Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-15T12:20:59.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of morphosyntactic training on multilingual fifth graders’ spelling in French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2018

NATALIA BÎLICI ,
SONJA UGEN ,
MICHEL FAYOL  and
CONSTANZE WETH
NATALIA BÎLICI*
Affiliation:
University of Luxembourg
SONJA UGEN
Affiliation:
University of Luxembourg
MICHEL FAYOL
Affiliation:
University of Clermont Auvergne
CONSTANZE WETH
Affiliation:
University of Luxembourg
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Natalia Bilici, University of Luxembourg, Maison des Sciences Humaines 11, Porte des Sciences, L-4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many studies show that it is challenging to encode morphosyntactic information while writing. Spelling plurals is especially demanding in French as these are inaudible. Even by the end of primary school, monolingual French pupils still have difficulties marking plurals of some grammatical categories. We investigate (1) how multilingual pupils learning French as a second written language deal with silent plural markers and (2) the effects of a morphosyntactic training explicitly focussing on grammatical categories and their markers, as well as visualizing the plural agreement. 228 fifth graders were quasi-randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 137) and a control group (n = 91) based on the results of a spelling pre-test. The results of the pre-test show that multilingual learners have similar spelling patterns as French monolinguals. They pluralize nouns more accurately than verbs and perform lowest on adjectives. After the pre-test, both groups were trained over six sessions of 20 minutes. The control group participated in French listening comprehension activities. The post-test shows that the intervention group significantly improved in spelling plurals compared to the control group. A greater focus on morphosyntactic structures is highly effective especially in second language contexts where children might lack broad lexical knowledge.

