Children learn an untaught rule of spelling

Do You Use Love to Make it Lovely? The Role of Meaning Overlap across Morphological Relatives in the Development of Morphological Representations

We examined whether and how the degree of meaning overlap between morphologically related words influences sentence plausibility judgment in children. In two separate studies with kindergarten and second-graders, English-speaking and French-speaking children judged the plausibility of sentences that included two paired target words. Some of these word pairs were morphologically related, across three conditions with differing levels of meaning overlap: low (wait-waiter), moderate (fold-folder) and high (farm-farmer). In another two conditions, word pairs were related only by phonology (rock-rocket) or semantics (car-automobile). Children in both ages and languages demonstrated higher plausibility scores as meaning overlap increased between morphologically related words. Further, kindergarten children rated sentences that included word pairs with phonological overlap as more plausible than second-grade children, while second-grade children rated those with high meaning overlap as more plausible than kindergarten children. We interpret these findings in light of current models of morphological development.

Do children use logic to spell logician? Implicit versus explicit teaching of morphological spelling rules

BACKGROUND

Intervention studies have reported the advantage of teaching children about morphemes for spelling, but direct comparisons between explicit and implicit teaching have been examined systematically in relation to only a few morphological rules.

AIMS

This study compared explicit versus implicit teaching of the functional rule for the conservation of stem morphemes in derived words in English (e.g., logic is conserved in the derivative logician in spite of changes in pronunciation).

SAMPLE

Participants (n = 90; 7- to 9-year-olds) were drawn from three schools with a diverse intake.

METHODS

The design included a pre-test and two post-intervention tests. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: an explicit group, taught about stems and their conservation in derived words; an implicit group, exposed to the same stems and derivatives without explicit teaching; and an unseen control group. At pre- and post-test, the children's spelling of stems in derivatives was assessed. The interventions involved practice games in which the children spelled derived words after seeing the base forms; the explicit group discussed the connection between the spellings, whereas the implicit group did not.

RESULTS

Analyses of variance revealed that explicit teaching led to more significant spelling improvements than implicit or no teaching, and this effect held at both post-tests.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that explicit teaching of the stem conservation rule in derived forms combined with appropriate practice games shows a sustained effect on spelling. The evidence supports explicit teaching of this morphological rule in classroom practice.

Deaf and hearing children's plural noun spelling

The present study examines deaf and hearing children's spelling of plural nouns. Severe literacy impairments are well documented in the deaf, which are believed to be a consequence of phonological awareness limitations. Fifty deaf (mean chronological age 13;10 years, mean reading age 7;5 years) and 50 reading-age-matched hearing children produced spellings of regular, semiregular, and irregular plural nouns in Experiment 1 and nonword plurals in Experiment 2. Deaf children performed reading-age appropriately on rule-based (regular and semiregular) plurals but were significantly less accurate at spelling irregular plurals. Spelling of plural nonwords and spelling error analyses revealed clear evidence for use of morphology. Deaf children used morphological generalization to a greater degree than their reading-age-matched hearing counterparts. Also, hearing children combined use of phonology and morphology to guide spelling, whereas deaf children appeared to use morphology without phonological mediation. Therefore, use of morphology in spelling can be independent of phonology and is available to the deaf despite limited experience with spoken language. Indeed, deaf children appear to be learning about morphology from the orthography. Education on more complex morphological generalization and exceptions may be highly beneficial not only for the deaf but also for other populations with phonological awareness limitations.

Mastering inflectional suffixes: a longitudinal study of beginning writers' spellings*

This study tracked the order in which ten beginning spellers (M age=5 ; 05; SD=0·21 years) mastered the correct spellings of common inflectional suffixes in English. Spellings from children's journals from kindergarten and grade 1 were coded. An inflectional suffix was judged to be mastered when children spelled it accurately in 90 percent of the contexts in which it was grammatically required, a criterion used to study the order of acquisition of grammatical morphemes in oral language. The results indicated that the order in which children learned to spell inflectional suffixes correctly is similar to the order in which they learn to use them in oral language, before school age. Discrepancies between the order of mastery for inflectional suffixes in written and oral language are discussed in terms of English spelling conventions, which introduce variables into the spelling of inflected words that are not present in oral language.