Volume 167, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


In spelling research, data is easily quantifiable and offers a possible glimpse into the mind’s cognitive mechanisms. Previous research has focused on two cognitive routes assumed to be used for spelling in differing situations: one route enabling spelling of words from our lexical memory, and another route facilitating sublexically constructed spellings based on a writer’s rules for how phonemes map to graphemes. As the dual-route model emerged from first language alphabetic spelling data, there is a lack of research which synthesizes second language research with first language spelling models. This paper’s analysis of second language spellings suggests that the traditional dual-route model of spelling may not be universally applicable to second language spellers. Instead, the data suggests that consideration of the differences between L1 and L2 writing systems may help identify directions towards developing a comprehensive model of second language spelling.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Agresti, A
    (2007) An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/0470114754
    https://doi.org/10.1002/0470114754 [Google Scholar]
  2. Best, C.T
    (1994) The emergence of native-language phonological influences in infants: A perceptual assimilation model. In J.C. Goodman & H.C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The development of speech perception: The transition from speech sounds to spoken words (pp.167–224). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, G.D. , & Ellis, N.C
    (1994) Handbook of spelling: Theory, process, and intervention. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, H.D
    (1970) Categories of spelling difficulty in speakers of English as a first and second language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(2), 232–236. doi: 10.1016/s0022‑5371(70)80056‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(70)80056-1 [Google Scholar]
  5. Browne, C. , & Culligan, B
    (2008) Combining technology and IRT testing to build student knowledge of high frequency vocabulary. The JALT CALL Journal, 4(2), 3–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bullinaria, J.A
    (1994) Connectionist modelling of spelling. InProceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.78–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Callan, A.M. , Callan, D.E. , & Masaki, S
    (2005) When meaningless symbols become letters: Neural activity change in learning new phonograms. Neuroimage, 28(3), 553–562. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.031
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.031 [Google Scholar]
  8. Caravolas, M. , Hulme, C. , & Snowling, M.J
    (2001) The foundations of spelling ability: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 751–774. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2785
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2785 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carney, E
    (1994) A survey of English spelling. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203199916
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203199916 [Google Scholar]
  10. Coltheart, M
    (1981) The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33(4), 497–505. doi: 10.1080/14640748108400805
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cook, V.J
    (1997) L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 18(6), 474–488. doi: 10.1080/01434639708666335
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639708666335 [Google Scholar]
  12. Crossley, S.A. , Cobb, T. , & McNamara, D.S
    (2013) Comparing count-based and band-based indices of word frequency: Implications for active vocabulary research and pedagogical applications. System, 41(4), 965–981. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cummings, D.W
    (1988) American English spelling: An informal description. Baltimore: JHU Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Daller, H. , Milton, J. , & Treffers-Daller, J
    (Eds.) (2007) Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511667268
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667268 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dijkstra, T. , Grainger, J. , & van Heuven, W.J
    (1999) Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654 [Google Scholar]
  16. Figueredo, L
    (2006) Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language influence on the development of English-as-a-second-language spelling skill. Reading and Writing, 19(8), 873–905. doi: 10.1007/s11145‑006‑9014‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9014-1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Flege, J.E. , MacKay, I.R.A. , & Meador, D
    (1999) Native Italian speakers’ perception and production of English vowels. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106(5), 2973–2987. doi: 10.1121/1.428116
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.428116 [Google Scholar]
  18. Folk, J.R. , Rapp, B. , & Goldrick, M
    (2002) The interaction of lexical and sublexical information in spelling: What’s the point?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 19(7), 653–671. doi: 10.1080/02643290244000184
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290244000184 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hamilton, T.G. , Watson Todd, R. , & Facundes, N
    (2010) Unique categories of errors in Thai spellings of English. In V. Sagaravasi (Ed.), NIDA 2nd Annual Conference on Language and Communication Proceedings (pp.97–105). Bangkok, Thailand: National Institute of Development Administration.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2012) Reassessing traditional spelling theories from a second language perspective. In P. Subphadoongchone (Ed.), The 32nd Thailand TESOL International Conference Proceedings 2012 (pp.77–94). Bangkok, Thailand: Thailand TESOL.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hanna, P.R. , Hanna, J.S. , Hodges, R.E. , & Rudorf, E.H
    (1966) Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Houghton, G. , & Zorzi, M
    (2003) Normal and impaired spelling in a connectionist dual-route architecture. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20(2), 115–162. doi: 10.1080/02643290242000871
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290242000871 [Google Scholar]
  23. Huibregtse, I. , Admiraal, W. , & Meara, P
    (2002) Scores on a yes-no vocabulary test: Correction for guessing and response style. Language Testing, 19(3), 227–245. doi: 10.1191/0265532202lt229oa
    https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt229oa [Google Scholar]
  24. Ibrahim, M.H
    (1978) Patterns in spelling errors. ELT Journal, 32(3), 207–212. doi: 10.1093/elt/xxxii.3.207
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/xxxii.3.207 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ingram, J.C. , & Park, S.G
    (1997) Cross-language vowel perception and production by Japanese and Korean learners of English. Journal of Phonetics, 25(3), 343–370. doi: 10.1006/jpho.1997.0048
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jpho.1997.0048 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jared, D
    (2002) Spelling-sound consistency and regularity effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 723–750. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2827
