findings I
have overlooked. In constructing my case, I have tried to adopt straightforward language and to avoid terms that have
become ambiguous as a result of researchers using them to mean different things (the term orthographic is one of these)
as Wagner and Barker (1994) note. More precise terms replace this term.
Fig. 13.1.
Connections formed in memory between graphemes and phonemes
or between consolidated graphemes and syllabic units to remember
how to read specific words.
Notice how variable the letters are. Schwa might be spelled with any vowel letter or pairs of letters, hence making it harder for
students to remember the specific letters. Kreiner and Gough (1990) have shown that spellers make more errors on schwa
vowels than on unambiguously pronounced vowels.
The following words are listed as spelling demons by Fry, Polk, and Fountoukidis (1984):
What makes these words difficult to spell? According to our theory, students remember best those letters that conform to their
knowledge of the alphabetic system, and they have the hardest time remembering letters that fall outside of the system.
Inspection of these words reveals that all contain
6 Schwa vowels are the vowel sounds that very often occur in unstressed syllables, for example, the final phoneme in
"sofa."
Effects of Reading on Spelling. According to our theory, students retain word-specific information in memory when they learn
to read words, and this information is available to support spelling performance. Transfer from reading to spelling was evident in
a study with second graders (Ehri, 1980). Participants practiced reading one or another phonemically equivalent spelling for each
of eight made-up words until they could read them perfectly. Examples of the spellings are: WHEOPLE versus WEEPEL,
BISTION versus BISCHUN, GHIRP versus GURP (both members pronounced identically). After a 4-minute delay, students
wrote from memory the spellings that they had read. A majority, 69%, were recalled perfectly, indicating that substantial
transfer from word reading to word spelling occurred, despite alternative ways to spell the words.
Even when students misspelled the words, they restricted their letter choices to those they had seen in the words rather than
phonemically equivalent alternatives. For example, all six students who misspelled WHEOPLE began it with WH, not WE-,
whereas all four students who misspelled WEEPEL began it with WE-, not WH-. All four students who misspelled BISCHUN
included CH, whereas none of the four students who misspelled BISTION included CH. All four students who misspelled
GHIRP used I to spell the vowel even though it has no distinctive sound, whereas I was not included
Conclusion: Are Reading and Spelling one and the Same, Almost?
I have built a partly theoretical, partly empirical case for the claim that reading words and spelling words are one and the same,
almost. I conclude that they are one and the same because they depend on the same knowledge sources in memory: knowledge
about the alphabetic system and knowledge about the spellings of specific words. I conclude that reading and spelling are not
quite the same because the response performed to read words differs from the response performed to spell words. The act of
reading involves one response, that of pronouncing a word. In contrast, the act of spelling involves multiple responses, that of
writing several letters in the correct sequence. More information is needed in memory to spell words accurately than to read
words.
According to my theory, the underlying knowledge sources may fully support both reading and spelling responses for many
words that conform to students' knowledge of the system, provided students have read those words enough times in a way that
activates connection-forming processes to secure letters in memory. Underlying knowledge sources provide less support for
reading and spelling responses when specific words include letters that lie outside the students' knowledge of the system. This is
because letters that are not systematic are harder to remember, and even if remembered are weakly secured and hence unstable
in the representations.
It is important to consider how my theory and evidence relate to the issue of literacy instruction, because there is room for
misunderstanding
References
Ball, W., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a difference in early word
recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49-66.
Becker, W., Dixon, R., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1980). Morphographic and root word analysis of 26,000 high frequency words.
Eugene, OR: University of Oregon College of Education.
Beers, J., & Henderson, E. (1977). A study of developing orthographic concepts among first graders. Research in the teaching
of English, 2, 133-148.
Bowey, J., & Hansen, J. (1994). The development of orthographic rimes as units of word recognition. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 58, 465-488.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1979). The independence of reading and spelling in backward and normal readers. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 21, 504-514.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Brown, A. (1988). Encountering misspellings and spelling performance: Why wrong isn't right. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 488-494.
Bruck, M., & Waters, G. (1990). An analysis of the component spelling and reading skills of good readers-good spellers, good
readers-poor spellers, and poor readers-poor spellers. In T. Carr & B. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development (pp. 161-206).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Byrne, B. (1992). Studies in the acquisition procedure for reading: Rationale, hypotheses and data. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R.
Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 1-34). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chapter 14
Interactions in the Development of Reading and Spelling: Stages, Strategies, and Exchange of Knowledge1
Nick Ellis
University of Wales
Introduction
A number of models of the development of spelling have been progressively refined over the last 15 years (Ehri, 1986; Gentry,
1978, 1982; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Morris, 1983). These share the following commonalities: (a) They are based on analyses
of spelling errors when children attempt to spell novel words (invented spellings); (b) they are stage theories, proposing that
qualitatively different cognitive processes are involved in children's spelling at different points in development and that there is a
characteristic progression from stage to stage; (c) they emphasize that phonological awareness plays a crucial role in children's
early spelling but, also, that children eventually acquire orthographic descriptions of words. These models have been developed
in parallel with cognitive developmental stage theories of reading acquisition (see Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1980,
1981) that are also based on error analysis, which also hold that there are very different strategies of information processing used
in reading at different stages of its development, and which also emphasize the links between phonological awareness and
reading development. Although synchronous, paradoxically these theoretical developments concerning reading and spelling were
essentially independent until Ehri (1979, 1984) showed that the improvements
1 Parts of this chapter appeared in G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (1994a) and are reprinted with permission of the
publisher.
Fig. 14.1.
Firth's (1985) model of reading and spelling acquisition (strategies acting as
"pacemakers" at each step are italicized).
phonemes when they write, and yet are so reluctant to think in terms of phonemes when they read. But there can be little doubt
that at first children's reading and spelling are different and separate. The most dramatic demonstration of this separation is the
fact that young children often cannot read some words which they know how to spell and also fail to spell some words which
they can read." Perhaps the major tenet of Frith's (1985) model, as with that of Ehri (1986), is that children first gain explicit
insight into the alphabetic code through practice at spelling and that this causes a shift from a logographic reading strategy to an
alphabetic approach. Claim 2 is that alphabetic spelling is the pacemaker for the use of an alphabetic strategy in reading. This
can be broken down into two components: Claim 2a is that phonological awareness is much more related to early spelling than
it is to early reading; Claim 2b is that this mutually supportive growth of phonological awareness and spelling acts as a
pacemaker for the adoption of an alphabetic strategy of reading.
Tests from Longitudinal Studies of Developmental Phonological Awareness and Alphabetic Reading
There have now been a number of longitudinal demonstrations that early phonological awareness (PA) predicts later reading
achievement even when prior IQ is controlled (Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Ellis & Large, 1987; Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall,
1980; Mann, 1984; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984; see Goswami & Bryant, 1990, and Wagner & Torgesen, 1987, for
reviews). It is clear, therefore, that there is a causal developmental sequence whereby alphabetic reading capitalizes on prior
phonological abilities.
