UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The categorization of the speech sounds of English by non-native children Early, Margaret Mary 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 E27.pdf [ 7.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078248.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078248-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078248-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078248-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078248-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078248-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078248-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078248-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078248.ris

Full Text

THE CATEGORIZATION OF THE SPEECH SOUNDS OF ENGLISH BY NON-NATIVE CHILDREN by MARGARET MARY EARLY B.Ed. University of Bri t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of English Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1976 Margaret Mary Early, 1976 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary shal l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thesis for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of ^/fo/^rOJC/jM^. The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place •Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date (6rJ-<T /??C Abstract This research investigates the categorization of English speech sounds by young non-native c h i l d r e n . The fundamental t h e s i s i s that non-native c h i l d r e n , l i k e native c h i l d r e n (Read 1970), can organize t h e i r perceptions of the phonetic features of English i n a way which i s consistent and i s systematic, (that i s , based on c a t e g o r i c a l judgments, phonetic perceptions or a knowledge of the phonological rules of E n g l i s h ) . The research of other investigators was examined for i n s i g h t s . The evidence presented consists of s p e l l i n g s invented by t h i r t e e n non-native chi l d r e n f i v e to nine years o l d , who composed s t o r i e s and messages by choosing alphabetic correlates for the sounds they perceive. The r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment were analyzed to determine the sources of error, the children's knowledge and perceptions of English speech sounds and the degree of s i m i l a r i t y to Read's (1970) r e s u l t s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the research for the teaching of l i t e r a c y was discussed together with an account of the development of the s p e l l i n g s . i i i T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s C h a p t e r I The I n t r o d u c t i o n E r r o r A n a l y s i s and Second Language L e a r n i n g 3 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms 6 Competence and Performance 8 R e l a t i o n s h i p t o C u r r e n t L i n g u i s t i c T h e o r y 9 R e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e T e a c h i n g o f L i t e r a c y 10 C o n c l u s i o n 11 I I Review o f L i t e r a t u r e 13 S p e l l i n g and E.S.L 19 The Need f o r R e s e a r c h . 21 I I I I n v e n t e d S p e l l i n g Systems Hypotheses 2 5 S u b j e c t s 2 ^ Data C o l l e c t i o n 2 6 The R e s u l t s 2 7 The C e n t r a l Vowels 3 7 Back Vowels 40 The Tense Back Vowels 40 Vowel A l t e r n a t i o n s 46 Consonants 46 A f f r i c a t i o n 47 N a s a l s • 48 S y l l a b i c Segments 50 I n t e r v o c a l i c F l a p s 51 A l t e r n a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g v o i c i n g 52 P a s t - t e n s e markers 53 The P l u r a l Markers 54 C o n c l u s i o n 57 IV Comparison w i t h o t h e r Approaches t o L i t e r a c y 69 V Development o f I n v e n t e d S p e l l i n g 82 The C h i l d r e n 8 3 The B e g i n n i n g o f S p e l l i n g 85 The T r a n s i t i o n 9 2 F o o t n o t e s 9 7 B i b l i o g r a p h y 98 Appendix A 103 Appendix B . . 117 i v L i s t o f T a b l e s T a b l e 1. Summary o f t h e R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e Tense Vowels 28 2. S p e l l i n g s f o r Tense Vowels 28 3. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /&/ . 29 4. The most f r e q u e n t s p e l l i n g s o f /©/, /'/ and /by/ o t h e r t h a n A, E and I 30 5. Summary o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / I / 30 6. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /&y/ 32 7. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / O/ 32 8. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /yu/ . 33 9. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / I / 33 10. S p e l l i n g s o f / I / w i t h E 34 11. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /£./ 35 12. S p e l l i n g s o f / £ / w i t h A 36 13. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /<3^/ 36 14. S p e l l i n g s o f / £ £ / w i t h E 36 15. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /&V 38 16. S p e l l i n g s o f /A/ w i t h U, 0 and A 38 17. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / 3 / 38 18. S p e l l i n g s o f /a/ w i t h E 39 19. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /U/ 40 20. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /V/ 41 21. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /a/ 42 22. 0 s p e l l i n g s f o r Back Rounded Vowels 42 23. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f / 6 V 43 24. S p e l l i n g s o f /3/ w i t h I 43 25. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /6y/ 44 26. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /o/ 45 27. S p e l l i n g s o f back vowels w i t h 0 , 45 28. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /-jA /K/, /6/ and / 4 / . . . 47 29. S p e l l i n g o f /+ r / w i t h CHR 47 30. Summary o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f n a s a l s 48 31. O m i s s i o n s o f P r e - c o n s o n a n t a l N a s a l s 49 32. S p e l l i n g s o f S y l l a b i c S o n o r a n t s 51 33. S p e l l i n g s o f p a s t t e n s e markers . . . . . . . 53 34. O v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p a s t t e n s e 53 35. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e p l u r a l marker / / . . . 54 36. S p e l l i n g o f p l u r a l /Z/ w i t h S 54 37. S p e l l i n g o f / z . / w i t h S 55 38. S p e l l i n g s o f /zj w i t h Z . 55 39. L I and L2 o r d e r s f o r p l u r a l and p a s t r e g u l a r 56 40. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /c/ 60 41. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /g/ 61 42. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /h/ 61 43. Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /©/ and /%/ 63 44. Comparison o f L I and L2 c h i l d r e n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e t e n s e vowels 66 V Acknowledgements The present work could not have been completed without the help of many people. I would like to thank the following: Mary Ashworth for her help and encouragement Dr. Ken Reeder for his interest and suggestions Dr. John Gilbert for his most helpful advice Dr. Charles Read whose original work on the categorization of the speech sounds of English by young children has served as a basis for much of this study. I am also most grateful to Dr. Read for his kind permission to quote from his doctoral dissertation and for the interest he has shown in the present work. For the most part I have quoted from Dr. Read's dissertation only with respect to topics which are not dealt with in his more recent NCTE monograph, Children's Categorization of Speech Sounds in English (1975). This later work with i t s more thorough theoretical discussion, i t s quantitative data, and i t s experimental results has rendered the dissertation obsolete in many respects. Dr. Bernard Mohan for his invaluable advice, guidance and encouragement in his role as both advisor and friend. Dr. Mohan contributed in ways too numerous to ever be suitably thanked. Nina Thurston my typist, for her many helpful suggestions. And a very special thank you must go to the children whose obvious delight in their acquisition of literacy was a constant source of encouragement, excitement and joy. CHAPTER I The I n t r o d u c t i o n In 1970 C h a r l e s Read f i r s t p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t h a t E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . . . t a c i t l y o r g a n i z e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f p h o n e t i c segments i n t o c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d by a r t i c u l a t o r y f e a t u r e s , and t h a t , c e r t a i n f e a -t u r e s p r e dominate as a b a s i s f o r judgments o f p h o n o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n -s h i p s . ! i n many ways t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e f l e c t e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s j u d g -ments d i f f e r from t h o s e t h a t seem n a t u r a l t o most a d u l t s . (1970: p. 1) The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f t h e speech sounds o f E n g l i s h by young n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e t h a t young n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s c a t e g o r i z e t h e phones o f E n g l i s h i n a way w h i c h a l s o r e f l e c t s s y s t e m a t i c p h o n o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h i s r e s e a r c h f o u nd a s t r i k i n g c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c s i m i l a r i t y o f sound-to-grapheme r e l a t i o n s h i p . As i n Read's s t u d y , t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e b a s e d on t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f o n l y some p h o n o l o g i c a l f e a t