Two experiments in which 12-year old children had to spell Dutch inflected verb forms are reported. Both experiments focus on homophone dominance, i.e., the fact that spellers tend to make more intrusion errors on the lower-frequency form than on the higher-frequency one. Homophone-induced errors are studied at the level of full forms in Experiment 1 and at the sublexical level in Experiment 2. In Experiment 1 the children had to fill out two types of verb forms with homophones in their 1st (verb-final d) and 3rd person (verb-final dt) singular present tense. In both types the two verb forms had a very low frequency but the 1st person homophone of one type had the same spelling as a noun or adjective ending in d, or ended in such a word. The children made significantly more d intrusions on the 3rd person of these verbs than on the 3rd person of control verbs. In Experiment 2 three types of past tenses with stem-final d and suffix de had to be filled out, differing in the type of orthographic cluster preceding the stem-d. The pattern of results supports an account in which phonologically similar verbs are activated by the sublexical word-final sound sequence, which gives rise to intrusion errors when that sequence is homophonous between past tenses ending in de and dde. As the same phenomenon manifests itself at the levels of full forms and sublexical patterns, a model that automatically captures systematic correspondences between phonological and orthographic representations can best explain these findings. Connectionist and exemplar accounts are the prime candidates for such an explanation. Words-and-rules models, on the other hand, have several problems explaining the data.
2021. Wrong place, wrong time: Children’s sensitivity to present tense spelling conventions. Applied Psycholinguistics 42:5 ► pp. 1221 ff.
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
2010. What is it I am writing? Lexical frequency effects in spelling Russian prefixes: Uncertainty and competition in an apparently regular system. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6:2
2024. Do learners need semantics to spell syntactic markers? Plural spellings in real vs. pseudowords in a French L2 setting. Reading and Writing 37:1 ► pp. 129 ff.
Ravid, Dorit Diskin
2012. Morphological Scaffolding in Learning to Spell: A Cross-Linguistic Review. In Spelling Morphology [Literacy Studies, 3], ► pp. 41 ff.
Sandra, Dominiek
2015. Spelling, Psychology of. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ► pp. 264 ff.
2022. Too Little Morphology Can Kill You: The Interplay Between Low-Frequency Morpho-Orthographic Rules and High-Frequency Verb Homophones in Spelling Errors. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 191 ff.
Sandra, Dominiek, Dorit Ravid & Ingo Plag
2024. The orthographic representation of a word’s morphological structure: beneficial and detrimental effect for spellers. Morphology
2023. Multiple dimensions of affix spelling complexity: analyzing the performance of children with dyslexia and typically developing controls. Reading and Writing 36:9 ► pp. 2373 ff.
2020. Distinguishing Syntactic Markers From Morphological Markers. A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Frontiers in Psychology 11
Weth, Constanze, Carole Dording, Lisa Klasen, Michel Fayol, Reinold Funke & Sonja Ugen
2024. Effects of parallel syntactic training in French plural spelling and German noun capitalization. Morphology
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.