Reciprocal influences are also evident, as metaphonological skills are made relevant and are practiced in alphabetic reading so
they themselves are enriched (see Morais, Alegria, & Content, 1987, for review). For example: (a) Portuguese adult illiterates
who had never attended school for social reasons scored only 19% correct on tests of phoneme addition and deletion, whereas
matched participants who had been taught to read and write in special classes in adulthood scored at over 70% levels. Thus
Morais, Cary, Alegria, and Bertelson (1979) concluded that the ability to deal explicitly with the segmental units of speech is not
acquired spontaneously in the course of cognitive growth but demands some specific training, which, for most persons, is
provided by learning to read and write; (b) Alegria, Pignot,
Conclusions
The longitudinal studies reviewed previously give considerable support for several of the claims of Frith's (1985) model. There
is some evidence of a logographic first stage of reading (Berninger et al., 1990; Seymour & Evans, 1988), although no study can
be found that provides corroboration of logographic reading acting as a pacemaker for a logographic stage of spelling (Claim 1).
Phonological awareness does seem more related, in early development, to spelling than to reading (Tornus, 1984; Wimmer et
al., 1991; cf. Juel et al., 1986; Mommers, 1987), and training in PA first affects the development of spelling rather than reading
(Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Lie, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988; Tornus, 1984; Claim 2a). The acquisition of PA through spelling
engenders development of an alphabetic strategy of reading (Cataldo & Ellis, 1988; Ehri & Wilce, 1987; Ellis & Cataldo, 1990;
Goulandris, 1991; Lundberg et al., 1988; Mommers, 1987; Claim 2b; see Ellis & Cataldo, 1990, for the pedagogical implications
of this). The acquisition of orthographic knowledge through reading promotes orthographic spelling (Mommers, 1987; Stanovich
& Cunningham, 1992; Claim 3).
These data also suggest some additions and qualifications. First, they very clearly show that there are different facets of PA, an
early implicit awareness of syllables and rhyme, and a later sophisticated explicit ability at segmentation at the level of
phonemes. Even very early reading seems to capitalize on this implicit phonological awareness that plays a role in the
logographic reading, otherwise characterized as being primarily visual in nature. The aforementioned studies also demonstrate
that experience in alphabetic spelling and reading promotes the more analytic and explicit phonological awareness at subsyllabic
levels. In normal children, this is acquired very quickly and, although it remains to be determined by just how much, it seems
likely
References
Alegria, J., Pignot, E., & Morais, J. (1982). Phonetic analysis of speech and memory codes in beginning readers. Memory and
Cognition, 10, 451-456.
Backman, J. (1983). The role of psycholinguistic skills in reading acquisition: A look at early readers. Reading Research
Quarterly, 18, 466-479.
Chapter 15
Relations Between Word-search Strategies and Word-copying Strategies in Children Aged 5 to 6 Years Old
Laurence Rieben
Madelon Saada-Robert
University of Geneva
Are Stage-based Models Good Models for Describing the Acquisition of Reading and Spelling?
The literature contains numerous independently proposed stage-based models for the identification (e.g., see Ehri & Wilce,
1985; Frith, 1985; Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1981) and the writing of words (e.g., see Ehri, 1991b; Ferreiro, 1978;
Frith, 1985; Henderson, 1992). These models tend to agree on the distinction between three phases logographic, alphabetic, and
orthographic although differences remain in the number of stages identified, the importance attributed to each of them, and the
transitional mechanisms that allow participants to move between stages (Ehri, 1991c; Rieben, 1991; Rieben & Saada-Robert,
1991).
strategy and participant spaces. The first extracted factor (which explains 33.5% of the variance) contrasted the very earliest
strategies (BLIND) with the most highly developed (ORTHO and COPY) while passing via TITLE, VISUAL, TEXT, and
CORRESPONDENCE strategies; the second factor (which explains 23.9% of the variance) distinguished between the strategies
that result from a process of automatization or memorization (COPY, ORTHO, TITLE) and those that demand active problem-
solving behavior (CORRESPONDENCE, TEXT, VISUAL).
Turning to individual participants, we were able to compare their trajectories as defined by their position at T1, T2, T3, and T4
in the four quadrants formed by the space of the first two factors. In general, these trajectories corresponded to the steps
described in the stage-based models: transition from the strategies of prereaders (BLIND, TITLE), through the nonautomatized
strategies of beginning readers (VISUAL and TEXT logographic phase and reference to context) followed by nonautomatized
strategies based on phoneme grapheme correspondence (CORRESPONDENCE alphabetic phase) to, finally, the automatized
strategies of quasi-readers (ORTHO, COPY alphabetic/orthographic phase). It is important to note that the phases described
earlier cover the period of learning to read in the narrow sense and exclude a period during which this new knowledge is
consolidated. This is because, on the one hand, the observed strategies apply to a still limited lexicon bearing on a familiar text
and, on the other, because these strategies still result in frequent word-identification errors.
Moreover, the children observed in this study differed in the speed with which they made the transition between the various
phases and did not make equal use of all the strategies characterizing the individual phases. We hypothesized that the
participants may also differ in the shape of their trajectory, with some children omitting the phase in which strategies linked to
the alphabetical code are dominant. This hypothesis finds limited support in the results, although it is not possible to assert that
these children totally "skipped" the alphabetical phase. When searching for words, most children
Fig. 15.1.
Theoretical models of the relationship between reading and spelling of words.
Note: PRE = Preliterate; LOG = Logographic; ALP = Alphabetic; ORT = Orthographic.
Fig. 15.2.
Factorial Correspondence Analysis: location of strategies and subjects in the
space defined by Factor 1 (horizontal) and 2 (vertical).
more specific to searching than copying (CORRESPONDENCE, TEXT, VISUAL for word search and LETTER-K for word
copying). If we now examine the situation of each strategy within the two-dimensional space, we find that the grouping revealed
by this analysis corresponds to that established earlier on the basis of the two separate analyses.
Again, in comparison with the separate analyses, the order of the search strategies is retained for both factors, whereas the order
of a number of very close strategies, that is, strategies with extremely similar coordinates, is inverted. Even though there is no
important modification of the order, it is interesting to note that the TITLE strategy, which appears to be one of the strategies
involving memorization when viewed in terms of the subset of search strategies, ranks alongside the problem-solving strategies
when viewed in terms of the overall set of strategies (closer to VISUAL and TEXT than to BLIND on the second factor). On the
basis of the interpretation of the first two factors, the quadrants can be characterized as follows: (a) automatic
prereader/prewriter strategies; (b) nonautomatized logographic strategies; (c) nonautomatized alphabetical strategies; (d)
partially automatized alphabetic/orthographic strategies of quasi-readers/quasi-writers. When we examine the position of the
participants, Factorial Correspondence
Analysis clearly reveals the differences between the K2 and G1 children, most of the latter being found in quadrant IV. This
reflects their schooling differences: Children at level G1 have already experienced many activities related to written language,
whereas K2 children have been primarily engaged in activities involving spoken language.
It is possible to identify each child's progress throughout the year by studying the trajectory defined by their positions within the
two-factor space at T1, T2, T3, and T4. By way of example, Fig. 15.2 presents the trajectories of three children. Child 55 (G1)
exhibited rapid progress. In this subject, prereader/prewriter strategies (LETTER-U and BLIND) were dominant at T1, with
quasi-reader/quasi-writer strategies approaching dominance at T2 before becoming clearly established at T3 and T4. Also
interesting is that this child did not pass though a phase in which active problem-solving strategies of the logographic or
alphabetical type were dominant. Participant 03 (K2) exhibited a slower acquisition pattern and, more particularly, passed
through a phase at which logographic strategies were dominant (T2) and a long period during which alphabetic strategies
dominated (T2 and T3) before approaching quadrant IV at T4. Finally, participant 06 (K2) provided an example of a child who
did not move from quadrant I throughout the entire school year.
Table 15.4 presents the trajectories of the 21 participants.8 Their starting points at T1, their trajectories, and their points of
arrival at T4 vary considerably. The participants were classified into three groups depending on their level at T4 the advanced
group reaching level IV, the average group reaching
8 The K2 children are coded from 01 to 11, the G1 children from 50 to 59.
Conclusions
Let us return to the question of the tools that enable us to describe the development of reading/spelling in learners at the very
beginning of acquisition. Because the entries in their lexicon are both limited and idiosyncratic,
Acknowledgments
The research that is presented here would not have been possible without the active cooperation of the students of the Maison
des Petits and their teacher, Nicole Elliott, to whom we owe our sincere thanks. We should also like to thank Nilima
Changkakoti, Colette Grobty, Martine Mornacchi, Ladislas Ntamakiliro, Christiane Perregaux, and Gianreto Pini for their
assistance in the gathering and analysis of this data, and Mara Georgi for editing assistance in English. We are also grateful to
Linnea Ehri for her insightful comments.
References
Alegria, J., Content, A., & Leybaert, J. (1989). The development of reading mechanisms during the first school years: Effects of
the teaching method. Unpublished document. Universit Libre de Bruxelles.
Barron, R. W. (1986). Word recognition in early reading: A review of the direct and indirect access hypotheses. Cognition, 24,
93-119.
Barry, C. (1994). Spelling routes (or roots or rutes). In G. D. A. Gordon & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory,
process, and intervention. Chichester: Wiley.
Benzecri, J. P. (1980). L'analyse des donnes [The practice of data analysis]. Paris: Dunod.
Bruck, M., & Waters, G. S. (1990). An analysis of the component spelling and reading skills of good readers good spellers,
goods readers poor spellers, and poor readers poor spellers. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development (pp.
161-206). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1980). Why children sometimes write words which they cannot read. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive
processes in spelling (pp. 356-370). London: Academic Press.
Campbell, R. (1983). Writing nonwords to dictation. Brain and Language, 19, 153-178.
Campbell, R. (1987). One or two lexicons for reading and writing words: Can misspellings shed any light? Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 4, 487-499.
Caramazza, A., & Miceli, G. (1990). The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition, 37, 243-297.
Clesse, C. (1977). Apprendre lire en parlant. Exprimentation dans un cours prparatoire [Learning to read by speaking.
Experimentation in first grade]. In L. Lentin (Ed.), Du parler au lire (pp. 91-152). Paris: ESF.
Ehri, L. (1980). The development of orthographic images. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 311-338).
London: Academic Press.
Chapter 16
Foundations of Orthographic Development
Philip H. K. Seymour
University of Dundee, Scotland
In this chapter I aim to present the outline of a theory of orthographic development, that is, to provide an account of the
progression from preliteracy to skilled reading and spelling (Perfetti, 1992). I make the simplifying assumption that these two
processes reading and spelling are both dependent on the development of a single central orthographic resource.
Written language systems have been the object of large amounts of linguistic analysis and discussion (Henderson, 1982;
Kavanagh & Mattingly, 1972). A distinction has been made between logographic systems, in which symbols represent whole
words or concepts, and phonographic systems, in which component sounds are represented. Phonographic writing may take the
form of a syllabary or of an alphabet. English is generally held to be an alphabet, although the correspondence between
phonemes and graphemes is far from straightforward. Some people take the view that the script is morphophonemic, implying
that distinctions of spelling are used to indicate lexical identities, word derivations, and morphological structure. One
consequence has been the conclusion that the treatment of English orthography as a simple alphabet is, in principle, inadequate
as an approach to the achievement of competence. Almost any word might, legitimately, be written in a number of ways.
Because each word is assigned a unique and conventionally agreed spelling, it becomes essential to know the precise
arrangement of letters that is appropriate in each case.
Fig. 16.1.
Hierarchical model of the structure of the syllable.
ments from a list of onsets with elements from a list of rimes. Subdivision of the rime into a vowel and terminal consonant
group defines a further level that can be thought of as three-dimensional (3D) because it is implied that syllables are constructed
by combining elements from lists of initial consonant groups (ICs), vowels (Vs), and terminal consonants (TCs). A fourth level
can be identified at which the IC and TC structures are broken into sequences of phonemes.
The debate regarding the manner in which phonological awareness influences literacy concerns the level within this hierarchy at
which the critical units are represented. On the one hand, there is the view that phonological development naturally progresses
down the hierarchy, from syllables, through onset and rime structures, and eventually to phonemes (Treiman, 1987). It is this
view that motivates Goswami and Bryant's (1990) contention that it is the high-level structures that are important. Against this,
there is the view that it is the lowest phonemic level that is essential because, in an alphabetic language, it is the phonemes that
stand in correspondence with the letters of the alphabet.
Fig. 16.2.
Diagrammatic representation of the dual-foundation model of
orthographic and morphographic development.
Conclusions
In the chapter, I have presented the outline of a theory of orthographic development. The central ideas have been that literacy
acquisition involves the formation of a framework that encodes the abstract properties of written language and that this
development is dependent on contributions from logographic and alphabetic foundations as well as on an ongoing reciprocal
interaction with linguistic awareness.
Stages of Acquisition
A common feature of theories of literacy acquisition has been a belief that the process may involve a progression through a
succession of stages (Ehri, 1992; Frith, 1985; Gough & Hillinger, 1980). This is also true of the dual-foundation model because
it is assumed that: (a) the foundations must have reached a certain level before orthographic development can be initiated, and
(b) orthographic development must have proceeded some distance before the construction of the morphographic framework
becomes possible. However, no necessary sequence in the ordering of the foundation developments is proposed.