u r e s , o f r e l a t i v e l y few c h i l d r e n . However, t h e c h i l d r e n do r e f l e c t f o u r d i s t i n c t language backgrounds and t h e e v i -dence, a l t h o u g h l i m i t e d , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o prompt a s e a r c h f o r an adequate e x p l a n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n t o t h e t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by t h i s r e s e a r c h , t h e e v i d e n c e a l s o b e a r s on th e more p r a c t i c a l i s s u e s o f t e a c h i n g l i t e r a c y . T h i s q u e s t i o n w i l l a l s o be a d d r e s s e d i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h ( C h a p t e r s IV and V ) . The e v i d e n c e , as p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r I I , i s b a s e d on s p e l l i n g s 1 2 c r e a t e d by t h i r t e e n n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s , aged 6 t o 9 y e a r s . The c h i l d r e n , a l t h o u g h members o f t h e same c l a s s , i n d e p e n d e n t l y i n v e n t e d t h e o r t h o g r a p h y . In e a c h c a s e , t h e c h i l d began w i t h a knowledge o f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l names o f t h e l e t t e r s o f t h e a l p h a b e t . They t h e n l e a r n e d t h a t a l e t t e r may r e p r e -s e n t a phone e.g., t h a t ' A s p e l l s [£.] '. The c h i l d r e n extended t h i s know-l e d g e and u s i n g p l a s t i c m a g n e t i c l e t t e r s t h e y began t o s p e l l words, e v e n t u a l l y composing w r i t t e n messages o f a l l k i n d s . The e x t e n s i o n o f t h e knowledge t h a t 'A s p e l l s l&l * t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f w r i t t e n messages i s no mean achievement. The p r o b l e m c o n f r o n t i n g t h e c h i l d w i s h i n g t o compose a w r i t t e n message i s t h a t E n g l i s h o r t h o g r a p h y i s n o t b a s e d on a one-to-one phoneme-grapheme r e l a t i o n s h i p . T h e r e a r e g e n e r -a l l y 24 consonant phonemes and n i n e vowel phonemes which form s i x t e e n s i m p l e and complex s y l l a b l e n u c l e i . Of t h e s e t h e c h i l d has f a i r l y d i r e c t c l u e s t o f o u r t e e n c o n s o n a n t s [p, i" , , Vs, A , , V , S , Z , J , <N, O , ^ , and ] i n t h a t t h e y a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e l e t t e r names. [c] appears i n t h e consonant name o f H and ^ , 3 ' ^\' * and W c o n t a i n o n l y c o n sonants a l r e a d y a c c o u n t e d f o r . No d i r e c t c l u e s a r e a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c h i l d f o r r e p r e s e n t i n g [0, e, 5 , 7.,^, <^,\pk]. The c o n s o n a n t s , however, p r e s e n t e d few problems t o t h e c h i l d r e n . The vowels p r e s e n t e d g r e a t e r d i f f i c u l t y . Of t h e s i x t e e n vowel sounds o n l y seven a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e l e t t e r names * , , 0 , yU] , / £ / i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e l e t t e r names o f \ , f\, S , X and /-A/ i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e l e t t e r name o f W . The c h i l d r e n were n o t , however, overwhelmed by t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f t h e t a s k . They d i d n o t d e s p a i r i n t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o s p e l l E n g l i s h on an a l p h a b e t i c b a s i s . G e n e r a l l y , t h e y p a i r e d a phoneme whose o r t h o g r a p h i c c o r r e l a t e t h e y d i d n o t have w i t h one f o r which t h e s p e l l i n g was known. I n some few c a s e s t h e c h i l d r e n a s k e d t h e t e a c h e r how t o s p e l l a phoneme whose l e t t e r name t h e y had n o t l e a r n e d . The most f r e q u e n t l y r e q u e s t e d were 3 A j , ©, %, C, and n / wh i c h s p e l l i n g s were always g i v e n upon r e q u e s t . F o r t h e most p a r t , however, t h e w r i t i n g was s o l i t a r y and s e l f - s u s t a i n e d . B e a r i n g t h i s i n mind, i t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y noteworthy t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n c r e a t e d v e r y s i m i l a r s p e l l i n g systems. The systems were n o t , however, i d e n t i c a l . The d i f f e r e n c e s appear t o stem from s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s . E r r o r A n a l y s i s and Second Language L e a r n i n g The c h i l d r e n i n c l u d e d i n t h i s s t u d y come from f o u r d i f f e r e n t l a n -guage ba c k g r o u n d s : C h i n e s e , P u n j a b i , I t a l i a n , P o r t u g u e s e / F r e n c h . They were a l l , t o some s m a l l d e g r e e , l i t e r a t e i n t h e i r n a t i v e language and t h e q u e s t i o n o f ' i n t e r f e r e n c e ' , from t h e i r s l i g h t knowledge o f t h e w r i t i n g system o f t h e i r n a t i v e language t o t h e i r i n v e n t e d system f o r E n g l i s h , i s o b v i o u s l y a t i s s u e i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . A b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f t h e v a r i o u s contemporary c o n c e p t s o f e r r o r a n a l y s i s may h e l p t o c l a r i f y t h e framework w i t h i n which t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be c o n d u c t e d . In t h e p a s t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n N o r t h America, t h e n o t i o n o f c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s as a method f o r p r e d i c t i n g c e r t a i n e r r o r s and p o i n t s o f d i f f i c u l t y i n p h onology, as w e l l as s y n t a x and s e m a n t i c s , has been w e l l s u p p o r t e d and even r e g a r d e d by some as t h e panacea f o r language t e a c h i n g p r o b l e m s . I n i t s most extreme form t h i s h y p o t h e s i s s t a t e s , t h a t a c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s o f two languages can be used t o p r e d i c t t h e e r r o r s t h a t s p e a k e r s o f a f i r s t l anguage w i l l make i n l e a r n i n g a second language. I t f u r t h e r p r e d i c t s t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e n a t i v e and t h e t a r g e t l anguage, t h e g r e a t e r t h e d i f f i c u l t y e x p e r i e n c e d by the second language l e a r n e r . As wardhaugh p o i n t s o u t , however, t h i s p o s i t i o n i s u n t e n a b l e : . . . n o t s o l e l y as a r e s u l t o f t h e Chomskyan r e v o l u t i o n i n l i n -g u i s t i c s . The c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s h y p o t h e s i s has n o t p r o v e d t o be w o r k a b l e , a t l e a s t n o t i n t h e s t r o n g v e r s i o n i n which i t was o r i g i n a l l y e x p r e s s e d . (1970: p. 129) 4 A n o t h e r v e r s i o n o f t h e c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s h y p o t h e s i s has been p r o f f e r e d by p r o p o n e n t s o f t h i s s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t . I t i s known as t h e 'weak' v e r s i o n and makes fewer demands o f t h e c o n t r a s t i v e t h e o r y . I t l o o k s a t t h e o b s e r v e d e r r o r s made by second language s t u d e n t s and a t t e m p t s t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e s e e r r o r s by ex a m i n i n g t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e systems. In r e c e n t y e a r s , r e s e a r c h has p r o v i d e d a new a p p r o a c h t o a c c o u n t f o r e r r o r s made by sec o n d language l e a r n i n g s t u d e n t s . T h i s new approach has been termed e r r o r a n a l y s i s . I t was s t i m u l a t e d by t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y and has been r a p i d l y r e p l a c i n g c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s as a b a s i s f o r b o t h r e s e a r c h and se c o n d language t e a c h i n g . An e r r o r a n a l y s i s a p p r oach views language as a r u l e - g o v e r n e d system and an e r r o r i s t h e r e -f o r e , seen as a v i o l a t i o n o f a t a r g e t language r u l e . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s d e f i n i t i o n o f e r r o r a n a l y s i s t e n d s t o change from i n d i v i d u a l t o i n d i v i d u a l . Some (Burt and Du l a y , 1972, 1974) view e r r o r s p u r e l y from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f an L2 = L I h y p o t h e s i s . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s h o l d s t h a t L2 c h i l d r e n o r g a n i z e and make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about t h e L I speech t h e y h e a r i n t h e same manner as c h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g t h a t language as a n a t i v e language. I t f o l l o w s t h a t p r o p o n e n t s o f t h e L2 = L I h y p o t h e s i s p r e d i c t t h a t L2 e r r o r s w i l l be s i m i l a r t o L I d e v e l o p m e n t a l e r r o r s and a r e i n no way a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t r a n s f e r from a f i r s t l a nguage. O t h e r s ( R i c h a r d s , 1975; C o r d e r , 1975; S e l i n k e r , 1975) h o l d t h e view t h a t an e r r o r a n a l y s i s approach and a c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s approach a r e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n and t h a t s e c o n d language l e a r n i n g e r r o r s may w e l l be t r a c e d back t o s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s . S. P. C o r d e r r e j e c t e d t h e h a b i t f o r m a t i o n c o n t r a s t i v e a n a l y s i s hypo-t h e s i s i n f a v o u r o f a h y p o t h e s i s which i n c l u d e s t h e n o t i o n t h a t t h e p r o c e s s 5 of language acquisition i s the same for both f i r s t and second language learning. However, he states:-Although i t has been suggested that the strategies of learning a f i r s t and second language may be the same, i t i s nevertheless necessary at this point to posit a distinction between the two. (1975: 97) The distinction he makes, i s essentially one of LI interference. He pro-poses that during the learning process the learner acquires an idiosyn-cratic dialect which i s not an exact target language dialect but rather a dialect of one's own which i s quite distinct from a social dialect or idiolect and shares common features with the target language dialect. Selinker has proposed a notion of 'interlanguage' to account for errors in second language learning. Interlanguage i s a description of those utterances which when realized are identical neither to native speaker utterances, nor to sentences having the same meaning in the learner's native language. He states that there are five central pro-cesses which cause this phenomenon. They are: 1) language transfer, 2) transfer of training, 3) strategies of second language learning, 4) strategies of second language communication, 5) overgeneralization of target language linguistic materials. Based on Selinker's work, Richards (1975) has b u i l t a taxonomy of errors, i n which he identifies the following sources of errors:-1. Interference: error resulting from the transfer of elements from the native to the target language. 2. Overgeneralization: error caused by extension of target language rules where they do not apply. 3. Performance errors: errors caused by false starts, slips of the tongue, memory lapse and the l i k e . 4. Markers of Transitional Competence: errors which are developmental in nature and are analogous to f i r s t language errors. 6 5. Strategies of communication and assimilation: errors resulting from attempts to communicate without sufficient mastery of the gram-matical forms. 6. Teacher-induced error: error resulting from pedagogical procedures either in the text or employed by the teacher. The children in the present study invented a system for spelling which i s different from the standard system. In this activity there are occasions for two distinct types of error. The f i r s t i s an 'error' only in the sense that i t i s not the standard spelling. Within the child's system, however, i t i s a perfectly correct written representation of the particular phone. For the purpose of this research an error of this nature w i l l be called a "systematic error" (S.E.). The second type of error i s an error which i s perceived as a violation of a rule with respect to the child's system alone. This latter type of error w i l l be what i s referred to when the term 'random error' (R.E.), i s used. In an analysis of the evidence presented i n Chapter III both types of error (S.E. and R.E.) w i l l be examined on the basis of the f i r s t four of Richard's taxonomy of errors. The last two types of errors are excluded from this analysis, in that, they are not applicable to the situation described in this study. Definition of terms The terms used in this research are synonymous with those terms used by Read (1970, 1975). Knowledge and Organization 'Knowledge' and 'organization' refers to unconscious beliefs about English sounds and their structure in the sense that a reader or listener has notions of sound structure than enable him to judge as similar, as in recognition of rhyme, without his necessarily being aware of either his belief or the rhyme i t s e l f . (Read, 1970; p. 16) 7 A b s t r a c t i o n S p e l l i n g i s a b s t r a c t where i t does n o t d i s t i n g u i s h p h o n e t i c d i f f e r -e n c es. A l l s p e l l i n g s a r e a b s t r a c t i n t h i s sense a t some l e v e l o f d e t a i l ; j u s t a b s t r a c t i o n s from p e r c e i v e d c o n t r a s t s a r e o f i n t e r e s t h e r e . (Read, 1970: p. 4) P e r c e p t i o n Judgments t h a t c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h between segments t h a t d i f f e r j u s t i n p h o n e t i c f e a t u r e F a r e t a k e n as e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e c h i l d p e r -c e i v e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e . S p e l l i n g i s a s p e c i a l c a s e c o n s i s t e n t l y d i s t i n c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s f o r two segments a r e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s p e l l e r p e r c e i v e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e , s u b j e c t t o an a d d i t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n : h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f one o r b o t h segments must be d i f f e r e n t from t h e s t a n d a r d , o r t h e r e must be some o t h e r r e a s o n f o r d o u b t i n g t h a t he l e a r n e d t h e s p e l l i n g from a d u l t s i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f h i s own p e r c e p -t i o n s . A c h i l d may (no doubt always does) have p h o n o l o g i c a l p e r c e p -t i o n s o f which o f h i s s p e l l i n g s does n o t p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e , n o t a b l y where he has c r e a t e d o r a dopted s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g , o r where h i s s p e l l i n g i s a b s t r a c t from a d i f f e r e n c e he p e r c e i v e s . (Read, 1970: p. 4) C a t e g o r i z a t i o n C a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e r e f e r s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g t y p e o f phenomenon: c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s can d i s c r i m i n a t e t h e E n g l i s h phones [ t ] , [s] and [z] as i n t i p , s i p , z i p b u t beyond t h i s phonemic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , t h e y can r e c o g n i z e s i m i l a r i t y r e l a t i o n s i n t h a t [s] and [z] a r e more s i m i l a r t h a n [s] and [ t ] . (Read, 1975: p. 1) The d i s t i n c t i o n between ' c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ' and ' p e r c e p t i o n ' i s n o t an o b v i o u s one. R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i s known about t h e way i n which t h e l i s t e n e r s t o r e s and r e t r i e v e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y f o r speech p e r c e p -t i o n . T h i s much i s known, however: i t appears t h a t t h e knowledge r e q u i r e d t o decode the spoken message i s t w o f o l d . The l i s t e n e r must have b o t h a c o u s t i c and l i n g u i s t i c i n f o r m a t i o n . When speech i s coming i n t h e l i s t e n e r must r e c e i v e sound waves o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h t h e s p e a k e r , t h i s i s t h e a c o u s t i c i n f o r m a t i o n . The f i r s t s t e p i s t o r e c o g n i z e t h e sounds which a r e h e a r d . T h i s r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e l i s t e n e r p e r c e i v e t h e sounds and o r g a n i z e h i s / h e r p e r c e p t i o n s i n t o a number o f c a t e g o r i e s . Speech r e c o g -n i t i o n , i n t h i s s e n s e , i s c a t e g o r i c a l . I t i s , however, a d i f f e r e n t k i n d o f p e r f o r m a n c e from t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n d e s c r i b e d h e r e . 8 The d i s t i n c t i o n i s p o i n t e d up i n t h e approach t o speech p e r c e p t i o n t a k e n by Chomsky and H a l l e . . . . a c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n o f p e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s e s would be some-t h i n g l i k e t h i s . The h e a r e r makes use o f c e r t a i n cues and c e r t a i n e x p e c t a t i o n s t o d e t e r m i n e s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e and s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t o f an u t t e r a n c e . G i v e n a h y p o t h e s i s as t o i t s s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e — i n p a r t i c u l a r i t s s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e — h e u s es t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s t h a t he c o n t r o l s t o d e t e r m i n e a p h o n e t i c shape. The h y p o t h e s i s w i l l t h e n be a c c e p t e d i f i t i s n o t t o o r a d i c a l l y a t v a r i a n c e w i t h t h e a c o u s t i c m a t e r i a l , where t h e range o f p e r m i t t e d d i s -c r e p a n c y may v a r y w i d e l y w i t h c o n d i t i o n s and many i n d i v i d u a l f a c t o r s . (1968: 127) In t h i s a p p r oach o n l y t h e most o b v i o u s cues a r e needed f o r t h e r e c e p t i o n o f th e spoken message, u n l e s s t h e c o n d i t i o n s a r e u n f a v o r a b l e . The k i n d o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n d e s c r i b e d h e r e i s o f a h i g h e r o r d e r . I t r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e l i s t e n e r n o t o n l y p r o c e s s rough cues b u t t h a t s/he r e c o g n i z e r e l a t i o n s among d i s t i n c t s p e ech sounds b a s e d on p h o n e t i c s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r -e n c es. An i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n i s whether o r n o t t h e cues used i n speech p e r c e p t i o n a r e a l s o i m p o r t a n t i n t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i g h e r - o r d e r c a t e g o r i e s . As Read p o i n t s o u t , i t may be t h a t G i v e n t h a t one s e t o f c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e s t h e o t h e r , we might suppose t h a t s p eech r e c o g n i t i o n i s a n e c e s s a r y b u t n o t a s u f f i c i e n t c o n d i t i o n f o r speech sound c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . (Read, 1975: p. 7) Competence and Performance A s t u d y o f performance i s a s t u d y o f what p e o p l e do when t h e y speak and u n d e r s t a n d a language. A s t u d y o f competence seeks t o d i s c o v e r t h e i n t e r n a l i z e d code o r s e t o f r u l e s used by t h e s p e a k e r when he uses h i s language. T h i s r e s e a r c h i s a s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n ' s d e v e l o p i n g competence i n t h a t i t i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e u n d e r l y i n g system o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o u r and makes g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s and p r e d i c t i o n s beyond t h e o b s e r v a b l e e v i d e n c e . F o r some a s t u d y o f 'competence' i s o f du b i o u s e m p i r i c a l s t a t u s . A d e f e n s e o f 2 t h i s t y p e o f s t u d y has been f u l l y e x p l i c a t e d e l s e w h e r e . 