English, French, German and Spanish - Laboratoire Psychologie de la ...

A3 Linguistic Processes in Reading and Spelling: The Case of Alphabetic Writing Systems: English, French, German and Spanish LILIANE SPRENGER-CHAROLLES1 ABSTRACT The aim of this chapter is to provide a survey of the development of word reading and spelling in alphabetic writing systems. We assume that the processes that beginning readers rely on partially depend on the specific characteristics of each language, and not only on general principles common to all languages. In particular the weight of the indirect phonological route depends on the degree to which the different writing systems represent the spoken language which they encode. To illustrate this claim, we will review studies carried out with English-, French-, German- and Spanish-speaking children. After a presentation of the main specific linguistic characteristics of these four languages, we shall review the psycholinguistic literature. Our main arguments will be that (1) at the beginning of reading acquisition, the orthographic lexicon is not yet operating, therefore, children rely on their speech knowledge to establish relations between spoken and written language; (2) these relations are easier to establish when ``spelling-tosound'' correspondences are transparent; (3) the units of ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences depend on the linguistic peculiarities of each specific language; (4) the constitution of the orthographic lexicon is a consequence of the consolidation of the associations between ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences. INTRODUCTION Young children might be able to understand a text that is read to them and yet still be unable to understand the same text when they have to read it by themselves. If this happens, their reading difficulties cannot be explained by a failure in comprehension ± the goal of reading ± but are due to an inability to master some 1

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Willy Serniclaes, Danielle BeÂchennec, Jesus Alegria and Sylvia Defior for their very helpful comments. The help of Sally Gerome in proof reading this chapter is gratefully acknowledged.

43 Handbook of Children's Literacy, 43±66. T. Nunes, P. Bryant (eds.) # 2003 Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in The Netherlands.

44

Liliane Sprenger-Charolles

underlying mechanisms specific to reading. There is now overwhelming evidence that these mechanisms that are located at the word level are fairly automatic in skilled readers. This is crucial because of the limited capacity of the reader's information processing. The more attentional cognitive resources the reader uses for word identification (i.e. the more s/he tries to guess words out of context), the less cognitive resources remain available for understanding the text. An important question therefore is how a child acquires automaticity in word reading. Most reading models assume two different mechanisms (or routes) for word access: a direct orthographic route and an indirect phonological route. The first involves direct connections between a written word and its occurrence in the orthographic lexicon of the subject. This route is generally used to read high frequency words, whether they are regular or irregular. The indirect route involves ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences. This route works fine for regular words, like ``table'' in English or in French, but not for words like ``have'' in English or ``femme'' in French that transgress frequent ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences. The aim of the present chapter is to provide a survey of the development of word reading and spelling in alphabetic writing systems. We assume that the processes that beginning readers rely on partially depend on the specific characteristics of each language, and not only on general principles common to all languages. In particular the weight of the indirect phonological route depends on the degree to which the different writing systems represent the spoken language which they encode. To illustrate this claim, we will review studies carried out with English-, French-, German- and Spanish-speaking children (referred to from here on as English, French, German and Spanish children). After a presentation of the main specific linguistic characteristics of these four languages, we shall review the psycholinguistic literature. Our main arguments will be that: At the beginning of reading acquisition, the orthographic lexicon is not yet operating; therefore, children rely on their speech knowledge to establish relations between spoken and written language. These relations are easier to establish when ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences are transparent. The units of ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences depend on the linguistic peculiarities of each specific language. The constitution of the orthographic lexicon is a consequence of the consolidation of the associations between ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences. Phonological and orthographical specificities of English, French, German and Spanish The letters of the alphabet are not connected with sounds but with phonemes. A phoneme is a family of sounds whose function is to signal a difference in meaning in a language. The fact that ``bat'' and ``pat'' differ in meaning demonstrates that / p/ and /b/ are English phonemes even if the sounds of [p] in ``paper'', ``spoon'' and

Phonology and Spelling

45

``top'' differ from one another. In Spanish, the fact that ``pero'' (but) and ``perro'' (a dog) differ in meaning indicates that two different phonemes for R exist. This is not the case in French where the differences between the two Rs may be only a dialectal difference, and not a phonemic difference related to a difference in meaning. Each letter of the alphabet was designed in principle to represent one specific phoneme. A major problem emerges when there are more phonemes than letters to represent them. For example, whereas the alphabet has five letters for vowels, as in oral Spanish, more than 14 simple vowels are found in English, French and German (Delattre, 1965). To spell English, French and German vowels, it is thus necessary to use either diacritic markers (i.e. the umlaut in German which differentiates u /u/ and uÈ /y/), or more than one letter (i.e. ou for /u/ in French as opposed to u /y/). As a consequence, the graphic unit that corresponds to the phoneme is not the letter but the grapheme. A grapheme may be simple (a oneletter grapheme, without diacritic markers) or complex (a letter with a diacritic marker or a digraph composed of more than one letter). The vocalic system of English, French, German and Spanish Most of the differences between the phonological and the graphemic structure of the English, French, German and Spanish languages are related to their vocalic system that may include monothongs and diphthongs, nasal vowels and a neutral vowel (Delattre, 1965; see also for English, Taylor & Serniclaes, 1998 and for German, Taylor & Serniclaes, 1999). Length differences, which are similar to differences between open and closed vowels, allow the 14 main monothongs to be grouped into pairs (/i/I/, /y/Y/, /u/ U/, /e/e/, /ù/ú/, /o/]/, /a/a/). German has all seven pairs of monothongs. In English, there is no /y/Y/, but there are /i/I/, /L/u/, /e/, /6/f/, /Z/]/ and /ñ/V/. In French, there is only one /i/, one /y/, one /u/, and the problem of whether the other series (/e/ù/o/a/ vs /e/ú/]/a/) represent 4 or 8 phonemes is unsolved. In Spanish, there are only five monothongs (/i/, /u/, /e/, /o/ and /a/). There are also 3-4 nasal vowels in French, nasality being not a distinctive feature in the three other languages. A neutral vowel /c/, that is a sort of home base to which the tongue returns frequently in the course of speech, is found in German and French, but to a smaller extent than in English where almost all vowels can become a schwa in an unstressed syllable. In Spanish, the five letters of the alphabet i, u, e, o and a, represent the five monothongs. In German, the umlaut differentiates /y/Y/ from /u/U/, /o/]/ from / ù/ú/, and /a/ from /e/, i.e. uÈ versus u, o versus oÈ and a versus aÈ, but there are also alternative spellings, i.e. eu for /ù/ (adieu /adjù/), e for /e/ (Antenne /anetnc/) and y for /y/ (physic /fysi:k/). Vocalic lengthening is mainly achieved by doubling the vowel (Boot, Aal), by adding a silent h after the vowel (Bohne) or by adding the vowel e, after i (Biene). In addition, the presence of a double consonant indicates

46


that the preceding vowel is short (offen). This system, which has few exceptions, is simpler for reading than for spelling because long vowels can be spelled in more than one way. One of the main characteristics of the spelling of French vowels is the high number of digraphs (ou for /u/ as opposed to u for /y/, eu for /ù/ú/, and a, i, o, u + n or m for nasal vowels), but diacritic markers can also be used (for example, eÂ and eÁ for /e/e/). Some of the digraphs have no simpler orthographic equivalents (ou, and the four nasal vowels), others have simpler allographs (au, eau, also spelled o), and alternative spellings are also found (i.e. an /6/ also spelled am, en or em. . .; in /§/ also spelled im, en, ein, ain. . .). But with the main exceptions of e, which can be /e/, /e/, /c/, or even /a/, and of en, which can be /6/ or /§/, French graphemes representing vowels mainly refer to the same phonemes (Catach, 1986; VeÂronis, 1986). Therefore, in French, grapheme-phoneme correspondences for vowels are highly predictable, whereas phoneme-grapheme correspondences are not so easy to manipulate because it is often necessary to choose between alternative spellings for a particular vocalic phoneme (see also Peereman & Content, 1998). It is not possible to explain the spelling of English monothongs without taking into account the following consonants, the number of syllables of the word and the word stress (Deschamps, 1994). First, for short vowels in monosyllabic words, grapheme-phoneme correspondences exhibit few exceptions. The grapheme i mainly corresponds to the phoneme /i/ as in pit, the grapheme e to /e/ as in bed, the grapheme a to /ñ/ as in bag, the grapheme o to /Z/ as in pot; however, the grapheme u either corresponds to / / as in put (/p t/) or to /6/ as in but (/b6t/). Nevertheless, in order to read short vowels correctly, it is necessary to know also that they cannot be found at the end of a word, and that they are always followed by a non-silent consonant. The presence of a postvocalic r modifies the preceding vowel (e, i, u, ea, o become /f:/ in firm, hurt, pearl or world). Second, the spelling of long vowels is very complicated. For example, eleven graphemes may correspond to the phoneme /i:/ (i.e. e, i, ee, ea, ae, ei, ie, ey, ay, eo and oe as in theme, machine, see, sea, caesarean, conceive, niece, key, quay, people and subpoena). Finally, English is clearly distinguished from the three other languages by the presence of the schwa /c/. This neutral vowel is found in German and French, but is almost always written e. In English the majority of unstressed vowels turn out to be a schwa. According to Delattre (1965), over 50% of the vowels in connected speech can be neutralized in English. Therefore, when reading English words, you can be right half of the time if you use a schwa instead of the specific vocalic graphemes! Yet, to spell the same words correctly, it is necessary to memorize the specific vocalic grapheme, which corresponds to the neutral vowel. Diphthongs are not found in French, but English, German and Spanish share three main diphthongs, /ai/, /au/ and /oi/; /ei/ is specific to Spanish (Delattre, 1965). To spell German and Spanish diphthongs, the letters that correspond to their sub-phonemes are used: ai, au, oi and ei. The Spanish spelling of these O

O


47

diphthongs has few exceptions, except for i that can be spelled y at the end of a word (bailar/fray, boina/doy, beige/ley). In German, alternative spellings can be found for /ai/ (spelled ai in Laib but ei in Ameise) and /oi/ (spelled aÈu or eu as in aÈugeln and heute). The spelling of English diphthongs is highly unpredictable. They can be represented by a single letter grapheme or by a digraph. For example, i, y, ir, igh(t) but also uy and aiX correspond to /ai/ in fine, try, fire, light, buy and aisle. In addition, all English vowels are more or less diphthonguised, i.e. articulated in a constant movement. Thus, the quality of the starting vowel progressively changes from the beginning to the end. This phenomenon is not easy to represent graphically. According to Delattre's analysis (1965), the closest transcription of the English do, know and bee turns out to be [dddcUUUuuuuw], [nnn]]]]oow] and [bbbIIiiij]. As compared to Spanish, German and French, in English, grapheme-phoneme as well as phonemegrapheme correspondences for vowels are thus clearly more difficult to master. The consonantal system of English, French, German and Spanish Twenty letters of the alphabet can be used to spell the consonants. This number is similar to the number of consonantal phonemes in English (22 + 2 semiconsonants), French (17 + 3 semi-consonants), German (21 + 1 semi-consonant) and Spanish (17 + 2 semi-consonants). To explain the consonantal system of these four languages, we can divide the consonants into 3 main categories, stop, fricative and resonant (Delattre, 1965). For stop consonants, the four languages share six oral non-affricates (/p/b/, /t/ d/, /k/g/) and three nasals (/m/n/ plus the palatal // in French and Spanish or the palato-velar // in English and German). Affricate stops can be found in English (/t$/d$/), in German (/pf/ts/) and in Spanish (/t$/). These four languages only share two fricatives /f/ and /s/. The fricatives /v/z/ and /$/¥/ are present in English, French and German, but not in Spanish. Other fricatives are only found in one or two languages, two dentals in English and Spanish (/y/#/), one palatal in German (/cË/), one pharyngeal in German and Spanish (/2/), one glottal in English and German (/h/), and the three Spanish fricatives (/aÁ/aÊ/OÄ/) that correspond to the voiced stops /b/d/g/ (/b/d/g/ occur word-initially, while /A/#/q/ occur intervocalically). The resonant L and R are found in the four languages, but they are not pronounced in the same manner. In addition, in Spanish, two Rs can be found, one short with one flap and one long with multiple flaps, plus two Ls, a latero-dental /l/ and a latero-palatal /l/. The system has to be completed by three semi-consonants, /j/ which can be found in the four languages, /w/ which is not present in German, and the French /r/ (Delattre, 1965). The Table in the Appendix summarizes the spellings of the consonants and semi-consonants in the four target languages. Some of the consonantal phonemes are represented mainly by the same grapheme whereas for others alternative spellings can be found. Some of the grapheme-phoneme ambiguities are observed

48


in all four languages; for example, the graphemes g, c, s and t usually correspond to different phonemes. Other ambiguities are present only in one language; for example, in German, a change between the voice-voiceless consonants /b/p/, /d/t/, /k/g/, /v/f/, /z/s/ at the end of the words (or of the morphemes) is observed. In addition, the letter x is not used to represent the pharyngeal /2/ in Spanish and German, where x is almost always pronounced [ks]. In French and in English, x keeps the Spanish and the German pronunciation [ks] in sexy, but is also read [gz] in exact, [z] in xenophobia (in English) and deuxieÁme (in French), and [s] in soixante in French. Another reading problem, specific to French and English, is that some written consonants are silent. In English, at the beginning of a word, kn become /n/ as in know; ps becomes /s/ as in psychology; wr become /r/ as in write. The grapheme gh is silent before t as in fight, and at the end of a word as in high (except after ou), t and k disappear between f or s and n or l as in soften, castle and muscle. In addition, L and R are not clearly articulated in postvocalic position as in help, this phenomenon being stronger for R which only lengthens the preceding monothong as in barn, bird, board, etc. When the preceding vowel is a diphthong, a weak R appears as in bare or bear /becr/ (Delattre, 1965). In French, the silent consonants are mainly at the end of the words but are often pronounced with the following word when it begins by a vowel. For example, petit lit is pronounced / pctili/ while petit ami is pronounced /pctitami/, not /pctit/ami/ nor /p«tiami/. In general, the problem of the French final silent consonant is due to the fact that the morphological markers for the plural, as well as most of the verbal flexions, either are not pronounced or modify the pronunciation of `è'' when they follow this grapheme (i.e., leS pouleS mangeNT/le pulc maÄ¥c /; mangeR /maÄ¥e/). Another difficulty of the spelling of English and French consonants is related to the fact that they can be geminated without clear phonological properties, except in two cases. First, in French and in English ss always corresponds to /s/, never to /z/. Second, in French, the presence of a double consonant modifies the pronunciation of the vowel e which corresponds to /e/e/ as in nette and not to /c/ as in petit. Therefore, gemination mostly penalizes word spelling. Compared to Spanish, grapheme-phoneme and phoneme-grapheme correspondences for consonants in English, and to a lesser extent in French and in German, appear to be less consistent. English grapheme-phoneme correspondences for vowels are nevertheless deeper than those for consonants and clearly deeper than the Spanish, the German and the French systems for vowels. This is shown indirectly in the appendix in which there seems to be less correspondence between pronunciation and spelling in English than in Spanish, German and French. Other differences between English, French, German and Spanish In English, German and Spanish, words have some degree of phonetic independence as each full word has its own stress. In English, however, the place


49

of word stress is highly variable (Delattre, 1965), thus penalizing the reading of vowels that have to become a schwa in an unstressed position. The variability of stress location is smaller in German (Delattre, 1965). Spanish shows a definite tendency for fixed stress position on the penultimate syllable, except for bi-syllabic words (Delattre, 1965). In French, children cannot make stress errors in word reading as there is mainly a word-group stress. In addition, there is a preponderance of open syllables in French and in Spanish, whereas in English and in German, the majority of syllables have a closed structure (Delattre, 1965). Therefore in French and in Spanish ± not in English and in German ± the rime unit mostly corresponds to a vowel. As a consequence, a model of reading that attaches importance to the role of the rime units in the beginning of reading acquisition (see Goswami and Bryant, 1990) may be more suitable for English and German than for French and Spanish. From linguist description to statistical analyses These descriptive data are partially congruent with the statistical analyses of Ziegler, Jacobs and Stone (1996; see also Ziegler, 1999 and Ziegler, Stone & Jacob, 1997). The authors have compared the degree of bi-directional consistency of orthography-to-phonology in monosyllabic words in English, French and German, not in Spanish. Inconsistency was defined at the orthographic and phonological rime levels. In regard to orthography-to-phonology (O-P) rime consistency, a word was considered inconsistent when its orthographic rime can be read in more than one way. In regard to phonology-to-orthography (P-O) rime consistency, a word was considered inconsistent when its phonological rime can be written in more than one way. The degree of O-P inconsistency is higher in English (12.9%) than in German and French (5.8 and 4.9%). The degree of rime inconsistency is higher for P-O than for O-P in all three languages, and much higher for P-O in French (50.3%) than in English (28%) or in German (25.9%). The differences between English and the two other languages are less than those expected according to our linguistic description based on grapheme-phoneme and phoneme-grapheme correspondences (GPC and PGC, see also Table in the Appendix) and to the fact that the 40 English phonemes can be spelled by 1120 graphemes (Coulmas, 1996) whereas the 35 French phonemes can be spelled by 130 graphemes (Catach, 1986), the 40 German phonemes by 85 graphemes (Valtin, 1989) and the 29-32 Spanish phonemes by 45 graphemes. The differences between observed rime level and expected phoneme level based results may be due to a strong decrease in inconsistencies when taking into account rimes in monosyllabic words, particularly for English vowels. De facto, at the grapheme-phoneme level, the vowel consistency ratio for GPC appears very low in English and very high in French (48% vs. 94%, Peereman & Content, 1998) whereas for PGC it is similar in both languages (67% in English and 68% in French). However, only monosyllabic words were included in the

50


Ziegler et al.'s and Peereman et al.'s databases and, at least in French, monosyllabic words represent only a small percentage (6.70%, that is 2396 of the 36,000 words in the Micro Robert, 1986, according to Content, Mousty & Radeau, 1990); this restriction could bias the results. From linguistic description to psycholinguistic processing In the history of civilizations, as well as in the acquisition of language, written language takes a second place to spoken language. Human brains are first mapped out by spoken language processing. This can explain why phonological processing may be the core of reading acquisition. To corroborate this hypothesis via research on reading acquisition in Spanish, German, French and English, the most impressive argument is that even in English and in French, the efficiency of early reliance on phonological processing predicts later reading achievement. Nevertheless, due to the opacity of English orthography, reading acquisition may be more difficult in English than in the three other languages, especially Spanish and German. Moreover, the units of phonological processing may be based on the linguistic peculiarities of each specific language; for example, we can expect more errors with vowels than with consonants in English. We will try to answer these questions by examining the current literature on reading and spelling acquisition in English, French, German and Spanish. Before we begin, we would like to recall that one of the problems of ``phonocentrism'' based on grapheme-phoneme correspondences is that phonemes are not easily perceptible in the spoken language because of coarticulation. For example, the spoken word car is pronounced in a single articulatory gesture. In alphabetic written systems each grapheme that corresponds to a phoneme is represented separately (c+a+r). Therefore, the child has to understand that the spoken word /kar/ is composed of three units in order to be able to match the graphemic form of this word with its phonemic equivalent. Phonemic awareness is thus linked to reading abilities. This important question is out of the scope of the present chapter (see Defior, this volume). Phonological processing in reading/spelling in Spanish, German, French and English Reliance on phonological processing is assessed here by four main indicators; first by performance on pseudowords that cannot be processed via the orthographic route; second by the regularity effect, which is the difference between the processing of regular and strongly inconsistent grapheme-phoneme correspondences (e.g. tAble in French or English compared to fEmme in French or to hAve in English); third the production of regularizations with words involving inconsistent grapheme-phoneme correspondences (e.g., the word Nation read /nati-on/ in German, /nati-oÄ/ in French and /neiti-on/ in English or the word abogado read with


51

the phonemes /b/, /g/, /d/ in Spanish (see Appendix); fourth by a strong correlation between pseudoword and word processing. Reliance on the orthographic route is shown by the fact that frequently seen items are better processed, i.e. high frequency words better than low frequency words and real words better than pseudowords. Spanish, German, and French children The regularity effect is difficult to use in Spanish because correspondences between graphemes and phonemes are rarely inconsistent (see above). Therefore, in order to assess if children rely on the phonological route, researchers generally take into account either pseudoword performance or the difference between the processing of a pseudoword and a real word. In spite of certain discrepancies in the studies, it seems that even very young Spanish children rely on efficient phonological skills. For example, 5 year-olds were able to read and spell more than 90% of bi-syllabic pseudowords including or not inconsistent graphemes such as c and g (Cuetos, 1989). Very high scores on pseudoword reading were also found in poor and good readers of the second grade (Valle-Arroyo, 1989). The pseudowords scores reported in other studies of Spanish children were slightly lower (Defior, Justicia & Martos, 1996; Sebastian-GalleÁs & ParrenÄo-Vacchiano, 1995). However, Cuetos used only short pseudowords whereas Defior et al. relied on short and long pseudowords and Sebastian-GalleÁs & ParrenÄo-Vacchiano on long pseudowords with inconsistent graphemes such as c and g. These differences in test items may explain Cuetos' higher scores. Concerning reliance on orthographic skills, when performance on pseudowords was compared to that of words, a lexicality effect emerged, even in young Spanish readers (Defior et al., 1996; Valle-Arroyo, 1989). Inconsistent findings emerged for the frequency effect. No effect was observed in the Valle-Arroyo study, whatever the grade level (2nd, 4th or 6th), whereas, surprisingly, Defior et al. found such an effect for the younger children (1st to 3rd Grade), but not for the older children (4th to 6th Grade). The difference in results for the frequency effect may be accounted for by pseudowords and words being presented on the same list in the Valle-Arroyo study, but not in the Defior et al. study. When subjects have to read words mixed with pseudowords, phonological processing is strengthened, and thus the frequency effect could disappear. Beginning German readers ± like Spanish children ± seem to be able to make an early and efficient use of phonological processing (Wimmer and Hummer, 1990). After 8 months of reading instruction, 7.5 year-old first graders were asked to read and spell pseudowords and words, mostly one or two-syllable items with consistent grapheme-phoneme correspondences. The test items were presented on the same list, except for a spelling test. High scores were reported for pseudoword and word reading (68% and 87%), and for pseudoword spelling (70%), the lowest scores being observed in a word spelling task (59%). In another study, 8;5 to 10;5 year-old German dyslexics and non-disabled readers were asked to read

52


words and pseudowords presented on different lists (Wimmer, 1993). Even the younger impaired readers reached a high level in the reading tasks and the performance of the non-disabled readers was very accurate. These results show that even first graders rely on well developed phonological processing. The fact that a lexicality effect emerged in the Wimmer and Hummer (1990) study also indicates that first graders are able to use their orthographical knowledge. However, high correlations were observed between pseudoword and word reading or spelling in the Wimmer and Hummer (1990) study as well as between pseudowords and high frequency words in the Wimmer (1993) study. This suggests that German children mostly rely on phonological processing to process words, even high-frequency words. In a French longitudinal study, 6;6 to 7 year olds were asked twice (in the middle and at the end of the first grade) to read and spell high or medium frequency regular and inconsistent words, and pseudowords matched in orthographical difficulties to the regular words (Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel and Bonnet, 1998b). The inconsistent words contained either a low frequency grapheme or a silent grapheme in a non-terminal position (for example, femme [fam], woman; sept [set], seven). Two levels of grapheme-phoneme consistency had been defined for the regular words and the pseudowords. At the first level, the items included only simple graphemes, each corresponding to one phoneme; the second-level items included context-independent digraphs. Only two digraphs have been used (ou /u/ and ch /$/) because they have no simpler equivalents; therefore, the children were not expected to encounter more difficulties in spelling than in reading which would have been the case if we had used a frequent digraph such as au which has a simple and more frequent allograph `ò''. Words and pseudowords were separately presented. In the middle of the first grade, high frequency words were not processed any better than medium frequency words and regular words not any better than pseudowords, neither in reading nor in spelling. At the end of the first grade, a frequency effect emerged in reading and in spelling and a lexicality effect was found, but only in reading (correct responses were 88% vs 80%, for regular word vs pseudoword reading; 78% vs 76%, for regular word vs pseudoword spelling). However, children processed regular words better than inconsistent words, whatever the test session (40% vs 7% in the first reading session and 87% vs 38% in the second; for spelling, 37% vs 5% and 73% vs 13%). The difference between regular and inconsistent words even increased between sessions as did the mean percentage of regularization errors. As in the Wimmer and Hummer study (1990), strong correlations between regular words and pseudowords were observed both in reading and in spelling. These results indicate that French children mostly rely on phonological processing in the beginning of reading and spelling acquisition and that the weight of this processing even increases with time. They also indicate that the orthographic lexicon is progressively set-up in reading and ± though to a lesser extent ± in spelling. In comparisons of pseudoword reading and spelling with items of approxi-


53

mately the same degree of orthographical difficulty in Spanish (Cuetos, 1989), German (Wimmer and Hummer, 1990), and in French (Sprenger-Charolles et al., 1998b), 5 year-old Spanish children appear to reach a higher level than 7 year-old French children and than slightly older German children. The fact that a similar level of accuracy was observed for French and German children may not be due only to the use of highly regular grapheme-phoneme correspondences in the Sprenger-Charolles et al. (1998b) study, as suggested by another French study (see the results of regular words including digraphs either with allographs or with several possible pronunciations depending on the orthographic context, study 1, in Sprenger-Charolles & Casalis, 1995). The reading scores observed at the end of the first grade in that study were similar to those of the Sprenger-Charolles et al. study (1998b). Nevertheless, in the Sprenger-Charolles and Casalis study, the presence of digraphs strongly penalized word spelling. Graphemic complexity mostly affecting word spelling in French was reported in the Leybaert and Content study (1995). The results of Alegria and Mousty (1994) also showed that French second graders (7;7) perfectly spelled contextindependent graphemes ± including bigraphs ± whereas their scores for contextdependent graphemes were low. In addition, for inconsistent graphemes such as s, ss or c (for /s/) strong differences emerged between the dominant spelling (s) and the non-dominant spellings (c or ss), even when the non-dominant spelling was the most common grapheme in a specific context (e.g., ss in intervocalic position). It was only by grade 5 that the correct spelling of the different French contextual graphemes appeared to be mastered. These results were replicated in another study (Alegria and Mousty, 1996) that also indicated that word frequency had no impact on the performance of the younger children (beginning of 2nd grade). Thus, French children appear to begin to spell using a simplified set of phonemegrapheme correspondences with no lexical involvement. The weight of phonological processing in Spanish, German and even in French, may be a result of the use of phonic methods. The aim of the Leybaert and Content study (1995) was to assess this hypothesis. They looked at the development of reading and spelling skills in children instructed either by a phonic method (PH), or by a whole-word method (WW). The phonological skills of the WW second graders were weaker than those of PH group. Nevertheless, the former compared to the latter showed no indication of a greater reliance on word specific knowledge. Paradoxically, some elements even suggested that word specific knowledge could be less developed in the WW group. For example, WW second graders obtained lower scores than their PH age mates for the reading and spelling of irregular words. According to the authors, these results suggest that the acquisition of phonological skills constitutes a necessary step in the construction of the orthographic lexicon. The role of phonological processing in the development of reading and spelling will be examined later. Before, we will give an overview of what happens with English children, who, compared to Spanish-, German- and, even, to French children learn to read in a language with a deeper orthography.

54


English versus French, German and Spanish children The acquisition of phonological processing in English seems to be slow and difficult. Mean accuracy for pseudoword reading at the end of grade 1 typically ranges from 20% to 60% (Jorm, Share, MacLean & Matthew, 1984; Juel, Griffith & Gough, 1986; Siegel & Ryan, 1988; Vandervelden & Siegel, 1995). For example, Siegel and Ryan (1988) found that normal readers reached an almost perfect level in pseudoword reading only by the age of 9 years. It appears difficult to compare these results to those obtained with Spanish, German and French children because of the strong specificity of the English orthography. Consequently, we only examine comparative studies in which items were matched across languages to take into account comparable difficulties in spelling and pronunciation relationships. In a cross-linguistic study, Bruck, Genesee and Caravolas (1997) followed English and French children (5;9 to 7 year-olds). Phonological awareness was assessed in the middle of kindergarten and word versus pseudoword reading at the end of grade 1. High frequency regular monosyllabic words sharing spelling patterns commonly taught to grade 1 children were selected. Pseudowords were constructed by changing the first letter of words. The French and English items were equated in number of letters and in grapheme-phoneme correspondences. Although the French children had fewer preliteracy opportunities and no reading instruction in kindergarten, at the end of grade 1 they obtained higher scores than their English peers on pseudoword and word reading (63 vs 36% and 76 vs 52%). In addition, the predictors of reading achievement were not the same in the two groups. The most significant predictor was onset-rime awareness for the English children and syllable segmentation for the French children. The phonological awareness results are congruent with the specificities of English and French languages (see here above) and the reading results may be explained by learning to read being easier in a more consistent orthography. The reading skills of English and German children were assessed by Wimmer and Goswami (1994). Seven-, eight- and nine-year-olds were instructed to read number-words which are similar in the two languages (e.g. three-drei). Pseudowords were derived from number-words by exchanging the consonantal onsets, including thus phonological units that were typical for each orthography. To make sure there were no differences in naming or articulatory speed, the children were asked to name the numerals corresponding to the number-words as quickly as possible. No differences between English and German children emerged for the numeral and the number-word conditions. However, the pseudoword reading scores of 7- and 8 year-old English children were lower than those of 7-year old German children (70% vs 90%). In addition, high correlations between pseudoword and word reading times were observed in the youngest German group, but not in the youngest English group. These results suggest that German children, but not English children, rely on the same phonological processing to read pseudowords and words, and that the phonological skills of the German children are more efficient than those of the English children.


55

These results were reproduced in the Frith, Wimmer and Landerl study (1998). In a first experiment with 7-, 8- and 9-year-olds, English and German words which were similar in spelling, pronunciation, meaning and familiarity were used (e.g. Summer/Sommer). Pseudowords were derived from the words by exchanging the onset (Rummer/Rommer). English children performed less well on words (80 vs 95%). Although in scoring the reading of the English pseudowords the criteria were lenient, the difference was much greater for pseudowords (59 vs 88%), especially for the younger children (7-year-olds, 45 vs 85%). In a second experiment, the effects of frequency and lexicality were manipulated. For high frequency words, 8-year-old English and German children obtained similar results but English children lagged behind their German peers both with low frequency words and with pseudowords. The same children were asked to read trisyllabic pseudowords with simple open syllables and without consonant clusters (e.g. tarulo, surimo). Accuracy and reaction times were computed. The scores of the 8-year-old English children still were lower than those of their German peers, for accuracy (70% vs 99%) and for time latencies (4.3 sec per stimulus [SD=2.1] vs 1.9 [SD= 0.9]). In a parallel study French children were required to read similar trisyllabic pseudowords (i.e. tibulo, butiro) presented in a list including more complex and phonologically similar bisyllabic pseudowords (i.e. tribul, tirbul; blutir, bultir); thus, the French task favored errors. In spite of this, the French 8-year-old average readers obtained high scores for the reading of the trisyllabic pseudowords (84% for accuracy and 1.4 sec per stimulus [SD=0.3] for time latencies (see Sprenger-Charolles & Siegel, 1997 and the results of the 8-year-old average readers in Sprenger-Charolles, ColeÂ, Lacert & Serniclaes, 2000).1 The Frith et al. and the Sprenger-Charolles studies did not handle time latencies in the same way. In the former study, children were instructed to press the mouse button as soon as they felt able to read the word aloud; reading latencies were measured from onset of stimulus presentation. The French measure was more direct; the responses were recorded by the integrated speech sampler of a computer; correct responses time latencies were computed via the analysis of the speech signal. However, this methodological difference cannot account for the large differences observed between French and English children for reaction times. In this very simple reading task, English 8-year-olds clearly showed a lesser mastery of phonological processing than their German and French counterparts. In another comparative study, 7-, 8 and 9-year-old English, Spanish and French children were required to read monosyllabic and bisyllabic words and pseudowords which were orthographically and phonologically analog or nonanalog (cake or ticket vs dake or bicket vs foaj, verrpil, Goswami, Gombert &

2

These results were published together with those of another list of pseudowords in Sprenger-Charolles et al. (2000).

56


Barrera, 1998). The principal aim of this study was to assess the degree of reliance on analogical processing in reading in the three languages. For each age level, the three groups were matched as closely as possible for reading age and for their knowledge of the real words from which the pseudowords were derived. Spanish children relied on efficient phonological processing based on grapheme-phoneme correspondences as suggested by their high scores for pseudoword reading (89%), the incidence of the stimuli length on their performance and the non-significant effect of analogy. An accuracy difference between the French and the English children (72% vs 52%) suggested the phonological skills of the former to be more efficient than those of the latter. In both groups, an effect of analogy was found, indicating that these children relied on reading units larger than graphemephoneme correspondences. However, for French children at least, the effect of analogy may be explained by confusing factors, such as the presence of very rare French bigraphs in the non-analog items (i.e., nm, nl, ts, ae or oa in the median position, see Content & Radeau, 1988). It is worth noting that in other studies no clear evidence that beginning readers relied on an analogical mechanism based on rime was found (see for reading and spelling in French, Sprenger-Charolles et al., 1998b; for reading in English, Bruck & Treiman, 1992; Frith et al., 1998). Another issue is that in English in word and in pseudoword reading and spelling, errors involve vowels more often than consonants (Bryson & Werker, 1989; Fischer, Liberman & Shankweiler, 1977; Fowler, Liberman & Shankweiler, 1977; Fowler, Shankweiler & Liberman, 1979; Frith et al., 1998; Siegel & Faux, 1989). This difference was not found in German (Frith et al., 1998; Wimmer, 1993) or in French (Sprenger-Charolles & Siegel, 1997). These results are congruent with the predictions following from the linguistic description (see above). To summarize, studies with young Spanish, German, and French children indicated strong and early reliance on phonological processing, both in reading and in spelling. Indicators of reliance on orthographic processing were also found in reading. Nevertheless, beginning readers and spellers mostly relied on phonological processing as suggested by the very high correlations observed between pseudoword and word processing. These studies also clearly showed dramatic differences in reading and spelling levels to the detriment of English children compared to Spanish, to German and to French children. These results might have been due to differences in orthographic consistency, but also to differences in instructional approach, the two factors being interrelated. Consistent orthography lends itself to systematic teaching by a phonic method, whereas inconsistent orthography demands more complex methods. However, French children taught by a phonic method reach a higher level of phonological and, surprisingly, of orthographic skills, than children taught by a whole-word method (Leybaert and Content, 1995) and a systematic phonic approach also seems to help English children (see for a review Snowling, 1996). Nevertheless, the strongest influence seems to be that of the language to which the children are exposed. Learning to read in a consistent orthography leads to


57

the use of phonological processing whereas learning to read in an inconsistent orthography leads to a lesser reliance on this processing, and, perhaps, to the use of non-phonological compensatory strategies. As noticed by Frith et al. (1998), English children, compared to German children, showed a significantly stronger tendency to make errors in which the target item (word or pseudoword) was replaced by another word and to be more sensitive to word frequency. These results suggest that English children might use top-down lexical representations to supplement error-prone bottom-up processes. Developmental trajectory In the studies reviewed so far, Spanish, German and French ± but not English children ± were observed to rely strongly on phonological processing from the early stages of reading and spelling acquisition. This raises the question of the role of phonological processing in the developmental trajectory. Some researchers postulate that the orthographic lexicon is set-up gradually through the phonological route (see Ehri, 1998; Perfetti, 1992; Share, 1995). To corroborate this hypothesis, the most impressive argument is that even in English and French, the efficiency of early reliance on phonological processing predicts later reading achievement. Substantial correlations have been found between pseudoword reading and exception word reading in English (e.g., Baron, 1979; Freebody & Byrne, 1988; Gough & Walsh, 1991; Stanovich & West, 1989). In addition, in the early stage of reading acquisition in English, phonological errors such as regularization were common for good readers and rare for poor readers (Siegel & Kerr, 1996). Longitudinal studies also suggested that good ``decoders'' learn to read more quickly than children with poor phonological skills. For example, in a longitudinal study, Jorm, Share, MacLean and Matthews (1984) followed two groups of kindergartners, ``good decoders'' and ``non-decoders''. The results indicated that the early good decoders improved in reading more than the ``nondecoders''. At the end of the second grade, they were nine months ahead in a word reading test. Another example is provided by the Byrne, Freebody and Gates (1992) study. The authors examined the evolution of two groups of second grade poor readers, one with adequate phonological skills and below average word specific knowledge (the ``phoenicians''), and the other with average sight word recognition ability but poor phonological skills (the ``chinese''). The results showed that the scores obtained by Phoenician readers improved between sessions ± even for irregular words ± while a deterioration in word reading skills was observed for the ``Chinese'' readers. Similar tendencies were observed with French children. For example, second graders with a low level of phonological reading skills were also found to have a poor level of orthographic skills whereas children with efficient phonological skills had well developed orthographic skills (Leybaert & Content, 1995). In two short-