References
Alegria, J., Pignot, E., & Morais, J. (1982). Phonetic analysis of speech and memory codes in beginning readers. Memory and
Cognition, 10, 451-556.
Barry, C., & Seymour, P. H. K. (1988). Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contigency effects in nonword spelling.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 5-40.
Chapter 17
Beginning Reading and Spelling Acquisition in French: A Longitudinal Study
Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
CNRS & Universit Ren Descartes, Paris
Linda S. Siegel
University of British Columbia
Danielle Bchennec
National Institute for Pedagogical Research, Paris
Most research on reading and spelling acquisition has been conducted in the English language (see Perfetti, 1994). This state of
affairs poses a problem because developmental sequences seem to depend partially on the specific characteristics of languages
and orthographies rather than exclusively on the general principles common to all languages (see Frost, 1994). For example, the
comparisons between the acquisition of reading in English and in German, a language more transparent than English at the level
of grapheme phoneme correspondences, show that German-speaking children use phonological mediation even at the very
beginning of reading acquisition, without passing through a logographic stage of nonanalytic, direct visual processing (Wimmer
& Goswami, 1994); it is not necessarily the case for English-speaking children (Wimmer & Goswami). Therefore, it is
important to examine reading and spelling acquisition in French, a language that, similar to German, has a written system less
opaque than English.
Participants
Children had to meet certain criteria to be participants in the study. First, they had to be native French speakers. Second, children
with language disabilities, sensorimotor, or neural deficits detected by teachers, psychologists, or medical doctors, were
excluded. Finally, children with behavioral problems or those who lacked an adequate opportunity for schooling were not
considered.
Using these criteria, we examined a group of 100 children at the end of kindergarten. From this group, we chose 60 nonreaders
of middle-to-high cognitive level (50th percentile or higher on the Raven Progressive Matrices [Raven, 1947]) from different
socioeconomic levels representative of the French population. Their nonreading level was evaluated by the BAT-ELEM. This
test was used to confirm that they were nonreaders (Savigny, 1974).
It was possible to follow 57 of these children until the end of the first grade. For this first series of observations in primary
school (in January), the average age of these children was 6 1/2 years old (SD, 3 mos.). They were enrolled in 20 different
classes in nine different schools located in Parisian suburbs and received neither systematic teaching of reading nor teaching of
letter-to-sound correspondences in kindergarten. In first grade, the 20 different teachers used mainly mixed methods for reading
instruction, with variations in when grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules were explicitly taught.
The Tasks
The children first read and then spelled the same set of words and pseudowords, with the spelling task always second. Real-
word reading and spelling were separated by 1 week, with the pseudoword reading and spelling tasks given after an additional
week.
reflect facilitation via the orthographic lexicon. Instead, analogy in reading may have worked through the oral response, with
analog pseudowords being constructed on frequent words that have easily recoverable articulatory codes. If so, we should not
have observed any effect of analogy in spelling because the programming of the articulatory codes should not affect the written
response. In fact, this is what we observed in the first session in spelling. Moreover, the correlations between analog and
nonanalog pseudowords were very high (.90 in reading and .86 in spelling) and the effect of graphemic complexity a nonlexical
factor affected the analog and nonanalog pseudowords in the same way (the interaction between graphemic complexity and
analogy was not significant). These observations tend to support the hypothesis that pseudowords, whether they were analog or
nonanalog, were processed by an identical nonlexical procedure (i.e., by phonological mediation).
Table 17.2, which summarizes the effects observed in reading and in spelling, indicates that, except for the analogy effect in
reading, all our predictions for the first session are confirmed. French-speaking children primarily showed the use of
phonological mediation in the beginning of reading and spelling acquisition.
Nevertheless, we observed changes in performance from the middle of the year to the end of the year that indicate the
progressive establishment of the orthographic lexicon (see Table 17.2). In the second session, the high-frequency words were
better read and spelled than the low-frequency ones. Also, words were better read than pseudowords. In spelling, the reverse
lexicality effect favoring the spelling of pseudowords over words disappeared in the second session.
In Frith's (1985, 1986), Morton's (1989) and Seymour's (1986) models, frequency and lexicality effects were interpreted as
indicators of logo-
This direct comparison between simple and complex graphemes showed a very clear developmental trend for spelling. Complex
graphemes were less well spelled than simple graphemes in the January session both for words and pseudowords; in the June
session, there was no difference between simple and complex graphemes. These results show that children progressively set up
complex graphemes and that they were rapidly using graphemes, not letters, in spelling.
In reading, simple graphemes were better processed than complex graphemes only in the pseudoword task during the January
session, suggesting that children applied mainly graphemes in reading. Moreover, complex graphemes were more accurately
processed than simple ones in one case (word reading in June). This last result was not observed in the spelling tasks.
These results differ slightly for overall accuracy from those discussed previously. Such differences might result from the fact
that, in this complex grapheme analysis, only correct graphemes were assessed. For example, in table, read or spelled tabal(e),
all the expected graphemes were correct even though the response for the complete word was incorrect.
irregular words in January were not correlated with those for regular words and pseudowords in June (see Table 17.5). We also
observed positive correlations between the regularization errors, another indicator of phonological procedures, and correct
responses in January for both reading (r = +.54) and spelling (r = +.42).
These results were consistent with those of some other studies showing that reading and/or spelling performance on
pseudowords or regular words, including regularization errors, predict all further results in reading and in spelling, even for
irregular words (see Byrne, Freebody, & Gates, 1992; Foorman, Francis, Novy, & Liberman, 1991; Foorman, Jenkins, &
Francis, 1993; Gough & Walsh, 1991; for a review, see Share, 1995). The reverse has not been established. The capacity to read
or spell irregular words does not seem to be a predictor of future skills in reading and/or spelling.