9 Relationship to Current Linguistic Theory The process by which children acquire language i s of interest to linguists in i t s own right but also as a means of studying the general properties of language systems. The present study relates to both these li n g u i s t i c areas; specifically to a theory of phonetic features and to a theory of second language development. It relates to a theory of phonetic features in that this theory analyses speech sound in terms of groups of features. It i s essentially a way of categorizing speech sounds. In the present research i t i s precisely children's t a c i t categorical a b i l i t i e s which are being investi-gated, in the hope that they may indicate a universal ordering of features or at least some indication of the degree of salience of particular fea-tures. There i s considerable evidence (Millar and Nicely, 1955; Singh and Black, 1966; Menyuk, 1973) that children do, in fact have a develop-mental universal hierarchy of order for phonetic features.. Further, as Read points out: The evidence provided by children's categorizations may be more directly relevant to a theory of phonetic features than that provided by the study of speech production and recognition, insofar as i t deals directly with categorization and with less influence of the peripheral factors that affect speech and hearing. (Read, 1975: p. 23) The present research relates to a theory of f i r s t and second lan-guage development in that i t shows that children can make categorical judgments of English speech sounds and thereby provides insights into children's knowledge which are not generally observable on the surface of their written or spoken performance. For example, second language children often do not pronounce the f i n a l consonants sounds in certain English words and regularly leave off both plural and past-tense phones 10 (/s/, /z/, A/, /d/ or /*<t/). However, i n some cases the c h i l d r e n gave a written representation f o r a phone they d i d not produce o r a l l y . I t was c l e a r from the invented system which c h i l d r e n had acquired these i n f l e c t i o n s even though they d i d not produce them. In general the research has shown that c h i l d r e n can make use of phonetic p r o p e r t i e s f o r grouping speech sounds. Further, i n examining t h i s second language corpus two f a c t o r s must be considered; interference and developmental processes. I t must be borne i n mind that the corpus examined i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s e x c l u s i v e l y c h i l d r e n no o l d e r than 10 years. In developing a theory of language development i t may be hypothesised that since these c h i l d r e n have not achieved complete native-speaker competence, i n contrast to adult learners, the source of t h e i r errors may be l e s s l i k e l y to stem from f i r s t language interference and may more often be accounted f o r by reference to develop-mental processes. Relationship to the Teaching of L i t e r a c y Further to the question of how c h i l d r e n learn a language, the e v i -dence presented i n t h i s study bears on the more p r a c t i c a l issue of teaching l i t e r a c y . The claim that E n g l i s h i s 'unsystematic' i n nature has constantly been c i t e d as one of the root causes i n reading d i f f i c u l t y . However, pioneer work by Weir and Venezky (1968) showed that E n g l i s h orthography i s not so i r r e g u l a r as was once thought. Chomsky and Halle go so f a r as to claim: . . . There i s , i n c i d e n t a l l y , nothing p a r t i c u l a r l y s u r p r i s i n g about the f a c t that t r a d i t i o n a l orthography i s , as these examples suggest, a near optimal system f o r the l e x i c a l representation of E n g l i s h words. (1968:. 64) 11 However, t h e problems o f t e a c h i n g l i t e r a c y remain l a r g e l y u n r e s o l v e d . Even i f we assume, as Chomsky and H a l l e p r o p o s e , t h a t t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l o r t h o g r a p h y i s t h e o p t i m a l s p e l l i n g s ystem f o r t h e f l u e n t a d u l t r e a d e r , i t may s t i l l be l e s s t h a n o p t i m a l f o r a c h i l d o r n o n - n a t i v e a d u l t . S i n c e i t i s as a c h i l d t h a t one l e a r n s t o r e a d and t o w r i t e , p e r haps t h e t a s k c o u l d be made e a s i e r by a d o p t i n g an o r t h o g r a p h y which i s l e s s a b s t r a c t . The q u e s t i o n now p o s e d i s : i f t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l o r t h o g r a p h y i s n o t t h e o p t i m a l o r t h o g r a p h y f o r t e a c h i n g c h i l d r e n t o r e a d and w r i t e , what i s ? The t r a d i t i o n a l assumption has been t h a t c h i l d r e n group speech sounds i n t o autonomous phonemes and t h a t t h e y seek a one-to-one phoneme grapheme c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i n s p e l l i n g . S e v e r a l p e d a g o g i c a l o r t h o g r a p h i e s ( I . t . a . Words i n C o l o r ) have been d e s i g n e d on t h i s a ssumption. The p r e s e n t s t u d y however, l i k e Read's, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e assumption t h a t c h i l d r e n seek a one-to-one phoneme grapheme c o r r e s p o n d e n c e i s i n v a l i d . The e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t c h i l d r e n f i n d a b s t r a c t i o n i n s p e l l i n g t o t a l l y a c c e p t a b l e . The use o f 3 f o r b o t h [S] and [ z j p l u r a l markers i n t h e i n v e n t e d systems i s an example o f c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o d e a l w i t h a b s t r a c t i o n s (see C h a p t e r I I I ) i The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y t o t h e t e a c h i n g o f l i t e r a c y i s t h a t by comparing t h e c h i l d r e n ' s system t o th e s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g system we may be a b l e t o d e f i n e e x a c t l y what i t i s t h a t t h e c h i l d must l e a r n i n o r d e r t o r e a d and w r i t e . F u r t h e r t h i s r e s e a r c h seeks t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e use o f t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g system as a t o o l i n a c q u i r i n g l i t e r a c y . C o n c l u s i o n T h i s r e s e a r c h r e p r e s e n t s an i n v e n t i g a t i o n o f t h e p honology o f non-n a t i v e c h i l d r e n . E s s e n t i a l l y , i t i s a s t u d y o f second language a c q u i s i t i o n . 12 I t s e eks t o d e t e r m i n e whether n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n , l i k e n a t i v e c h i l d r e n , " t a c i t l y o r g a n i z e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f p h o n e t i c segments i n t o c a t e g o r i e s d e f i n e d by a r t i c u l a t o r y f e a t u r e s " (Read, 1970). F u r t h e r , i t seeks t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s o u r c e o f t h e e r r o r s , i n an attempt t o d i s c o v e r how c h i l d r e n l e a r n a s e c o n d language. I n c i d e n t a l t o t h i s r e s e a r c h i s , o f c o u r s e , i t s r e l a t i o n t o a t h e o r y o f p h o n e t i c f e a t u r e s . The q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d i n d i r e c t l y i n t h i s s t u d y w i l l be o f t h e o r d e r : A r e c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s more s a l i e n t t h a n o t h e r s ? Do c h i l d r e n a b s t r a c t from c e r t a i n p h o n e t i c c o n t r a s t s t h e y p e r c e i v e ? . In what ways do t h e c h i l d r e n ' s systems d i f f e r f rom s t a n d a r d o r t h o g r a p h y ? The a u t h o r i s aware o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f a s t u d y o f t h i s k i n d i n p r o v i d i n g an answer t o s u c h q u e s t i o n s . However, a l t h o u g h no c o n c l u s i v e s t a t e m e n t s can be made i n t h e l i g h t o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , i t i s hoped t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s w i l l c o r r o b o r a t e Read's d a t a . F i n a l l y , t h i s r e s e a r c h a l s o b e a r s on t h e p r a c t i c a l i s s u e s o f l e a r n i n g t o r e a d and t o w r i t e . C h a p t e r IV d i s c u s s e s t h e s p e c i a l needs o f t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d t o g e t h e r w i t h an e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e adequacy o f t h e c u r r e n t approaches i n m e e t i n g t h e s e needs. F u r t h e r , i t makes s u g g e s t i o n s f o r a p o s s i b l e new a p proach t o i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y . C h a p t e r V p r e s e n t s t h e background o f t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g s . I t d e s c r i b e s t h e c h i l d r e n t h e m s e l v e s , t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e s p e l l i n g s and how t h e s p e l l i n g s changed and i n t e r -a c t e d w i t h l e a r n i n g t o r e a d and t o s p e l l i n t h e s t a n d a r d form. I t i s n o t d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h an a n a l y s e s o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l system. Never-t h e l e s s , i t may s e r v e t o answer some o f t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by t h o s e who would v e n t u r e t o t r y t h e approach t o i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y o u t l i n e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . CHAPTER II Review of L i t e r a t u r e In 1925, i n the f i r s t volume of Language, Edward Sapir emphasized the l i n g u i s t i c importance of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n i n h i s a r t i c l e "Sound Patterns i n Language". Since then l i t t l e work has been done i n t h i s area u n t i l the recent research by Read (1970, 1971, 1973, 1975). A b r i e f examination of some of the more per t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to t h i s f i e l d may serve to show the c o n t r i b u t i o n other l i n g u i s t i c studies have made to the present research and to c l a r i f y the d i s t i n c t i o n s between t h i s study and the r e l a t e d work to date. Read's recent p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o pre-school c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge of phonology has served as a b a s i s f o r the present study and as such i s the only research, to date, which bears d i r e c t l y on t h i s study. He investigated children's r e c o g n i t i o n of a r t i c u l a t o r y s i m i l -a r i t i e s across members of d i f f e r e n t phonemes and states that " t h i s recog-n i t i o n may be s a l i e n t enough to influence t h e i r judgments of what would be natural categorizations of sounds f o r s p e l l i n g purposes" (1973). Further, Read made hypotheses about how c h i l d r e n perceive and organize the spoken forms they are representing. The present study addresses i t s e l f to these issues a l s o . The c h i l d r e n here inv e s t i g a t e d are, however, non-native c h i l d r e n . A comparison between Read's find i n g s and the findings of the present research c o n s t i t u t e a large part of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and w i l l be more f u l l y e x p l i c a t e d i n Chapter I I I . 13 14 S a v i n and Bever (1970) have a l s o s t u d i e d t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r c e p -t i o n o f t h e phonemes o f E n g l i s h and have r a i s e d doubts t h a t t h e immediate u n i t o f s p eech i s one segment. They w r i t e , "phonemes a r e i d e n t i f i e d o n l y a f t e r some l a r g e r l i n g u i s t i c sequence (e.g., s y l l a b l e s o r words) o f which t h e y a r e p a r t ; " . L i k e Read, however, t h e y do c o n c l u d e t h a t whatever v a l i d i t y t h e ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y ' o f t h e phoneme has, i t i s a most u s e f u l and p e r h a p s even e s s e n t i a l l i n g u i s t i c t o o l . However, many r e s e a r c h e r s have n e v e r q u e s t i o n e d the ' p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y ' o f t h e phoneme and c i t e p o o r phoneme t o grapheme c o r r e s p o n d e n c e as t h e major cause o f b o t h r e a d i n g and s p e l l i n g p r o b l e m s . Recent r e s e a r c h (Weir and Venezky, 1968; Chomsky & H a l l e , 1968; C. Chomsky, 1970) has shown E n g l i s h s p e l l i n g t o be l e s s c h a o t i c t h a n had been t h o u g h t i n the p a s t and has n o t e d i t s morphophonetic c h a r a c t e r . Some (Chomsky & H a l l e , 1968) even g o i n g so f a r as t o c l a i m t h a t i t i s a 'near o p t i m a l ' system f o r l i t e r a t e a d u l t s who a r e r e a d i n g f o r meaning. They have shown, f o r example, t h a t t h e vowel s h i f t and c o n s o n a n t a l a l t e r n a t i o n which has l o n g been c i t e d as t h e r o o t o f many r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s i s i n f a c t r u l e b a s e d . The l e x i c a l vowels / f u 6. 0 s h i f t i n g t o /<£. ^ ' U 6, 0/ under s p e c i f i e d c o n d i t i o n s . O t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s (Moskowitz, 1973) c l a i m t h a t t h e u n d e r l y i n g l e x i c a l r e l a t i o n -s h i p s o f E n g l i s h a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t t o l e a r n e r s and o f f e r e q u a l l y s u p p o r t -i v e e v i d e n c e t o s u b s t a n t i a t e t h e i r c l a i m . One o f t h e q u e s t i o n s t o which the p r e s e n t s t u d y a d d r e s s e s i t s e l f i s what might c o n s t i t u t e an o p t i m a l p e d a g o g i c a l o r t h o g r a p h y , and as s uch i t a d d r e s s e s i t s e l f t o many o f t h e same i s s u e s as t h e Chomskys, Moskowitz, e t a l . However, much o f t h e i r work t o d a t e has i n v e s t i g a t e d a r e a s such as the one d e s c r i b e d above (vowel s h i f t and a l t e r n a t i o n ) . These r e l a t i o n s h i p s o c c u r m a i n l y i n p o l y s y l l a b i c 15 words o f Romance o r i g i n and do n o t g e n e r a l l y c o n s t i t u t e p a r t o f a young c h i l d ' s l e x i c o n . The f i n d i n g s o f t h e above mentioned r e s e a r c h b e a r more d i r e c t l y on s p e l l i n g a f t e r a more advanced l e v e l o f competency has been a c q u i r e d . O t h e r more t r a d i t i o n a l a r e a s o f i n q u i r y a r e d i s t i n c t from, b u t i n some ways r e l a t e d t o , t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . The most c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d a r e a s t o t h e s t u d y o f c h i l d r e n ' s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f speech sounds a r e t h o s e o f s p eech p r o d u c t i o n and speech p e r c e p t i o n . S t u d i e s i n speech p r o d u c t i o n have tended t o be d i v i d e d i n t o two a r e a s : a s t u d y o f t h e r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y o f phones and a s t u d y o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and c o r r e c t p r o d u c t i o n . Roman Jakobson was one o f t h e e a r l y r e s e a r c h e r s i n t h i s f i e l d , and c l a i m s t h a t t h e o r d e r i n which c h i l d r e n l e a r n t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s o f t h e i r language r e f l e c t s t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s among t h e languages o f t h e w o r l d . He f u r t h e r h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h i s o r d e r i s f i x e d and t h a t t h e more u n i v e r s a l sounds a r e p r o d u c e d f i r s t w h i l e t h o s e sounds which a r e u n i q u e t o a language appear l a t e r . These g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h e d a framework f o r o t h e r r e s e a r c h . More r e c e n t l y , Omsted (1971) has p r o v i d e d f u r t h e r i n s i g h t s i n t h e f i e l d o f speech p r o d u c t i o n . H i s s t u d i e s have shown t h a t p r o d u c t i o n e r r o r s a r e g e n e r a l l y n o t r e c i p r o c a l , e.g., [4] s u b s t i t u t e s f o r I t ] b u t [ t ] s u b s t i t u t e s f o r . C h i l d r e n ' s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f speech sound a r e , however, g e n e r a l l y r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Read, 1975). Macoby and Bee (1965) c l a i m t h a t a r t i c u l a t i o n and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a r e a l s o n o t r e c i p r o c a l i n n a t u r e . An example o f t h i s was p r o v i d e d i n t h e a u t h o r ' s e x p e r i e n c e s by a c h i l d who a s k e d i f he c o u l d come a l o n g on a t r i p t o t h e "mewwy-go-wound." An o l d e r c h i l d t e a s i n g him, s a i d , " D a v i d wants t o go 16 t h e mewwy-go-wound." "No," s a i d D a v i d f i r m l y "you don't say i t w i g h t . " (Macoby & Bee, 1965: p. 67) A l t h o u g h t h i s e v i d e n c e appears t o be s u p p o r t e d by t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , t h e q u e s t i o n s t i l l remains l a r g e l y u n r e s o l v e d . Fromkin (1971) and S h a t t u c k (1974) have a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e n a t u r e o f p r o d u c t i o n e r r o r s i n an attempt t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e y have a p h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s o r o c c u r a t a more a b s t r a c t p e r c e p t u a l l e v e l . In t h e a r e a o f speech p e r c e p t i o n t h e most i n f l u e n t i a l work has been done by Liberman, Cooper, S h a k w e i l e r and Studdert-Kennedy (1967) and Massaro (1970a, 1970b, 1971, and 1972a). These s t u d i e s have d e a l t m a i n l y w i t h speech r e c o g n i t i o n . Speech r e c o g n i t i o n i s , o f c o u r s e , c a t e g o r i c a l i n th e sense t h a t t h e l i s t e n e r i s r e q u i r e d t o r e c o g n i z e an a c o u s t i c s i g n a l as b e l o n g i n g t o a p a r t i c u l a r phoneme. I t i s q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t t y p e o f c a t e -g o r i z a t i o n from t h e k i