Roles of position, stress, and proficiency in L2 children’s spelling: A developmental perspective

Abstract

This study investigated the roles of phoneme position, stress, and proficiency in L2 spelling development by Taiwanese students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL), an alphabetic writing system typologically different from the learners' L1 logographic system. Structured nonword spelling tests were administered to EFL sixth-graders with lower and higher English proficiency level. The results showed that overall, final phonemes were spelled more poorly than their initial and medial counterparts; however, phoneme position effect decreased as learners' English proficiency improved. Secondly, spelling of the stressed syllable was significantly better than that of the unstressed syllable. However, when phonemes were held constant, stress effect was significant only in the first, but not in the second syllable. Thirdly, higher proficient EFL children spelled significantly better than their lower proficient counterparts, and spelling errors were more systematic in the former. The findings of the study are discussed from linguistic, psychological, and developmental perspectives.

Comparison of the Effects of Two Phonics Training Programs on L2 Word Reading

“…Taiwanese Mandarin-speaking children seemed to experience great diffi culties in grasping the linguistic patterns of English to apply grapheme-phoneme correspondence rules. The inconsistent grapheme-phoneme correspondence in English makes it even more diffi cult for non-alphabetic learners of English to apply alphabetic principles ( Hu, 2000 ;He & Wang, 2009 ;Hong & Chen, 2011 ). After the intervention, both groups had signifi cant improvements in their immediate post-test English word reading in comparison with the pre-test.…”

Error Analyses and the Cognitive or Linguistic Influences on Children’s Spelling: Comparisons Between First- and Second-Language Learners

“…Children's spelling errors, when examined across multiple dimensions (e.g., phonological, orthographic, morphological, etc. ), provide a dynamic marker of the construction of MGRs and can elucidate particular strategies they may be drawing on to spell (Hong & Chen, 2011). These strategies may be different between first language (L1) and second language (L2) learners.…”

“…Yeong and Rickard Liow (2011) suggested that while error analysis is labour-intensive, it affords Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics : 24, 3 (2021): 79-97 several advantages over conventional accuracy only metrics including: (1) sensitivity to individual differences; (2) finer-grained analyses of cognitive-linguistic processing among linguistically diverse children, and (3) capturing spelling as a multidimensional developmental construct. Indeed, spelling error analyses reflect a valuable methodology to derive insight about oral-to-written connections at the lexical, sublexical, and supralexical levels (Hong & Chen, 2011). Of the studies that have been conducted, cross-linguistic (L1 influences on L2) comparisons have been prominent (e.g., Bahr et al, 2015;Fashola et al, 1996;Wang & Geva, 2003) as have comparisons on the use of linguistic conventions such as the use of vowels (e.g., Hong & Chen, 2011;Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997).…”

“…Indeed, spelling error analyses reflect a valuable methodology to derive insight about oral-to-written connections at the lexical, sublexical, and supralexical levels (Hong & Chen, 2011). Of the studies that have been conducted, cross-linguistic (L1 influences on L2) comparisons have been prominent (e.g., Bahr et al, 2015;Fashola et al, 1996;Wang & Geva, 2003) as have comparisons on the use of linguistic conventions such as the use of vowels (e.g., Hong & Chen, 2011;Wade-Woolley & Siegel, 1997). Of the few studies that have compared developmental error patterns in young L1 and L2 learners, findings suggest that like spelling accuracy, English L2 children's errors also follow a similar developmental trajectory as L1 in their progression from a reliance on phonetic strategies to a more sophisticated amalgamation of phonetic and visual-orthographic approaches in L2 spelling (Geva, 2006).…”