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2827 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jones, G.V
    (1985) Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication. Brain and Language, 24(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1016/0093‑934x(85)90094‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934x(85)90094-x [Google Scholar]
  28. Katz, L. , & Frost, R
    (1992) The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp.67–84). Amsterdam: Elsevier North Holland Press. doi: 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)62789‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62789-2 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kessler, B. , & Treiman, R
    (1997) Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 295–311. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1997.2522
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2522 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2001) Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(4), 592–617. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2745
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2745 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Is English spelling chaotic? Misconceptions concerning its irregularity. Reading Psychology, 24, 267–289. doi: 10.1080/02702710390227228
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390227228 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kreiner, D.S. , & Gough, P.B
    (1990) Two ideas about spelling: Rules and word-specific memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 103–118. doi: 10.1016/0749‑596x(90)90012‑o
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(90)90012-o [Google Scholar]
  33. Lester, M
    (1964) Graphemic-phonemic correspondences as the basis for teaching spelling. Elementary English, 41(7), 748–752. Retrieved fromwww.jstor.org/stable/41385716
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lété, B. , Peereman, R. , & Fayol, M
    (2008) Consistency and word-frequency effects on spelling among first-to fifth-grade French children: A regression-based study. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(4), 952–977. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nation, P
    (2006) How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening?Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 59–82. doi: 10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59
    https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.63.1.59 [Google Scholar]
  36. Nation, I.S.P. , & Heatley, A
    (2002) Range: A program for the analysis of vocabulary in texts [software]. Downloadable fromwww.vuw.ac.nz/lals/staff/paul-nation/nation.aspx
  37. Olson, A. , & Caramazza, A
    (1994) Representation and connectionist models: The NETspell experience. In G.A. Brown & N.C. Ellis (Eds.), The handbook of normal and disturbed spelling development: Theory, process and intervention (pp.337–363). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Peereman, R. , & Content, A
    (1999) LEXOP: A lexical database providing orthography-phonology statistics for French monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(2), 376–379. doi: 10.3758/bf03207735
    https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03207735 [Google Scholar]
  39. Plaut, D.C. , McClelland, J.L. , Seidenberg, M.S. , & Patterson, K
    (1996) Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103(1), 56. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295x.103.1.56
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.1.56 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rapcsak, S.Z. , Henry, M.L. , Teague, S.L. , Carnahan, S.D. , & Beeson, P.M
    (2007) Do dual-route models accurately predict reading and spelling performance in individuals with acquired alexia and agraphia?Neuropsychologia, 45(11), 2519–2524. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.019 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rastle, K. , Harrington, J. , & Coltheart, M
    (2002) 358, 534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 55(4), 1339–1362. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000099
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000099 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rey, A. , Jacobs, A.M. , Schmidt-Weigand, F. , & Ziegler, J.C
    (1998) A phoneme effect in visual word recognition. Cognition, 68(3), B71–B80. doi: 10.1016/s0010‑0277(98)00051‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00051-1 [Google Scholar]
  43. Schmitt, N. , & Schmitt, D
    (2014) A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching, 47(04), 484–503. doi: 10.1017/S0261444812000018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000018 [Google Scholar]
  44. Seidenberg, M.S
    (1985) The time course of information activation and utilization in visual word recognition. In D. Besner , T.G. Waller , & E.M. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice (Vol. 5, pp.199–252). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Spencer, K
    (2007) Predicting children’s word‐spelling difficulty for common English words from measures of orthographic transparency, phonemic and graphemic length and word frequency. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 305–338. doi: 10.1348/000712606X123002
    https://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X123002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sun-Alperin, M.K. , & Wang, M
    (2008) Spanish-speaking children’s spelling errors with English vowel sounds that are represented by different graphemes in English and Spanish words. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 932–948. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tainturier, M.J. , Bosse, M.L. , Roberts, D.J. , Valdois, S. , & Rapp, B
    (2013) Lexical neighborhood effects in pseudoword spelling. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 862. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00862
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00862 [Google Scholar]
  48. Venezky, R.L
    (1970) The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783110804478
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804478 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wang, M. , & Geva, E
    (2003) Spelling performance of Chinese children using English as a second language: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 1–26. doi: 10.1017/s0142716403000018
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716403000018 [Google Scholar]
  50. Waters, G.S. , & Seidenberg, M.S
    (1985) Spelling-sound effects in reading: Time-course and decision criteria. Memory & Cognition, 13(6), 557–572. doi: 10.3758/bf03198326
    https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198326 [Google Scholar]
  51. Watson Todd, R
    (2013) Identifying new knowledge in texts through corpus analysis. International Journal of Language Studies, 7(4), 57–76. Retrieved fromwww.ijls.net/vol7no4.html
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wei, Y
    (2005) The relationship between phonological awareness and reading ability of Thai students in English and Thai in primary schools of Thailand. (unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Webb, S
    (2008) Receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(01), 79–95. doi: 10.1017/s0272263108080042
    https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263108080042 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error