n d d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . However, as Read p o i n t s o u t : . . . i t i s an e m p i r i c a l q u e s t i o n whether t h e b a s e s o f speech r e c o g -n i t i o n a r e t h e same as t h e bases f o r speech sound c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , t h a t i s whether t h e cues t h a t a r e i m p o r t a n t i n speech r e c o g n i t i o n a r e a l s o s a l i e n t i n t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f h i g h e r o r d e r c a t e g o r i e s . (Read, 1975: p. 7) S t u d i e s o f p e r c e p t i o n i n t h e a r e a s o f i n t e r - p h o n e m i c a u d i t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( M i l l a r and N i c e l y , 1955 and Graham and House, 1971) and t h e r o l e o f d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f phonology (Menyuk, 1973) a r e a l s o r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h . T h i s r e s e a r c h i s d i s t i n c t from t h e former s t u d i e s , however, i n t h a t t h e y i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a b i l i t y o f c h i l d r e n t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between one sound and a n o t h e r . The p r e s e n t s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s judgment o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between phones which t h e y can, w i t h o u t doubt, d i s c r i m i n a t e . S i n g h and Wood (1971) have, however, c o n d u c t e d e x p e r i m e n t s which a r e more s i m i l a r i n n a t u r e t o 17 t h e c h i l d r e n ' s judgments d e s c r i b e d above. They r e q u i r e l i t e r a t e n a t i v e a d u l t s t o make s i m i l a r i t y judgments. In t h e c a s e o f c o n s o n a n t s t h e s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o choose one o f two c o n sonants as b e i n g more s i m i l a r t o a t h i r d i n an XAB paradigm. T h a t i s , t h e s u b j e c t s were a s k e d t o judge which o f two c o n sonants 'sounds more l i k e ' a t h i r d c o n s o n a n t , where A and B each s h a r e one common p h o n e t i c f e a t u r e w i t h X. In t h e case o f t h e vowels t h e y were r e q u i r e d t o g i v e n u m e r i c a l d i s s i m i l a r i t y judgments t o p a i r s o f vowels. These s t u d i e s a r e e x t r e m e l y s i m i l a r t o Read's l a t e r c o n t r o l l e d e x p e r i m e n t s w i t h a d u l t s and c h i l d r e n . They d i f f e r f rom t h i s r e s e a r c h i n t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c h i l d r e n ' s judgments a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n a f f e c t e d by a knowledge o f s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g . F u r t h e r , t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s p e l l i n g s were spontaneous t h u s g i v i n g a more n a t u r a l and u n i n h i b i t e d r e a l i z a t i o n o f t h e i n t e r n a l i z e d r u l e s f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . The s t u d y o f d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s p h onology seeks t o f i n d an o r d e r o f a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e f e a t u r e s o f s p eech sounds t o g e t h e r w i t h an e x p l a n a t i o n as t o t h e o r d e r i n g s t r a t e g i e s employed by young c h i l d r e n . Menyuk (1973) i n h e r s t u d y c l a i m s : One can o b s e r v e t h e same o r d e r i n a c q u i s i t i o n and r e l a t i v e degree o f mastery o r c o r r e c t usage o f sound c o n t a i n i n g t h e v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s by groups o f c h i l d r e n from two d i f f e r i n g l i n g u i s t i c e n v i r o n m e n t s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a h i e r a r c h y o f f e a t u r e d i s t i n c t i o n s may be a l i n g u i s t i c u n i v e r s a l p r o b a b l y dependent on t h e d e v e l o p i n g p e r c e p t i v e and p r o d u c t i v e c a p a c i t i e s o f t h e c h i l d . The f i n d i n g s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h b e a r o u t Menyuk's c l a i m t h a t t h e r e may be a d e v e l o p m e n t a l u n i v e r s a l h i e r a r c h y o f o r d e r i n g o f d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s . L i k e Read, however, t h i s a u t h o r i s u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e w i t h a b s o l u t e c e r t a i n t y t h e most i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e t o c h i l d r e n o f t h e vowel sounds; whether i t i s b ackness as p r e d i c t e d by Chomsky & H a l l e o r h e i g h t as d e t e r m i n e d by J a k o b s o n . The e v i d e n c e does b e a r o u t Menyuk's c l a i m t h a t 18 the features ± nasal and ± voice are among the e a s i e s t to perceive among the consonants. These findings are also i n keeping with the studies done by M i l l a r and N i c e l y (1955) and Singh and Black (1966) which place ± nasal as the most s a l i e n t feature and ± voice as amongst those having greatest s a l i e n c e . Two doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n s have, i n part, been based on Read's work also. Kathleen G e r r i t z at Harvard U n i v e r s i t y analyzed the s p e l l i n g s of f i r s t - g r a d e c h i l d r e n to determine, i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e i r representations f o r / / , / / , and / /. She reported that eight of the twelve c h i l d r e n i n her sample " s p e l l e d the lax front vowels with the invented s p e l l i n g s Read reports" ( G e r r i t i z , p. 70). FES (fish) FALL ( f e l l ) SCHICHTAP(scotchtape) EGLIOW(igloo) LAFFT ( l e f t ) GIT (got) FLEPR ( f l i p p e r ) ALRVATA (elevator) CLIK (clock) (Read, 1970: p. 23) However, she f u r t h e r reports that standard s p e l l i n g s were also used by the c h i l d r e n at the same time. This i s supported by the f i n d i n g s of t h i s research. James Beers at the U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a selected 24 words f o r t h e i r vowel structure and frequency and presented these words to f i r s t and second graders i n C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e once a month f o r f i v e months. He concluded that the f i r s t graders moved through a sequence of s p e l l i n g s t r a t e g i e s , the f i r s t of which was 'no attempt', the second was ' l e t t e r -name' strategy. The two studies, point to evidence f o r the influence of the judgments Read had reported. Evidence which i s not supportive of the f i n d i n g s of Read's study or the present study comes from Rystrom (1973-74). He administered a Forced Vowel S e l e c t i o n Test to 63 c h i l d r e n i n Georgia. The c h i l d r e n were required to f i l l i n the blanks i n 23. words with the appropriate vowel representation.. i 19 The experimenter presented the child with a simple story, for example, B - 1 - m t r pt b sp z The story was then read to the child who was instructed to f i l l in the blanks with an (X/ an or an t in order to spell the message. The 23 words included three instances each of /Q,/, /('/, /dy/ a n < ^ /<£/' /•£/ a n ( ^ A B - / ' two instances of /<J/. Rystrom analyzed the children's choices and concluded that the response of the children were random. Read, in answer to Rystrom's research, points out that . . . there i s no indication, either in the instructions given or in the children's performance as reported, that the children actually understood their activity to be that of representing speech sound orthographical ly. (Read, 1975: p.. 43) Read, further, notes that the children had only recently acquired the a b i l i t y to write O., ©< and L on demand and may not have any notion of alphabetic representations. They may in fact be at Beers 'no attempt' stage. Spelling and E.S.L. While there has recently been considerable l i n g u i s t i c investigation into the acquisition of literacy in English, most of this research has concerned i t s e l f with young native speakers. Only a few investigators ' (for example, Brown, 1969; Oiler and Ziahosseiny, 1970; Cronnell, 1972; Warbey, 1976) have addressed themselves to the unique d i f f i c u l t i e s of the non-native language learner. Cronnell, basing much of his work on Venezky's analysis of spelling to sound relations, suggests that these [Venezky's] relationships be used in reading and spelling instruction for second language learners. He proposes that instruction be based on the relationships described in the 20 work o f t h e g e n e r a t i v e p h o n o l o g i s t s (Chomsky & H a l l e , 1968; Schane, 1970; C. Chomsky, 1970) when t h e l e a r n e r has r e a c h e d a more advanced l e v e l and t h e r e l a t i o n s between sound and s p e l l i n g a r e more complex. T u r n i n g a s i d e f o r t h e moment and l o o k i n g a t s t u d i e s o f a l p h a b e t i c r e g u l a r i t i e s , Hanna, Hanna, Hodges and R u d o l f (1966) have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e goodness o f f i t and t h e p a t t e r n i n g o f phoneme-grapheme r e l a t i o n s i n E n g l i s h . They s e l e c t e d 17,000 + o f t h e most commonly used words and p r o -grammed t h e s e words t h r o u g h a computer a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n -t a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y show t h a t t h e r e i s a r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e f i t between s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h p r o n u n c i a t i o n and t h e s p e l l i n g o f words. However, B o i a r s k y has found t h a t i f t h e d i a l e c t spoken i s n o t s t a n d a r d , s p e l l i n g a b i l i t y i s i m p a i r e d . She c o n d u c t e d h e r s t u d y , however, w i t h h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . T h i s may n o t , as t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i n d i c a t e s , be t h e c a s e w i t h v e r y young c h i l d r e n . S t u d i e s by Graham and R u d o l f (1970) have a l s o shown t h a t s p e l l i n g e r r o r s r e f l e c t d i a l e c t d i f f e r e n c e s . Once a g a i n , however, t h e s u b j e c t s were o l d e r c h i l d r e n . O i l e r and Z i a h o s s e i n y (1970) found t h a t s t u d e n t s whose f i r s t l anguage used a Roman a l p h a b e t made s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s p e l l i n g e r r o r s i n E n g l i s h t h a n s t u d e n t s whose n a t i v e language d i d n o t . They s t a t e , "Know-l e d g e o f one Roman w r i t i n g system makes i t more d i f f i c u l t , n o t l e s s t o a c q u i r e a n o t h e r Roman s p e l l i n g system" ( O i l e r and Z i a h o s s e i n y , 1970). The c h i l d r e n i n t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h were n o t f u l l y l i t e r a t e i n t h e i r n a t i v e l anguage, b u t t h e r e a r e some i n d i c a t i o n s w hich p o i n t t o s u p p o r t f o r O i l e r and Z i a h o s s e i n y ' s f i n d i n g s . The most r e c e n t s t u d y t o d a t e on s p e l l i n g and second language l e a r n -i n g has been c o n d u c t e d by Warbey (1976). T h i s r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e p roblems e n c o u n t e r e d by a d u l t n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s . Her f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e 21 t h a t a d u l t L2 l e a r n e r s u n d e r s t a n d the phoneme-to-grapheme r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f E n g l i s h . F u r t h e r , she p o i n t s o u t t h a t , " t h e f o r m a t i o n o f E n g l i s h p l u r a l s i s i n t e r n a l i z e d a t an e a r l y l e v e l o f competence as i n d i c a t e d by t h e l a r g e number o f s u b j e c t s a t a l l l e v e l s who s p e l l e d t h e p l u r a l a l l o m o r p h s c o r r e c t l y " (Warbey, 1976). These f i n d i n g s a r e i n k e e p i n g w i t h b o t h Read's and t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h . However, Warbey, l i k e B o i a r s k y and Graham and R u d o l f s t a t e s t h a t "One t h i n g s p e l l i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h must n o t do i s r e l y on t h e s t u d e n t ' s a b i l i t y t o sound o u t o r l i s t e n t o h i s own a p p r o x i m a t i o n o f the p h o n e t i c form o f a word" (Warbey, 1976). C h i l d r e n i n t h i s r e s e a r c h and a l s o i n Read's s t u d y appear t o be a b l e t o a b s t r a c t away from t h e i r own p r o n u n c i a t i o n . T h i s p o s e s t h e q u e s t i o n as t o whether o r n o t t h e c a p a c i t y f o r a b s t r a c t i o n o f t h i s t y p e i s l o s t a f t e r p u b e r t y . The Need f o r R e s e a r c h U n t i l f a i r l y r e c e n t l y , contemporary E.S.L. i n s t r u c t i o n has been c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n t h e framework o f an a u d i o - l i n g u a l a p p r o a c h t o language t e a c h i n g . T h i s method f o c u s e s p r i m a r i l y on a u r a l r e c e p t i o n and o r a l p r o d u c t i o n and c o n s e q u e n t l y s t u d i e s o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f l i t e r a c y s k i l l s have been somewhat n e g l e c t e d . I n t h e t e a c h i n g o f young c h i l d r e n , many E.S.L. t e a c h e r s l e f t t h e t e a c h i n g o f t h e s e s k i l l s u n t i l t h e c h i l d r e n e n t e r e d t h e i r grade c l a s s e s . But a move away from t h e a u d i o - l i n g u a l method and t h e i n c r e a s i n g number o f E.S.L. s t u d e n t s i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l i n Canada have made new demands on E.S.L. t e a c h e r s . In m e e t i n g t h e s e demands t h e t r e n d has been t o use t h e m a t e r i a l s and r e l a t e t h e r e s e a r c h and t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s o f n a t i v e s p e a k e r s and a p p l y them t o n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n . , i r r e s p e c t i v e , o f s uch f a c t o r s as age, n a t i v e , language l i t e r a c y 22 and language backgrounds- T h i s s t u d y i s a r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e need t o r e s e a r c h s uch assumptions- I t i s , e s s e n t i a l l y , p i o n e e r work. The e v i d e n c e i s f r a g m e n t a r y and t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s and a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e p u t f o r t h t e n t a t i v e l y b u t as Read e x p l a i n s : A t t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y l e v e l , p e r h a p s a l l t h a t one can hope f o r i s t o p r o v i d e a d e s c r i p t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s p h onology t h a t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l c o n f i r m e d t h a t i t b e g i n s t o r a i s e e x p l a n a t o r y i s s u e s , t h a t i s , t o c o n s t r a i n p o s s i b l e t h e o r i e s . (Read, 1970: p. 9) The w r i t e r i s o n l y t o o aware t h a t t h e r e c a n be no one d e s c r i p t i o n and no one complete e x p l a n a t i o n o f how a l l c h i l d r e n l e a r n . T h i s r e s e a r c h s eeks o n l y t o r a i s e some i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s and p r o f f e r a few h y p o t h e t i c a l e x p l a n a t o r y n o t i o n s . CHAPTER I I I I n v e n t e d S p e l l i n g Systems T h i s r e s e a r c h was p r e c i p i t a t e d by t h e w r i t e r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t many o f t h e s p e l l i n g e r r o r s made by n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n were i d e n t i c a l t o s p e l l i n g e r r o r s she had o b s e r v e d n a t i v e c h i l d r e n make. Some o f t h e s e e r r o r s were ba s e d on v i s u a l c o n f u s i o n , f o r example, ' s i a d ' f o r ' s a i d ' ; o t h e r s were d i f f e r e n t . They were q u i t e r e g u l a r and appeared t o be e r r o r s w h ich a r o s e o u t o f a p e r c e p t u a l system r a t h e r t h a n e r r o r s i n d u p l i c a t i n g t h e s t a n d a r d form. T h i s l a t t e r t y p e o f e r r o r was e x t r e m e l y i n t e r e s t i n g and o c c u r r e d w i t h s u f f i c i e n t f r e q u e n c y t o r a i s e an e x p l a n a t o r y i s s u e . I f t h e c h i l d r e n were making e r r o r s on a s y s t e m a t i c b a s i s , t h e q u e s t i o n s must be p o s e d : On what knowledge o f t h e spoken language i s t h e sys t e m based? How i s t h e c h i l d r e n ' s system r e l a t e d t o t h e s t a n d a r d s y s t e m o r o r t h o g r a p h y ? To what e x t e n t does t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s y s t e m r e f l e c t t h e i r n a t i v e language background? These t h e o r e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , w h i c h a r e i n p a r t a d d r e s s e d a l s o i n Read's (1970) s t u d y , a r e fundamental t o a b e t t e r u n d e r -s t a n d i n g o f n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f l i t e r a c y s k i l l s . As i n Read's s t u d y t h e e v i d e n c e comes from c h i l d r e n who have i n v e n t e d t h e i r own s p e l l i n g systems f o r E n g l i s h . The e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between Read's r e s e a r c h and t h e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n l i e s i n t h e n a t i v e language and age o f t h e c h i l d r e n . Read's s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e c a t e g o r -i z a t i o n o f E n g l i s h speech sounds by p r e - s c h o o l E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n ; t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f E n g l i s h s p eech sounds 23 24 by non-native children aged between 5 and 10 years. In both studies the children f i r s t learned the traditional names of the letters of the alpha-bet; then with magnetic letters or blocks began to spell words, messages, letters, stories and the l i k e . Gradually under the influence of formal instruction in reading and writing the children made a transition from their invented system to the use of standard spelling. The problems facing the child who wants to write an English message have been f u l l y discussed elsewhere (Chapter I, section 1). However, a brief recapitulation of the child's dilemma seems in order here. The child i s required to extend the seventeen consonants and seven vowels whose pronunciations are included in their letter-names to cover 40 English phone-types. (The exact number depends on both the specific dialect and the analysis employed.) That the child does not give up on his undertaking i s a remarkable commentary on children's motivation to become l i t e r a t e . What is equally, i f not, more remarkable, however, is the fact that i n their efforts to become literate the children in both Read's study and the present one arrived at very similar systems for representing the spoken word. The structure of Read's argument to propose an explanation for the invented system is that " . . . they [the invented spellings] follow from certain assertions about English phonology . . . " (Read 1970, p. 16). Essentially, the present study also proposes an explanation of this order. However, as stated above, the children in this research are non-native speakers and special considerations must be given to this fact. There-fore, although the structure of Read's argument may serve as a basis of inquiry in the present research, this investigation also asks such questions ass Are the spellings invented by non-native children consistent and 25 s y s t e m a t i c ? A r e t h e y c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c g r o u p s ? And t o what e x t e n t do t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y c o r r o b o r a t e t h e r e s u l t s o f Read's s t u d y ? F u r t h e r , t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o f f e r s t h r e e p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n v e n t e d by t h e c h i l d r e n , t h a t i s , t h a t t h e y r e s u l t from t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a t e g o r i c a l judgments, p h o n e t i c p e r c e p t i o n s o r know-l e d g e o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s o f E n g l i s h . Hypotheses The t h r e e h y p o t h e s e s u n d e r l y i n g t h i s s t u d y a r e : 1. C h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language can i n v e n t a s p e l l i n g system which i s c o n s i s t e n t and i s s y s t e m a t i c , t h a t i s ba s e d on c a t e -g o r i c a l judgments, p h o n e t i c p e r c e p t i o n s o r a knowledge o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s o f E n g l i s h . 