General Discussion
To evaluate whether French first-grade children use the indirect phonological route or the direct orthographic route, we asked
them to read and spell items we had selected or constructed so as to show the procedure required to read and spell them. For
example, sensitivity to frequency or lexicality is generally considered an indicator of direct matching between a word and the
orthographic lexicon because a high-frequency word, unlike a pseudoword or a low-frequency word, might have an entry in the
orthographic lexicon of the beginners. An analogy effect for pseudowords also suggests this lexical procedure because analog,
not nonanalog, pseudowords share their orthographic body with the high-frequency words from which
AUTHOR INDEX
A
Aaron, P. G., 126
Abbot, R. D., 284, 291
Abdi, H., 106, 113
Ager, J., 134, 148
Alegria, J., 117, 118, 119, 122, 126, 127, 225, 233, 278, 290, 293, 312, 315, 322, 326, 334, 336
Aliminosa, D., 47, 56
Allal, L., 133, 145, 148
Allen, D., 134, 148
Allport, D. A., 50, 55
Anderson, J. R., 99, 112, 113
Anderson, L. M., 129, 149
Anderson-Inman, L., 244, 265
Andr-Leickman, B., 12, 13, 18
Angelergues, R., 39, 56
Anis, J., 4, 18
Assal, G., 40, 55
Assink, E. M. H., 187, 189
Atkins, P., 178, 190, 340, 357
Azuma, T., 183, 189
B
Backman, J., 279, 290
Baddeley, S., 16, 18
Badecker, W., 47, 55, 56
Bailet, L. L., 187, 189
Baird, K., 100, 113
Ball, W., 261, 265
Baluch, B., 216, 218
Bargai, N., 199, 218, 221, 233
Baron, J., 221, 233
Barron, R. W., 195, 196, 218, 295, 315
Barry, C., 49, 55, 176, 182, 189, 195, 218, 295, 315, 330, 334
Basso, S., 40, 55
Baxter, D. M., 40, 41, 44, 46, 50, 55
Bean, W., 142, 148
Bear, D., 252, 253, 255, 269
Beaulieux, C., 16, 18
Beauvois, M.-F., 50, 55, 116, 127
Bchennec, D., 353, 358
Beck, I. L., 279, 293, 322, 336
Becker, W., 244, 265
Beers, C. S., 101, 113
Beers, J. W., 101, 113, 175, 191, 253, 265, 271, 272, 292
Behrmann, M., 54, 55
Bell, A., 129, 149
Bell, L.C., 209, 219, 279, 293, 322, 336
Bellugi, V., 100, 113
Benson, D. F., 39, 55
Bentin, S., 25, 38, 199, 202, 216, 218, 221, 233, 234
Benzecri, J. P., 301, 315
Berch, D., 68, 69, 80, 342, 359
Berent, I., 21, 179, 180, 183, 189, 192, 196, 197, 211, 216, 217, 218, 297, 317
Berko, J., 73, 78, 99, 100, 101, 103, 113, 158, 159, 170
Bereiter, C., 129, 150
Berman, R. A., 14, 18
Berninger, V.W., 284, 288, 291
Berset Fougerand, B., 145, 148
Bertelson, P., 225, 233, 278, 293, 322, 335, 336
Besner, D., 24, 37, 216, 218, 221, 233
Btrix Khler, D., 145, 148
Biedermann-Pasques, L., 16, 20
Bijeljac-Babic, R., 180, 193
C
Caesar, F. B., 186, 190
Caffarra, P., 48, 57
Campbell, R., 48, 51, 52, 55, 116, 127, 173, 175, 190, 230, 233, 252, 266, 295, 297, 315
apan, S., 14, 18
Capasso, R., 44, 48, 57
Caramazza, A., 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 178, 192, 195, 216, 217, 218, 219, 306, 315
Cardoso-Martins, C., 228, 233
Carello, C., 180, 190
Cary, I. L., 278, 293, 322, 336
Casalis, S., 231, 234, 298, 318, 353, 358
Cassar, M., 21, 52, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80
Castles, A., 321, 335
Catach, N., 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 97, 113, 140, 149, 340, 344, 357
Cataldo, S., 279, 283, 288, 291
Cazden, C. B., 99, 113
Champollion, J.-F., 5, 19
Chandler, P., 132, 150
Chervel, A., 97, 113, 138-140, 149
Chevallard, Y., 131, 149
Chiss, J. L., 4, 18, 129, 140, 149
Chomsky, C., 277, 291
Chukovsky, K., 279, 291
Clark, E. V., 279, 291
Clark, M. A., 143, 149
Clarke, L., 260, 266
Clesse, C., 300, 315
Coenen, M., 231, 233
Cohen, M., 6, 7, 19
Collins, A., 132, 149
Coltheart, M., 24, 37, 50, 55, 173, 175, 176, 178, 190, 274, 292, 298, 318, 321, 325, 326, 335, 336, 340, 341, 352, 355, 356,
357, 359
Coltheart, V., 252, 268
Content, A., 119, 127, 225, 226, 233, 278, 293, 312, 315, 322, 336
Cossu, G., 29, 31, 32, 37
Coulmas, F., 9, 12, 19
Covill, A., 133, 150
Cramer, B. B., 278, 279, 293
Croft, W., 13, 19
Cromer, R. G., 176, 190
Cronnell, B., 243, 266
Crossland, J., 225, 233, 322, 335
Cubelli, R., 48, 56, 57, 217, 218
Cummings, J. L., 39, 55
Cunningham, A. E., 278, 279, 280, 285, 286, 288, 289, 291, 293
Curtis, B., 178, 190, 340, 357
D
David, J., 140, 149
Davidovitch, C., 344, 358
Davidson, B., 238, 268
Davidson, J. A., 126, 128
Davies, W. V., 16, 19
< previous page page_363 next page >
Page 363
Davis, A., 143, 149
Davison, M., 116, 127
DeFrancis, J., 8, 11, 14, 19, 28, 37
de Groot, A. M. B., 175, 177, 180, 184, 285, 186, 189, 190
Delaney, S. M., 209, 219
Delattre, P., 340, 357
de Partz, M. P., 54, 56, 116, 296, 306, 320
de Ribaupierre, A., 301, 313, 316, 317
Drouesn, J., 40, 50, 55, 116, 127
Derwing, B. L., 67, 79
de Saussure, F., 3, 20
Desberg, P., 151, 170, 175, 192, 271, 274, 292, 297, 316
Desbordes, F., 17, 19
DeStafano, J., 129, 149
Deutsch, A., 202, 218
De Villiers, J., 99, 113
De Villiers, P., 99, 113
de Vries, R., 175, 184, 185, 191
Dewey, J., 132, 149
Ding, B., 279, 293
DiPardo, A., 129, 149
Dixon, E. M., 100, 114
Dixon, R., 244, 265
Djebbour, S., 144, 150
Doblhofer, E., 12, 19
Dodd, B., 176, 190
Douzenis, J. A., 39, 56
Dowker, A., 225, 233
Downing, J., 129, 149
Drake, D., 249, 266
Drum, P., 253, 268
Dubois, J., 97, 98, 113
Ducancel, G., 144, 149
Dugas, M., 126, 128
Duguid, P., 132, 149
Duighuisen, H. C. M., 175, 190, 193
Duncan, L. G., 327, 335
Durrell, D. D., 65, 79, 244, 269
E
Ehri, L.C., 21, 32, 37, 52, 64, 65, 70, 73, 77, 79, 117, 125, 127, 174, 176, 186, 188, 190, 192, 242, 243, 244, 254, 247, 249,
252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274, 282, 286, 287, 288, 291, 295, 297, 298, 299, 307,
313, 315, 316, 325, 326, 331, 335, 355 357
Elder, L., 275, 293, 298, 313, 318, 325, 336
Ellis, A. W., 43, 44, 56, 320, 321, 335
Ellis, N. C., 52, 116, 127, 175, 190, 277, 278, 279, 280, 283, 288, 290, 290, 291, 292
Ellis, W. E., 340, 357
Encrev, P., 340, 357
Englert, C. S., 129, 149
Esteve Serrano, A., 16, 19
Evans, H. M., 228, 234, 288, 293, 298, 318, 320, 321, 326, 327, 328, 331, 336, 348, 358
Evett, L. J., 340, 357
Exner, S., 39, 56
F
Fawcett, A. J., 112, 114, 174, 192
Fayol, M., 21, 36, 110, 111, 112, 113, 115, 133, 149, 299, 316
Feeman, D. J., 289
Feldman, L. B., 221, 233, 234
Ferguson, C. A., 99, 113
Fernald, J., 100, 113
Ferreiro, E., 297, 299, 316
Fvrier, J., 6, 7, 19
Fielding-Barnsley, R., 261, 266
Fields, H., 263, 268
Fijalkow, J., 299, 316
Fischer, F. W., 321, 335
Fitzgerald, J., 135, 149
Foltz, G., 238, 268
Foorman, B., 259, 267, 351, 357
Forster, K., 202, 218
Fountoukidis, D., 248, 267
Fowler, C. A., 217, 218, 321, 335
Fraca de Barrera, L., 221, 222, 234
Francis, D. J., 259, 267, 351, 357
Francis, J., 69, 79
Franklin, S., 50, 56
Fraser, C., 100, 113
Freebody, P., 351, 357
Freedman, S. W., 129, 149
Friedman, M. P., 151, 170, 175, 192, 271, 274, 292, 297, 316
Frith, C., 174, 191
Frith, U., 21, 24, 37, 52, 56, 116, 117, 125, 127, 151, 170, 174, 175, 191, 195, 218, 223, 229, 233, 253, 263, 267, 272, 274,
275, 276, 277, 278, 281, 282, 286, 288, 289, 292, 295, 296, 297, 298, 307, 309, 313, 314, 316, 326, 331, 335, 340-342, 346,
347, 352, 353, 355, 356, 357
Frost, J., 175, 191, 251, 261, 268, 287, 292, 322, 335
Frost, R., 21, 25, 38, 183, 196, 199, 202, 216, 218, 219, 221, 233, 234, 339, 357
Fry, E., 244, 248, 267
Funnell, E., 50, 55, 116, 127
G
Gak, V. G., 340, 344, 357
Gates, A., 351, 357
< previous page page_364 next page >
Page 364
Gaur, A., 7, 19
Geervliet-van der Hart, J. A., 185, 193
Geeves, E., 126, 127
Gelb, I. J., 5, 8, 9, 17, 19, 28, 38
Gentry, J. R., 64, 65, 70, 77, 79, 253, 267, 271, 272, 274, 292
Grard, C., 126, 128
Gernsbacher, M. A., 21, 38
Gibbs, A. L., 188, 191
Gibbs, P., 180, 182, 191
Gibson, E. J., 176, 191
Girolami-Boulimier, A., 97, 113
Glasspool, D. W., 53, 56, 178, 191
Gleitman, L. R., 115, 127
Glushko, R. J., 221, 234, 296, 316
Godart, L., 12, 19
Goldinger, S. D., 34, 38, 178, 193
Gombert, J. E., 155, 170, 221, 222, 234, 296
Gompel, M., 175, 184, 185, 191
Good, T. L., 139, 148
Goodman, K., 153, 170
Goodman, R. A., 41, 45, 46, 56
Goodman-Schulman, R. A., 45, 47, 56
Goswami, U., 83, 96, 152, 170, 221, 22, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 252, 267, 269, 275, 278, 290, 292,
296, 316, 322, 323, 335, 339, 341, 342, 353, 357, 359
Gougenheim, G., 344, 357
Gough, P. B., 125, 127, 174, 176, 191, 243, 245, 248, 253, 256, 262, 267, 274, 282, 292, 295, 297, 316, 320, 331, 335, 342,
351, 357
Goulandris, N. K., 116, 125, 126, 127, 284, 292
Graham, S., 134, 135, 149
Gras, M., 16, 19
Graves, D. H., 129, 149
Graves, K., 329, 335
Graves, M. F., 99, 101, 113
Greenberg, D., 256, 263, 267
Griffith, P.L., 174, 191, 253, 256, 267, 282, 292, 295, 297, 316
Grossberg, S., 179, 191
Cruaz, C., 13, 19
Gugliotta, M., 31, 37
Guion, J., 16, 19, 138, 149
Guthrie, J., 262, 267
H
Hagge, C., 13, 19
Halford, G. S., 232, 234
Haller, M., 178, 190, 340, 357
Hanna, J. S., 136, 149, 244, 267
Hanna, P.R., 136, 149, 244, 267
Hansen, J., 252, 253, 265
Harris, M., 99, 100, 101, 114, 274, 292, 340, 341, 355, 356, 357
Harris, R., 4, 10, 19
Harris, W., 16, 19
Harste, J., 253, 267
Hatfield, F. M., 41, 43, 54, 56, 116, 127, 176, 191, 320, 335
Havelock, E. A., 9, 19
Hbrard, J., 300, 316
Hecaen, H., 39, 56
Heilman, K. M., 41, 57
Henderson, E. H., 21, 38, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70, 72, 73, 77, 79, 136, 149, 175, 191, 243, 253, 255, 265, 267, 271, 272, 292, 297,
316
Henderson, J. M., 126, 128
Henderson, L., 319, 335
Henry, M., 244, 267
Hill, A. A., 8, 19
Hill, S., 327, 335
Hillinger, M., 243, 267, 274, 292, 331, 335
Hillis, A., 44, 47, 49, 55, 56
Hindson, B. A., 67, 79
Hjelmslev, L., 4, 19
Hodges, R. E., 136, 149, 244, 267
Hogaboam, T., 125, 128
Hohn, W., 260, 267
Holligan, C., 175, 177, 191
Holmes, V. M., 175, 176, 191
Holt, L. K., 321, 335
Horn, E., 134, 135, 136, 149
Houghton, G., 53, 56, 178, 191
Howard, D., 50, 56
Hoyne, S. H., 133, 150
Hughes, C., 279, 293, 322, 336
Hulme, C., 231, 234, 268
Humblot, L., 299, 316
Hummer, P., 83, 96, 284, 294, 298, 318, 348, 353, 359
Humphreys, G. W., 340, 357
I
Inhelder, B., 232, 234
Istomina, Z. M., 289, 292
J
Jaffr, J.-P., 4, 14, 17, 19, 21, 28, 97, 113, 137, 140, 142, 144, 150
Janssens, J. M., 282, 293
Jarema, G., 112, 113
Jenkins, L., 188, 192, 351, 357
Johansen, L. S., 24, 38
Johnson, D., 252, 269
Johnson, K.E., 99, 114
K
Karmiloff-Smith, A., 329, 335
Katz, L., 25, 38, 196, 199, 216, 218, 219, 221, 233, 234
Kavanagh, J. F., 319, 335
Kawamoto, A., 183, 191
Kaye, J. D., 340, 358
Keating, C., 282, 268
Keeney, T. J., 99, 100, 103, 113, 114
Kehayia, E., 112, 113
Kertesz, A., 43, 55
Kess, J. F., 99, 114
Kibel, M., 95, 96
Kilborn, K., 112, 114
King, P. V., 188, 190
Kirtley, C., 69, 79, 225, 234
Kliegl, R., 238, 268
Klima, E. S., 115, 127
Knapp, M. S., 132, 143, 144, 145, 150
Koriat, A., 216, 219
Kornfilt, J., 14, 19
Kort, J., 100, 114
Koziol, S., 99, 101, 113
Kramer, S. N., 15, 19
Kreiner, D. S., 176, 191, 195, 196, 219, 248, 267
Kremin, H., 50, 56
L
Landerl, K., 83, 96, 284, 294
Large, B., 277, 278, 279, 280, 292
Largy, P., 110, 111, 113, 133, 149
Lartigue, R., 144, 150
Laubstein, A. S., 67, 79
Laurent, J.-P., 129, 149
Lautrey, J., 301, 313, 316, 317
Laxon, V., 252, 268
Lemaire, P., 110, 111, 113
Lennox, C., 177, 191
Levy, Y., 99, 101, 114
Lewkowicz, N. K., 279, 292
Leybaert, J., 312, 315
Liberman, A. M., 321, 335
Liberman, D., 259, 267, 351, 357
Liberman, I. Y., 251, 268, 277, 279, 292, 293, 321, 335
Lie, A., 287, 288, 292
Link, K., 195, 219
Linortner, R., 83, 96, 284, 294
Liva, A., 299, 316
Lobrot, M., 118, 127
Logan, G. D., 112, 114
Longchamp, A., 299, 316
Loosemore, R. P. W., 53, 55, 178, 190, 320, 335
Lovegrove, W., 126, 127, 128
Lovell, K., 100, 114
Lowenstamm, J., 340, 358
Lukatela, G., 180, 190
Lundberg, I., 175, 191, 251, 261, 268, 278, 281, 287, 288, 292, 322, 335
Lyons, L., 4, 19
M
MacKay, I. R. A., 342, 358
Macken, M., 217, 219
MacLean, M., 69, 79, 225, 233, 234, 280, 292, 322, 335
Maclean, R., 259, 268
MacWhinney, B., 99, 114
Madden, N. A., 135, 150
Malus-Abramowitz, M., 250, 269
Manesse, D., 97, 113, 138, 139, 149
Manis, F. R., 321, 335
Mann, V. A., 271, 292
Manrique, A. M. B., 175, 192
Marcel, T., 75, 79, 175, 192
Marcie, P., 39, 56
Margolin, D. I., 43, 56
Marsh, G., 151, 170, 175, 192, 271, 274, 292, 297, 316
Marshall, J. C., 29, 31, 37, 40, 56
Martin, F., 126, 127
Mason, J. M., 65, 79, 254, 268
Masonheimer, P., 253, 268
Masterson, J., 175, 193, 221, 234
Matthews, R., 259, 268
Mattingly, I. G., 319, 335
McClelland, J. L., 53, 57, 178, 180, 192, 195, 219, 320, 328, 333, 336
McCloskey, M., 47, 48, 56
McConkie, G., 239, 268
McCutchen, D., 133, 150
McKenna, M. C., 142, 150
Mervis, C. B., 99, 114
Meyer, A., 300, 317
Meyer, J.-C., 129, 149
Miceli, G., 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 55, 57, 216, 217, 218, 306, 315
Michalowski, P., 9, 10, 15, 19
Micha, R., 344, 357
Michel, Y., 145, 148
Mildes, K., 133, 150
Miles, T. R., 95, 96
Miller, J. W., 142, 150
Mitterer, J. O., 320, 335
Moats, L. C., 176, 177, 192
N
Nation, K., 231, 234
Naveh, J., 12, 15, 16, 19
Navon, D., 216, 219
Nearey, T. M., 67, 79
Needels, M. C., 132, 143-145, 150
Nelson, H. E., 175, 192
Nelson, K., 314, 317
Nelson, P., 126, 127
Nesdale, A. R., 155, 170
Newcombe, F., 40, 56
Newfield, M. K., 99, 114
Newman, S., 132, 149, 263, 268
Ng, E., 175, 176, 191
Nicolaci-da Costa, A., 99, 101, 114
Nicolson, R. I., 112, 114, 174, 192
Nie, H., 279, 293
Noel, R. W., 24, 38, 340, 358
Nolan, K. A., 43, 57
Novy, D., 259, 267, 351, 357
Nunes, T., 168, 170
O
Olofsson, A., 278, 292
Olson, A., 53, 57, 178, 192
Olson, B., 227, 235
Olson, R., 238, 263, 268, 320, 336
Ormrod, J. E., 188, 192
Oud, J. H., 282, 293
P
Paap, K. R., 24, 38, 340, 358
Patterson, K. E., 41, 44, 45, 56, 57, 116, 127, 176, 183, 191, 193, 320, 335
Peereman, R., 221, 234, 296, 317
Pennington, B. F., 178, 193, 196, 219, 320, 336
Perfetti, C. A., 28, 29, 38, 117, 125, 128, 152, 170, 180, 183, 189, 192, 196, 197, 209, 216, 217, 218, 219, 245, 268, 279, 280,
293, 295, 297, 313, 317, 319, 322, 326, 328, 336, 339, 355, 358
Perin, D., 256, 267, 277, 279, 293
Perney, J., 253, 259, 262, 268
Perregaux, C., 300, 317
Peterson, O. P., 175, 191, 251, 261, 268, 287, 292, 322, 335
Piaget, J., 232, 234, 313, 317
Pignot, E., 278, 290, 326, 334
Polk, J., 248, 267
Pollatsek, A., 126, 128
Porpodas, C. D., 174, 175, 192, 320, 336
Powell, B. B., 10, 17, 20
Puech, C., 4, 18
Pulgram, E., 8, 20
R
Rack, J., 263, 268, 320, 336
Radeau, M., 119, 127
Raphael, T. E., 129, 149
Rayner, K., 126, 128
Read, C., 69, 75, 79, 152, 170, 175-177, 192, 195, 219, 242, 255, 261, 268, 271, 279, 293
Rego, L. L. B., 155, 170
Reitsma, P., 242, 268
Reuchlin, M., 313, 317
Rhodes, L. K., 143, 149
Rich, G., 129, 149
Richmond-Welty, E. D., 64, 75, 80, 180, 193
Rieben, L., 52, 145, 150, 297, 298, 300, 301, 313, 316, 317, 353, 358
Rivenc, P., 344, 357
Robbins, C., 252, 254, 258, 266
Roberts, K. T., 186, 192, 261, 266, 268
Robins, R. H., 4, 5, 20
Robinson, R. D., 142, 150
Robinson, R. G., 41, 55
Roeltgen, D. P., 41, 45, 57
Roller, S., 138, 150
Romani, C., 46, 55
Romian, H., 129, 149
Rosch, E., 178, 194
Roth, S. F., 125, 128
Rouillard, P., 16, 19
Rozin, P., 115, 127
Rudorf, E., 136, 149, 244, 267
Rumelhart, D. E., 53, 57, 178, 180, 192
S
Saada-Robert, M., 52, 145, 148, 297, 298, 301, 317
Saenger, P., 16, 20
Saltmarsh, J., 242, 266
T
Taborelli, A., 40, 55
Taylor, S., 227, 234
Teixidor, J., 16, 19
Temple, C. M., 51, 52, 57
Templeton, S., 136, 137, 150, 252, 253, 255, 269
Thelen, E., 178, 193
Thompson, E., 177, 194
Thomson, M., 174, 193
Tincoff, R., 342, 359
Torgesen, J. K., 278, 294
Torneus, M., 286-288, 293
Torrey, J. W., 274, 293
Treiman, R., 21, 22, 38, 52, 67-77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 90, 95, 96, 174-176, 180, 190, 193, 195, 219, 226, 227, 233, 235, 243, 245,
252, 255, 261, 269, 322, 323, 336, 342, 359
Tromp, J., 184, 185, 191
Tunmer, W. E., 155, 170
Turco, G., 129, 150
Turvey, M. T., 180, 190, 221, 233
U
Uldall, H. J., 4, 20
Uhry, J. K., 185, 193, 260, 269
uit de Haag, I. J. C. A. F., 175, 193
Underwood, T. L., 187, 191
V
Vachek, J., 4, 6, 7, 9, 20
Valdois, S., 126, 128
Valtin, R., 175, 193, 279, 280, 293
Vanault, P., 126, 128
van Bon, W. H. J., 175, 190, 193
W
Wagner, R. K., 68, 79, 278, 294
Wall, S., 278, 292
Walsh, M. A., 342, 351, 357
Wang, W.S.-Y., 28, 38
Warrington, E. K., 40, 41, 44, 46, 50, 55
Waters, G. S., 125, 127, 128, 175, 177, 181, 190, 194, 250, 252, 264, 265, 269, 295, 315, 318
Watteau, N., 358
Weatherston, S., 68, 69, 80, 342, 359
Weber, R. M., 274, 294
Welch, V., 151, 170, 175, 192, 271, 274, 292
West, R. F., 280, 293
Whitney Goodell, E., 217, 219
Wightman, J., 268
Wilce, L. S., 186, 191, 243, 245, 247, 253, 256, 258, 261, 266, 267, 277, 287, 288, 291, 297, 298, 316
Wimmer, H., 83, 95, 96, 233, 235, 284, 288, 294, 298, 318, 339, 348, 353, 359
Wingo, E. O., 12, 20
Winitz, H., 100, 114
Wise, B., 227, 235
Wolfe, J., 100, 103, 114
Woodward, V., 253, 267
Worden, P.E., 65, 80
Wright, A. D., 155, 170
Wright, S., 263, 268
Wylie, R., 144, 269
Y
Yee, A., 135, 150
Yonas, A., 176, 191
Young, A. W., 320, 335
Z
Zemblidge, J., 183, 191
Zesiger, P., 116, 296, 306, 320
Zhang, S., 28, 38, 180, 192, 297, 317, 355, 358
Zhang, Y., 279, 293
Ziegler, C., 13, 20
Zola, D., 239, 268
Zukowski, A., 67, 74, 75, 80
Zutell, J., 295, 318
SUBJECT INDEX
A
Addressed route, 41, 44-45, 116-125
Agraphia, 39
Alphabetic stage of reading, 224, 254-256, 276, 296, 325-327, 341
Analogy and learning to read, 221-229, 232-233, 241, 252
Analogy and learning to spell, 229-233, 241, 252, 256
Aphasia, 39-40
Assembled route, 24, 41, 45-50, 116, 195-217, 296
C
Chinese, 11, 14, 23, 27-28
pin yin, 279
D
Decoding, 30
Dual-route model/theory, 24, 29, 32, 48-49, 296-297, 320, 340-342
Dutch, 184-188
Dysgraphia, 41, 43, 50-52, 116, 320
Dyslexia, 31, 50-51, 112, 117-126, 174-175, 321, 332-333
Dysphonia, 116, 320
E
English, 26-27, 36, 47, 81, 98-101, 168, 182-183, 320
spelling, 84-88, 93-94, 133-137
F
French, 11, 14, 26, 36, 97-113, 117-124, 130-133, 137-140, 144-145, 168-169, 339-340
orthography, 115-116
phonological mediation in, 345-347, 350-354
G
German, 81
spelling, 84-94
H
Hebrew, 14, 197-217
inhibition in, 203-217
I
Invented spellings, 152, 251-252, 254
Italian, 23, 25-27, 31-32, 36, 47
J
Japanese, 12, 23
L
Lexical route (see Addressed route)
Lexical spelling processes, 115-126
Linguistic awareness, 327-328, 333-334
Logographic scripts (see Writing systems, logographic)
Logographic stage of reading, 223-224, 230, 253, 275-276, 296-297, 324-325
N
Number morphology, 97-113
O
Orthographic
buffer, 45-48
development, 323-332
framework, 328-330
knowledge, 70-73
neighborhoods, 221-223
stage of reading, 224, 297, 341
Orthography, 4, 6-8, 11, 15-17, 22, 25-28
deep, 11, 25, 36
shallow, 11, 24, 36
P
Phonological awareness, 30, 289, 321-323
and reading ability, 151-153, 278-285
and spelling ability, 289
training in, 286-287
Phonological processing, 321
Phonological route (see Assembled route)
Psycholinguistics, 21-22
S
Spelling, 22, 238
and connectionism, 53-54
development (see Models of spelling)
disabilities/disorders, 40, 51-53, 262-264
errors, 86-94, 159-160, 175-278, 187-188, 272-273
instructional approaches in, 83, 129-148, 186-189, 313-314, 334
and letter names, 65-70
and phonology, 175-176
processes, 40-43
and reading, 28-36, 174-175, 183-186, 238-265, 285-290, 295-298, 312-314, 346-356
and text production, 142-145
Syntactic awareness, 155-159
W
Word copying and writing, 298-315
Writing, 6-8
phonographic principle in, 9-11
semiographic principle in, 12-13
Writing systems, 7, 22-23
alphabetic, 23, 37, 243-244, 247-248
logographic, 11, 23, 319
syllabic, 23