58


term longitudinal studies of French children, early reliance on the phonological procedure was also found to be predictive of later efficiency of the orthographic procedure. In the first study (Sprenger-Charolles et al., 1998b) early phonological skills evaluated in the middle of the first grade by pseudoword processing were found to be predictive of performance on irregular words at the end of the same grade, whereas the reverse was not observed, in reading or in spelling. The other study (Sprenger-Charolles et al., 1998a) compared children with high and low levels of expertise in orthographic skills, as assessed by an orthographic choice task at the end of second grade. The second grade `èxperts'' were the children who, in first grade, had been found to rely more strongly on phonological processing in reading aloud, in spelling and in silent reading. The acquisition of phonological skills seems thus to constitute a necessary step in the construction of the orthographic lexicon. Tentative explanation Phonological processing thus seems to be the core of reading acquisition. This might be explained by the fact that reliance on phonological processing permits pseudowords as well as known and unknown regular words to be read. Through the use of phonological processing, and through the comparison of words phonologically decoded and those that are part of their oral vocabulary, children can learn to associate graphemes with phonemes and/or other types of orthographic units with phonological units (onset-rime, syllable). It is important to note that even highly inconsistent words contain some regular grapheme-phoneme correspondences and that some inconsistencies are only a question of grapheme frequency. For example, the use of graphemephoneme correspondences in English leads to the pronunciation of the high frequency word have as /heiv/. Knowing that /heiv/ does not exist, but that the word /hñv/ does, children can infer that `à'' must be read as /ñ/ and not /ei/ in this word. Children may learn most of the relationships between orthography and phonology through this procedure. Because of grapheme-phoneme and of word frequencies, strong associations between orthographic and phonological units enable children to gradually construct their orthographic lexicon which permits the use of the direct route. Nevertheless, even when the direct route is functional, children may still have recourse to phonological processing and this processing becomes more and more efficient as a result of the consolidation of the associations between sublexical orthographic and phonological units. In this framework, the level of grapheme-phoneme consistency is the major factor that determines the ease or difficulty of learning to read (see also the connectionist model of Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996). Because of the consistency of grapheme-phoneme correspondences, this learning scheme works better in shallow orthographies than in deeper ones, i.e. in Spanish, German and French compared to English, or in Spanish compared to French.


59

Orthographic consistency could even have a long-lasting influence as suggested by the study of Paulesu, Demonet, Fazio, McCrory, Chanoine, Brunswick, Cappa, Cossu, Habib, Frith and Frith (2001) in which Italian, French and English adult average and dyslexic readers were compared. In addition, the associations between graphemic and phonological units could depend on the specificities of each language. For example, the studies we reviewed suggested that the process of building associations for vowels in English is difficult. Therefore, in English, vowels may be associated with consonants only in a second phonological cycle (see Berent & Perfetti, 1995) whereas in German and French, consonants and vowels might blend together on-line. In English, vowels could also be processed with the following consonants because their pronunciation is often more consistent when taking into account the word rime, i.e. the vowel + the consonantal coda (see Goswami and Bryant, 1990). In this framework, the fact that spelling scores are lower than reading scores may be due to the asymmetry between grapheme-phoneme and phonemegrapheme correspondences. Whereas, for example, in German and in French, grapheme-phoneme correspondences are quite predictable, phoneme-grapheme correspondences are not so easy to manipulate because it is often necessary to choose between alternative spellings for a particular phoneme (see Table in the Appendix). In addition, knowledge of a spoken word may facilitate the reading of this word, but not the choice of its correct spelling. For example, in French, knowledge of the oral form /tablo/ does not facilitate the spelling of this word because the phoneme /o/ may be spelled o as in numeÂro, au as in noyau or eau as in chateau. This might explain why children begin to spell using a simplified set of phoneme-grapheme correspondences with no lexical involvement (Alegria & Mousty, 1994, 1996). However, to be able to map graphemes with phonemes correctly, or phonemes with graphemes, children have to rely on well-specified phonological representations. If the child's phonological representations are not well specified, then the connections between graphemes and phonemes will be difficult to establish. This will be the case for dyslexic children who, according to current literature, have been shown to have deficient phonological representations (see Adlard & Hazan, 1998; Godfrey, Syrdal-Lasky, Millay & Knox, 1981; Manis, McBride-Chang, Seidenberg, Keating, Doi, Munson & Petersen, 1997; Mody, Studdert-Kennedy & Brady, 1997; Serniclaes, Sprenger-Charolles, CarreÂ & Demonet, 2001; Werker & Tees, 1987). As a consequence, not only their phonological reading skills, but also their orthographic skills, will probably be impaired. REFERENCES Adlard, A., & Hazan,V. (1998). Speech perception in children with specific reading difficulties (Dyslexia). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 153-177. Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1994). On the development of lexical and non-lexical procedures of French-

60


speaking normal and disabled children. In G.D.A. Brown, & N.C. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of spelling: Theory, process and intervention (pp. 213-226). New York, Wiley and Sons. Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1996). The development of spelling procedures in French-speaking, normal and reading disabled children: Effects of frequency and of lexicality. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 312-338. Baron J. (1979). Orthographic and word-specific mechanisms in children's reading of words. Child Development, 50, 60-72. Berent, I., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A Rose is a REEZ: The two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146-184. Bruck, M., Genesee, F., & Caravolas, M. (1997). A cross linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 145-162). Mahwah (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum. Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1992). Learning to pronounce words: The limitation of analogies. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 375-388. Bryson, S.E., & Werker, J.F. (1989). Toward understanding the problem in severely disabled readers. Part I: Vowel errors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 1-12. Byrne, B., Freebody , P., & Gates, A. (1992). Longitudinal data on the relations of word-reading strategies to comprehension, reading time and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 141-151. Catach, N. (1978). L'orthographe. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Catach, N. (1980). L'orthographe francËais: TraiteÂ theÂorique et pratique. Paris: Nathan. Content, A., & Radeau, M. (1988). DonneÂes statistiques sur la structure orthographique du FrancËais. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology.Special issue, 1-87. Content, A., Mousty, Ph., & Radeau, M. (1990). Brulex: une base de donneÂes lexicales informatiseÂe pour le FrancËais eÂcrit et parleÂ. AnneÂe Psychologique, 90, 551-66. Coulmas, F. (1996). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford, UK : Blackwell. Cuetos, F. (1989). Lectura y escritura de palabras a traves de la ruta phonologica. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 45, 71-84. Defior, S., Justicia, F., & Martos, F. (1996). The influence of lexical and sublexical variables in normal and poor Spanish readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 487-497. Delattre, P. (1966). Studies in French and comparative phonetics. The Hague: Mouton. Deschamps, A. (1994). De l'eÂcrit aÁ l'oral et de l'oral aÁ l'eÂcrit: PhoneÂtique et orthographe de l'anglais. Paris: Ophrys. Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-Phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.L.Metsala & L.Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum. Fischer, F.W., Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1977). Reading reversals and developmental dyslexia: A further study. Cortex, 14, 496-510. Fowler, C.A., Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D.(1977). On interpreting the error pattern of beginning readers. Language and Speech, 20, 162-173. Fowler, C.A., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I.Y. (1979). Apprehending spelling patterns for vowels: A longitudinal study. Language and Speech, 22, 243-252. Freebody, P., & Byrne, B. (1988). Word-reading strategies in elementary school children: Relations to comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 441-453. Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and Spanish-speaking children. Scientific Study of Reading, 2, 31-54. Godfrey, J.J., Syrdal-Lasky, A.K., Millay K.K., & Knox, C.M. (1981). Performance of dyslexic children on speech perception tests. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 401-424. Goswami, U. C. & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove (East Sussex): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates LTD. Goswami, U., Gombert, J.E., & Fraca de Barrera, L. (1998). Children's orthographic representations and linguistic transparency: nonsense word reading in English, French and Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 19-52.


61

Gough, P. B., & Walsh, M.A. (1991). Chinese, Phoenicians, and the orthographic cipher of English. In S.A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (eds.). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp. 199-209). Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum. Jorm, A.F., Share, D.L., MacLean, R., & Matthews, R.G. (1984). Phonological recoding skill and learning to read: A longitudinal study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 201-207. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255. Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (1995). Reading and spelling acquisition in two different teaching methods: A test of the independence hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 65-88. Manis, F.R., McBride-Chang, C., Seidenberg, M.S., Keating, P., Doi, L.M., Munson, B., & Petersen, A. (1997). Are speech perception deficits associated with developmental dyslexia ? Journal of Child Experimental Psychology, 66, 211-235. Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Brady, S. (1997). Speech perception deficits in poor readers: Auditory processing or phonological coding? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 199-231. Paulesu, E., Demonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S.F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C.D., & Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia, Cultural diversity and Biological unity. Science, 291, 2165-2167. Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1998). Quantitative analysis of orthography to phonology mapping in English and French (on-line). ttp://homepages.vub.ac.be/~acontent/OPMapping.html. Perfetti, C. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri & R. Treiman (Eds). Reading Acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. E. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domain. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115. Robert, P. (1986). Micro-Robert. Dictionnaire du francËais primordial, nouvelle eÂdition revue et mise aÁ jour. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert. Sebastian-GalleÂs, N., & ParranÄo-Vacchiano, A. (1995). The development of analogical reading in Spanish. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 23-38. Share, D.L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151-218. Siegel, L.S., & Faux, D. (1989). Acquisition of certain grapheme-phoneme correspondences in normally achieving disabled readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 37-52. Siegel, L.S., & Kerr, A. (1996). An analysis of the reading errors of good and poor beginning readers. Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. New-York, April 1996. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological, and short±term memory in normally achieving and learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28±37. Serniclaes, W., Sprenger-Charolles, L., CarreÂ, R., & DeÂmonet, J.F. (2001). Perceptual categorization of speech sounds in dyslexics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 44, 384-399. Snowling, M. (1996). Contempory approaches to the teaching of reading. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 139-148. Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Casalis, S. (1995). Reading and spelling acquisition in French first graders: Longitudinal evidence. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 1-25. Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Siegel, L.S. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of syllabic structure on the development of reading and spelling skills in French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 485-505. Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L.S., & BeÂchennec, D. (1998a). Phonological Mediation and Orthographic Factors in Silent Reading in French. Scientific Study of Reading, 2, 3-2. Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L.S., & Bonnet, P. (1998b). Reading and spelling acquisition in French: The role of phonological mediation and orthographic factors. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 68, 134-165. Sprenger-Charolles, L., ColeÂ, P., Lacert, P., & Serniclaes, W. (2000). On Subtypes of Developmental Dyslexia: Evidence from Processing Time and Accuracy Scores. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology (Special Issue on Early Literacy and Early Numeracy), 54, 87-103.

62


Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402-433. Taylor, J., & Serniclaes, W. (1998). Phonetics and Phonology. In ReneÂ Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor, (eds.). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (pp. 107-135). London: Benjamins. Taylor, J., & Serniclaes, W. (1999). Sprachliche Laute: Phonetik und Phonologie. In Ralf PoÈrings & U. Schmitz (Eds.), Sprache und Sprachwissenshaft. Eine kognitiv orientierte EinfuÈhrung (pp. 107-134). TuÈbigen: Gunter Narr. Valle Arroyo, F. (1989). Reading errors in Spanish. In P.G. Aaron & R.M. Joshi (eds.). Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 163-175). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Valtin, R. (1989). Dyslexia in the German language. In P.G. Aaron & R. Malatesha Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press. Veronis, J. (1986). Etude quantitative sur le systeÁme graphique et phono-graphique du francËais. European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 501-553. Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1987). Speech perception in severely disabled and average reading children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 48-61. Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14, 1-33. Wimmer, H., & Goswami, U. (1994). The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development: Word recognition in English and German children. Cognition, 51, 91-103. Wimmer, H. & Hummer, P. (1990). How German speaking first graders read and spell: Doubts on the importance of the logographic stage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 349-368. Ziegler, J. (1999). La perception des mots, une voie aÁ double sens? Annales de la fondation Fyssen, 13, 8188. Ziegler, J., Jacobs, A., & Stone, G. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior, Method, Research, Instruments and Computer, 28, 504-515. Ziegler, J., Stone, G., & Jacobs, A. (1997). What's the pronunciation for ±OUGH and the spelling for / u/ ? Database for computing feedforward and feedback inconsistency in English. Behavior, Method, Research, Instruments and Computer, 29, 600-618.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems. An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics) This new textbook provides an accessible introduction to the major writing systems of the world.


63

APPENDIX: PHONEME-GRAPHEME CORRESPONDENCES IN SPANISH, GERMAN, FRENCH AND ENGLISH

64



65

66