Keywords

spelling acquisitionFrenchmorphosyntactic processingplural markerssecond languagesilent morphosyntactic markers
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 39 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 1319 - 1343
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Ågren, M. (2008. À la recherche de la morphologie silencieuse: Sur le développement du pluriel en français L2 écrit [Searching for silent morphology: On the development of the plural in French as a second language] (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lund University). Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/4297314/1267127.pdf.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach, 2nd ed., Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1981). Regularity vs. anomaly: The acquisition of Hebrew inflectional morphology. Journal of Child Language, 8, 265–282.Google Scholar
Berninger, V., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Graham, S., & Richards, T. (2002). Writing and reading connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 39–56.Google Scholar
Boivin, M. C. (2014). Quand les élèves «font de la grammaire» en classe: Analyse d’interventions métalinguistiques d’élèves du secondaire [When students “are doing grammar” in the classroom: Analysis of metalinguistic interventions with high school students]. Repères, 49, 131–146.Google Scholar
Bowers, P. N., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2010). The effects of morphological instruction on literacy skills: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 80, 144–179.Google Scholar
Brissaud, C., & Cogis, D. (2011). Comment enseigner l’orthographe aujourd’hui? [How to teach spelling today?]. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
Bryant, P., & Nunes, T. (2003). Morphology and spelling. In T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp 91–118). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Carlisle, J. F. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.Google Scholar
Carlisle, J. F., McBride-Chang, C., Nagy, W., & Nunes, T. (2010). Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: An integrative review. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 464–487.Google Scholar
Catach, N. (1986). L’orthographe française: Traité théorique et pratique [French spelling: theoretical and practical treaty]. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Cogis, D. (2004). Une approche active de la morphographie. L’exemple d’une séquence sur l’accord de l’adjectif [An active approach to morphography. The example of a sequence on the agreement of the adjective]. Lidil, 30, 73–86.Google Scholar
Cogis, D. (2007). L’orthographe grammaticale: Une difficulté majeure [Grammar spelling: A major difficulty]. In D. Manesse & D. Cogis (Eds.), L’Orthographe, à qui la faute? [Spelling: Whose mistake?] (pp 97–136). Paris: ESF Editeur.Google Scholar
Dubois, J. (1965). Grammaire structurale du français: Nom et pronom [French structural grammar: Noun and pronoun]. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Elalouf, M.-L., Cogis, D., & Gourdet, P. (2011). Maîtrise de la langue à l’école et au collège: Progressions et contradictions dans les programmes de 2008 [Linguistic proficiency in primary and secondary school: progressions and contradictions in the programs from 2008]. Le français aujourd’hui, 173, 33–44.Google Scholar
Encrevé, P. (1988). La liaison avec et sans enchainement: Phonologie tridimensionnelle et usages du francais [The liaison with and without link: Three-dimensional phonology and uses of French]. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
European Literacy Network (ELINET). 2016. Literacy in France: Country report, children and adolescents. Retrieved from http://www.eli-net.eu/fileadmin/ELINET/Redaktion/user_upload/France_Long_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Fayol, M. (2003). L’apprentissage de l’accord en genre et en nombre en Français écrit. Connaissances déclaratives et connaissances procédurales [The acquisition of gender and number agreement in written French. Declarative and procedural knowledge]. Faits de Langues, 14, 47–58.Google Scholar
Fayol, M., Hupet, M., & Largy, P. (1999). The acquisition of subject-verb agreement in written French: From novices to experts. Reading and Writing, 11, 153–174.Google Scholar
Fayol, M., Tottereau, C., & Barrouillet, P. (2006). Disentangling the impact of semantic and formal factors in the acquisition of number inflection: Noun, adjective, and verb agreement in written French. Reading and Writing, 19, 717–736.Google Scholar
Feigenbaum, E. A., & Simon, H. A. (1962). A theory of the serial position effect. British Journal of Psychology, 53, 307–320.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., & Nadeau, M. (2014). Usage du métalangage et des manipulations syntaxiques au cours de dictées innovantes dans des classes du primaire [The use of metalanguage and syntactic manipulations in the course of innovative dictations in primary school classes]. Repères, 49, 169–191.Google Scholar
Ganzeboom, H. B. (2010. A new international socio-economic index (ISEI) of occupational status for the international standard classification of occupation 2008 (ISCO-08) constructed with data from the ISSP 2002–007. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of International Social Survey Programme, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Garrott, C. L. (1998). Erroneous feature migration: Subject-verb agreement in French using linear differences. Hampton, VA: Hampton University.Google Scholar
Geoffre, T. (2014). Vers le contrôle orthographique d’élèves de cycle 3 de l’école primaire: Quels outils didactiques ? [Towards the spelling control of pupils at the end of primary school: Which didactic tools?]. Lidil, 49, 93–113.Google Scholar
Goodwin, A. P., & Ahn, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of morphological interventions in English: Effects on literacy achievement of children with literacy difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17, 257–285.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1947). Structural analysis of language. Studia Linguistica, 1, 69–78.Google Scholar
Jaffré, J.-P., & Fayol, M. (2005). Orthography and literacy in French. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp 81–104). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jamieson, R., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2009). Applying an exemplar model to the artificial-grammar task: Inferring grammaticality from similarity. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 550–575.Google Scholar
Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161–180.Google Scholar
Lecocq, P. (2013). L'É.co.s.se une épreuve de compréhension syntaxico-sémantique. [L'É.co.s.se—A test of syntactic-semantic comprehension]. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
Lété, B., Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Colé, P. (2004). MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary-school readers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 156–166.Google Scholar
Lüke, T., Ritterfeld, U., & Tröster, H. (2016). Erprobung eines Gruppentests zur Überprüfung des Grammatikverständnisses auf der Basis des TROG-D [Testing of a group test verifying the grammar understanding based on the TROG-D]. Diagnostica, 62, 242–254.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second language acquisition and the competition model. In A. M. B. de Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp 113–142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Manesse, D., & Cogis, D. (2007). Orthographe: À qui la faute ? [Spelling: Whose mistake?]. Paris: ESF Editeur.Google Scholar
McCutchen, D., Stull, S., Logan, H. B., Lotas, S., & Evans, S. (2014). Putting words to work: Effects of morphological instruction on children’s writing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 86–97.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse (MENJE). 2011. Plan d’études—Ecole fondamentale [Study plan—elementary school]. Retrieved from http://www.men.public.lu/catalogue-publications/themes-transversaux/cen/cens/plan-etudes/fr.pdf.Google Scholar
Nagy, W. E., Carlisle, J. F., & Goodwin, A. (2013). Morphological knowledge and literacy acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47, 3–12.Google Scholar
Netten, A., Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2011). Predictors of reading literacy for first and second language learners. Reading and Writing, 24, 413–425.Google Scholar
Thévenin, M.-G., Totereau, C., Fayol, M., & Jarousse, J.-P. (1999). L’apprentissage/ enseignement de la morphologie écrite du nombre en français [The learning/teaching of the written number morphology in French]. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 126, 39–52.Google Scholar
Totereau, C., Barrouillet, P., & Fayol, M. (1998). Overgeneralizations of number inflections in the learning of written French: The case of noun and verb. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 447–464.Google Scholar
Totereau, C., Brissaud, C., Reilhac, C., & Bosse, M. (2013). L’orthographe grammaticale au collège: Une approche sociodifférenciée [Grammatical spelling in college: A socio-differentiated approach]. ANAE, 123, 164–171.Google Scholar
Totereau, C., Thevenin, M. G., & Fayol, M. (1997). The development of the understanding of number morphology in written French. In C. Perfetti, L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell (pp 97–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar