Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T17:24:23.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the statistical learning of spelling patterns by manipulating semantic and orthographic frequency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2012

S. HÉLÈNE DEACON  and
DILYS LEUNG
S. HÉLÈNE DEACON*
Affiliation:
Dalhousie University
DILYS LEUNG
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
S. Hélène Deacon, Psychology Department, Dalhousie University, Room 2337, Life Sciences Centre, 1355 Oxford Street, LSC Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study tested the diverging predictions of recent theories of children's learning of spelling regularities. We asked younger (Grades 1 and 2) and older (Grades 3 and 4) elementary school–aged children to choose the correct endings for words that varied in their morphological structure. We tested the impacts of semantic frequency by including three types of words ending in -er: derived and inflected forms, the first of which are far more frequent across the language, and one-morpheme control forms. Both younger and older children were more likely to choose the correct ending for derived forms over one-morpheme control words. This difference emerged for inflected forms only for the older children. We also tested the impacts of orthographic frequency by contrasting performance on the two derived allomorphs -er and -or, the first of which is far more frequent, and comparison one-morpheme forms. Both younger and older children were more likely to choose the correct spelling for the derivational -er over the same letter pattern in control words. This difference did not emerge in either group for the -or ending. The implications of these findings for current models of children's spelling development are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , November 2013 , pp. 1093 - 1108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(Serial No. 238).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlisle, J. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, C., & Christiansen, M. H. (2005). Modality constrained statistical learning of tactile, visual, and auditory sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 24–39.Google ScholarPubMed
Deacon, S. H. (2008). The metric matters: Determining the extent of children's knowledge of morphological spelling regularities. Developmental Science, 11, 396–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2005). The strength of children's knowledge of the role of roots in the spelling of derived words. Journal of Child Language, 32, 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2006a). Getting to the root: Young writers’ sensitivity to the role of root morphemes in the spelling of inflected and derived words. Journal of Child Language, 33, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2006b). This turnip's not for turning: Children's morphological awareness and their use of root morphemes in spelling. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 567–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. N. (2001). Unsupervised statistical learning of higher-order spatial structures from visual scenes. Psychological Science, 12, 499–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiser, J., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Statistical learning of new visual feature combinations by infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99, 15822–15826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In Patterson, K., Coltheart, M., & Marshall, J. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301–330). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (2001). Artificial language learning as a means for investigating language acquisition. In Tomasello, M. & Bates, E. (Eds.), Language development: The essential readings. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gonnerman, L. M., Seidenberg, M. S., & Andersen, E. S. (2007). Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 323–345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, E. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, N. (2006). Children's spelling of base, inflected, and derived words: Links with morphological awareness. Reading and Writing, 19, 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, N., & Bryant, P. (2003). Do beez buzz? Rule-based and frequency-based knowledge in learning to spell plural -s. Child Development, 74, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C. J. (2003). Evidence-based selection of word frequency lists. Journal of Speech–Language Pathology and Audiology, 27, 170–173.Google Scholar
Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997). Morphological spelling strategies: Developmental stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33, 637–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pacton, S., & Deacon, S. H. (2008). The timing and mechanisms of children's use of morphological information in spelling: A review of evidence from French and English. Cognitive Development, 23, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacton, S., Fayol, M., & Perruchet, P. (2005). Children's implicit learning of graphotactic and morphological regularities. Child Development, 76, 324–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 401–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peña, M., Bonatti, L. L., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2002). Signal-driven computations in speech processing. Science, 298, 604–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perruchet, P., & Pacton, S. (2006). Implicit learning and statistical learning: Two approaches, one phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 233–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollo, T. C., Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2009). Statistical patterns in children's early writing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 410–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollo, T. C., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2008). Three perspectives on spelling development. In Grigorenko, E. L. & Naples, A. J. (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 175–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Schrijnemakers, J. M. C., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Memory and Language, 41, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy-Charland, A., Saint-Aubin, J., Klein, R. M., & Lawrence, M. (2007). Eye movements as direct tests of the GO model for the missing-letter effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 69 , 311–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R. (2009). Acquiring grammatical patterns: Constraints on learning. In Colombo, J., McCardle, P., & Freund, L. (Eds.), Infant pathways to language: Methods, models, and research disorders (pp. 31–47). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R., Johnson, E. K., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. (1999). Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition, 70, 27–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R., Reeck, K., Niebuhr, A., & Wilson, D. (2005). Changing the tune: The structure of the input affects infants’ use of absolute and relative pitch. Developmental Science, 8, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saint-Aubin, J., Klein, R. M., & Roy-Charland, A. (2003). Direct assessments of the processing time hypothesis for the missing-letter effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1191–1210.Google ScholarPubMed
Sandra, D., Frisson, S., & Daems, F. (2004). Still errors after all those years . . . Limited attentional resources and homophone frequency account for spelling errors on silent verb suffixes in Dutch. Written Language and Literacy, 7, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sangster, L., & Deacon, S. H. (2011). Development in children's sensitivity to the role of derivations in spelling. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. M. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidenberg, M. S., MacDonald, M. C., & Saffran, J. R. (2002). Does grammar start where statistics stop? Science, 298, 553–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterling, C. M. (1983). Spelling errors in context. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology on children's spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, R., Cassar, M., & Zukowski, A. (1994). What types of linguistic information do children use in spelling? The case of flaps. Child Development, 65, 1318–1337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2006). Spelling as statistical learning: Using consonantal context to spell vowels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 642–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeno, S. (Ed.). (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. Brewster, NJ: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.Google Scholar