Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:32:52.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adults' knowledge of phoneme–letter relationships is phonology based and flexible

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2007

ANNUKKA LEHTONEN  and
REBECCA TREIMAN
ANNUKKA LEHTONEN
Affiliation:
Washington University, St. Louis
REBECCA TREIMAN
Affiliation:
Washington University, St. Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the importance of phonemic awareness in beginning literacy, several studies have demonstrated that adults, including teacher trainees, have surprisingly poor phonemic skills. Three experiments investigated whether adults' responses in phonemic awareness and spelling segmentation tasks are based on units larger than single letters and phonemes. Responses often involved large units, and they were influenced by sonority and syllable structure. Participants who performed a phoneme counting task before a spelling segmentation task produced significantly more phoneme-based responses and fewer onset–rime responses than participants who first counted words in sentences. This training effect highlights the flexibility of adults' strategies. Although adults are capable of phoneme-based processing, they sometimes fail to use it.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 95 - 114
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

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

America's Best Colleges 2005. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2005, from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/ranknatudoc_brief.ph.
Bradley L., & Bryant P. 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419– 421.Google Scholar
Bryant P., MacLean M., Bradley L., & Crossland J. 1990. Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429– 438.Google Scholar
Caravolas C., Hulme C., & Snowling M. 2001. The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 751– 774.Google Scholar
Connelly V. 2002. Graphophonemic awareness in adults after instruction in phonic generalisations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 627– 649.Google Scholar
Ehri L. 1985. Effects of printed language acquisition on speech. In D. Olson, N. Torrence, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy, language and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 333– 367). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ehri L. 1995. Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 116– 125.Google Scholar
Ehri L., & Wilce L. 1980. The influence of orthography on readers' conceptualization of the phonemic structure of words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1, 371– 385.Google Scholar
Ehri L., Wilce L., & Taylor B. 1988. Children's categorization of short vowels in words and the influence of spellings. In K. Stanovich (Ed.), Children's reading and the development of phonological awareness (pp. 149– 177). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.
Hatcher P., Hulme C., & Ellis A. 1994. Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65, 41– 57.Google Scholar
International Phonetic Association. 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A guide to the use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liberman I., Shankweiler D., Fischer F., & Carter B. 1974. Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201– 212.Google Scholar
Mather N., Bos C., & Babur N. 2001. Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 472– 483.Google Scholar
Moats L. 1994. The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81– 102.Google Scholar
Morais J., Cary L., Alegria J., & Bertelson P. 1979. Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phonemes arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323– 331.Google Scholar
Read C., Zhang Y., Nie H., & Ding H. 1986. The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition, 24, 31– 44.Google Scholar
Scarborough H., Ehri L., Olson R., & Fowler A. 1998. The fate of phonemic awareness beyond the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 115– 142.Google Scholar
Scholes R. 1993. In search of phonemic consciousness: A follow-up on Ehri. In R. Scholes (Ed.), Literacy and language analysis (pp. 45– 53). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Serrano F., Defior S., & Martos F. 2003. To be or not to be phonologically aware: A reflection about metalinguistic skills in teacher trainees. In R. Joshi, C. K. Leong, & B. Kaczmarek (Eds.), Literacy acquisition (pp. 209– 215). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Stemberger J. 1983. Speech errors and theoretical phonology: A review. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Treiman R. 1983. The structure of spoken syllables: Evidence from novel word games. Cognition, 15, 49– 74.Google Scholar
Treiman R. 1984. On the status of final consonant clusters in English syllables. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 343– 356.Google Scholar
Treiman R., & Cassar M. 1997. Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task? Developmental Psychology, 33, 771– 780.Google Scholar
Ventura P., Kolinsky R., Brito-Mendes C., & Morais J. 2001. Mental representations of the syllable internal structure are influenced by orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 16, 393– 418.Google Scholar
Ziegler J. C., & Goswami U. 2005. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 31, 3– 29.Google Scholar