Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:50:30.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spelling strategies in good and poor readers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Dolores Perin
Dolores Perin*
Affiliation:
MRC Developmental Psychology Unit, London
*
Dolores Perin, MRC Developmental Psychology Unit, Drayton House, Gordon Street, London WC1H OAN, England
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the use of phoneme-grapheme correspondence rules assumed to underlie phonetic spelling errors. Fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds and adult literacy students did two spelling tasks employing real words and nonwords respectively. Good and poor readers were compared in their ability to produce graphemic representations for four specific phonemes. Two of these were relatively “ambiguous” and the real-word task investigated the effect of ambiguity as a function of reading skill. While good readers were significantly better than poor readers at representing the critical phonemes, ambiguity had a similar effect on good and poor readers. Nonword results indicate that poor readers can employ phoneme-grapheme correspondences more than is expected from their real-word spelling error patterns.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , March 1982, pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Betts, E. A.Interrelationship of reading and spelling. Elementary English Review, 1945, 22, 13–23.Google Scholar
Boder, E.Developmental dyslexia – a diagnostic approach based on three atypical reading spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 1973, 15, 663–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, E.The bases of reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 1970, 6, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, P. E., & Bradley, L. Why children sometimes write words which they do not read. In Frith, U. (Ed.) Cognitive processes in spelling, London: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Cahen, L. S., Craun, M. J., & Johnson, S. K.Spelling difficulty – a survey of the research. Review of Educational Research, 1971, 41, 281–301.Google Scholar
Camp, B. W., & Dolcourt, J. L.Reading and spelling in good and poor readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 300–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, M.Illiteracy: Is English spelling a significant factor? Spelling Progress Bulletin, 1975, 15(4), 11–16.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. Access to the internal lexicon. In Dornič, S. (Ed.), Attention and Performance IV. New York: Wiley, 1977.Google Scholar
Cox, A. R.Situation spelling: Formulas and equations for spelling the sounds of spoken English. Cambridge, Mass.: Education Publishing Service, Inc., 1971.Google Scholar
Frith, U.From print to meaning and from print to sound, or how to read without knowing how to spell. Visible Language, 1978, 12, 43–54.Google Scholar
Frith, U. Unexpected spelling problems. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. London: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Goyen, J. D., & Martin, M.The relation of spelling errors to cognitive variables and word type. British Journal of Education, 1977, 47, 268–273.Google Scholar
Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., & Rudorf, E. H.Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N.Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, R.I.: Brown University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Lee, E. R.Spelling irregularity and reading difficulty in English. Windsor, Berkshire: N.F.E.R., 1960.Google Scholar
Nelson, H. Analysis of spelling errors in normal and dyslexic children. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Spelling. London: Academic Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Nelson, H. E., & Warrington, E. K.Developmental spelling retardation and its relation to other cognitive abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 1974, 65(2), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, J. D.Phonetics. Harmondsworth: Pelican, 1973.Google Scholar
Perin, D. Spelling difficulty in school leavers and adults. Unpublished D. Phil. thesis, University of Sussex, England, 1980.Google Scholar
Perin, D.Spelling, reading and adult illiteracy. Psychological Research, 1981, 43, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Personke, C., & Yee, A. H.A model for the analysis of spelling behaviour. Elementary English. 1966, 43, 278–284.Google Scholar
Reed, D. W.A review by a specialist in dialectology. Research in the Teaching of English, 1967, 1, 207–215.Google Scholar
Roberts, A. H.A review by a specialist in the uses of computers in linguistic research. Research in the Teaching of English. 1967, 1, 210–217.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., & Gleitman, L. R. The structure and acquisition of reading II: The reading process and the acquisition of the alphabetic principle. In Reber, A. S. & Scarborough, D. L. (Eds.), Towards a Psychology of Reading. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar
Simon, D. P.Spelling: A task analysis. Instructional Science, 1976, 5, 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A.Alternative uses of phonemic information in spelling. Review of Educational Research, 1973, 43(1), 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F.Understanding Reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.Google Scholar
Sweeney, J. E., & Rourke, B. P.Neuropsychological significance of phonetically accurate and phonetically inaccurate spelling errors in younger and older retarded spellers. Brain and Language, 1978, 6, 212–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorndike, E., & Lorge, I.The Teacher's Word Book of 30,000 Words. New York: Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1944.Google Scholar
Wijk, A.Rules of pronunication for the English language. London: Oxford University Press, 1966.Google Scholar