2. The s p e l l i n g i n v e n t e d by second language l e a r n e r s w i l l be c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c g r o u p s . 3. The s p e l l i n g system c r e a t e d by second language l e a r n e r s w i l l show s i m i l a r i t i e s t o t h e system used by f i r s t language c h i l d r e n as d e s c r i b e d by Read (1970). S u b j e c t s The s u b j e c t s were t h i r t e e n c h i l d r e n i n a p r i m a r y E.S.L. c l a s s r o o m a t L a u r a S e c o r d s c h o o l i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h C olumbia. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s r e s e a r c h t h e y had been i n Canada between 0 and 4 months. A b r e a k -down o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s ages and language backgrounds i s as f o l l o w s : seven C h i n e s e s p e a k i n g s t u d e n t s — b r o t h e r s Benny, 6.3 and Kenny 7.8, s i s t e r and b r o t h e r Sandy, 7.3 and A l f r e d 5.9, t w i n s i s t e r s L i Chu and L i Yu 9.1, and Wayne 7.5. Three P u n j a b i s p e a k i n g s t u d e n t s — B a l w i n d e r 7.6, B a l j i n d e r 7.0, and K a m a l j i t 9.3. Two I t a l i a n s p e a k i n g s t u d e n t s : R o b e r t a 7.5 and Debby 9.3. One b i l i n g u a l F r e n c h / P o r t u g u e s e s t u d e n t : M a r i a 8.0. 26 Data Collection In collecting data for this research the question of the v a l i d i t y of the author's interpretation of a child's invented spelling may be raised. Given the spelling STOR, how can one know that the child was representing 'store*. In most instances the children generally produced whole messages, in which the words appear in context. STOR, for example, comes from a short story entitled I PLA. The story i s as follows: AI WAS PLAIN STOR EN AFTR AI WAS LOCIN T.V. This story reads: I was playing store and after I was looking T.V. This interpretation of the data was strongly supported by a picture of a child playing store and watching T.V. This example i s f a i r l y typical of the mixture of content clues, picture and word identification clues found in the data. Not a l l the children's writings were included, however. Sometimes standard spellings of entire words occur, since there i s no way to ascertain whether these spellings are copied, learned or invented they are uninformative. Accordingly, this type of spelling has been l e f t out. Further, at times children's printing i s d i f f i c u l t to interpret; they either lack a distinct form or are visually ambiguous. These spellings have also been excluded from the data collection. The data included only those words which were clearly legible and in some way non-standard. Of these there were 903 different words, 1993 spellings (not counting exact repetitions by a given child at a given age) and 8372 spellings of individual phonemes. The mean number of phonemes per word i s 4.2. J 27 The Results Vowels. The representation of vowels proved to be the most d i f f i -c u l t problem which presented i t s e l f to the c h i l d r e n . In the i n i t i a l stages of w r i t i n g , vowels were f a i r l y often omitted. However, the omis-sions themselves were noteworthy i n that they point up the f a c t that L2 c h i l d r e n have a t a c i t understanding of the vowels vs non-vowel d i s t i n c t i o n i n E n g l i s h , even i n the i n i t i a l stages of L2 a c q u i s i t i o n . This under-standing i s a l l the more remarkable when one considers the f a c t that /£,/ occurs i n several l e t t e r names (F, L, M, N, S and X) and yet of the 321 s p e l l i n g s of t h i s vowel, not one contains any l e t t e r other than A, E, I or U (see Appendix A, Table 5) even though the phone-type /<£/ does not occur i n the names of these l e t t e r s . The d i s t i n c t i o n between vowels and non-vowels was common to a l l c h i l d r e n and revealed from the outset of t h i s research that L2 c h i l d r e n were capable of making underlying c a t e g o r i c a l judgments, even i f they proved to be only of the grossest type, that i s , d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y between vowels and non-vowels. However, the c h i l d r e n proved to be capable of making f i n e r c a t e g o r i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n s than those described above and succeeded i n representing sixteen f u n c t i o n -a l l y d i s t i n c t vowel sounds by using, to a large extent, only the f i v e vowel representations A E I 0 U, and an occasional Y. The use of Y i s a l l the more understandable when one considers that Y i s used as a stan-dard s p e l l i n g f o r /• /. The c h i l d r e n were obviously influenced by a knowledge of the standard use of Y f o r / i / i n such words as BABY. They have not yet recognized that t h i s s p e l l i n g i s r e s t r i c t e d to s u f f i x e s and they overgeneralize. There are 70 such uses of Y, many of them non-standard. Tense Vowels. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e phones /&/, ///, 28 /C/ and /yfli/ were most f r e q u e n t l y A, E, I , O and U as shown i n T a b l e 1. (For each t a b l e o f r e s u l t s a r e f e r e n c e w i l l be g i v e n f o r t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t a b l e , w i t h d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s , i n t h e A p p e n d i x ) . T a b l e 1 Summary o f the R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e Tense Vowels Phone S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t /e/ A 151 58 / • / E 131 37 /dy/ I 118 51 /O/ 0 132 79 /yt// U 32 76 T a b l e 2 p r e s e n t s examples o f t h e s e s p e l l i n g s . T a b l e 2 S p e l l i n g s f o r Tense Vowels SA (say) NE (knee) MI (my) TABL ( t a b l e ) DEP (deep) L I K ( l i k e ) DA (day) ET (eat) BIK (bike) KLA ( c l a y ) SLEP ( s l e e p ) IS ( i c e ) KOT (coat) U (you) BOT (boat) UZ (use) GOD (goed) UNS (Eunice) TO (toe) However, as T a b l e 1 i n d i c a t e s , t h e p e r c e n t a g e s o f the above r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n s o f t h e t e n s e vowels were n o t as h i g h as might be p r e d i c t e d . F u r t h e r , t h e s e s p e l l i n g s t e n d t o be s t a n d a r d and as such a r e r e l a t i v e l y u n i n f o r m a t -i v e . The i n t e r e s t i n g p r o b l e m i s t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e r e l a t i v e l y h i g h f r e -quency o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l l e t t e r names. T h i s 29 phenomenon i s p a r t i c u l a r l y f r e q u e n t f o r t h e f r o n t t e n s e v o w e l s . The back t e n s e vowels a r e r e p r e s e n t e d r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t l y as might be p r e d i c t e d . The phone /&/. T a b l e 3 shows t h a t a l t h o u g h 62% o f t h e s p e l l i n g s o f /Q/ were ba s e d on A (AE, A I , AY) a f a i r l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n , 30% o f t h e s p e l l i n g s a r e ba s e d on E (EY). F u r t h e r t h e f r e q u e n t use o f E h o l d s a c r o s s t h e f o u r language groups and t h e r e f o r e i n t e r f e r e n c e does n o t appear t o o f f e r an e x p l a n a t i o n . However, when one examines t h e p h o n e t i c f e a t u r e s o f / ) / and /Q/ a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e o f e r r o r , t h a t i s S.E. ( s y s t e m a t i c e r r o r ) becomes a p p a r e n t . T a b l e 3 Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /&/ S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . A 151 58 AE 3 1 AI 6 2 AY 3 1 E 56 22 EY 23 0 (Appendix A, T a b l e 27) C o n s i d e r , / I / / € / + h i g h - h i g h + t e n s e + t e n s e - low - low - back - back In c h o o s i n g a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r /Q/ some c h i l d r e n may n o t a t t e n d t o t h e d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e o f h e i g h t between /i / and and c o n s e q u e n t l y use E as a w r i t t e n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r /€/. (See T a b l e 4 f o r ex a m p l e s ) . 30 Table 4 The most frequent spellings of /©/, /*/ and /3y/ other than A, E and I KEM (came) SI (she) TAIGR (tiger) LES (lace) HI (he) LAIK (like) SE (say) PATI (party) BAIK (bye) PLE (play) BABI (baby) MAI (my) The phone /*/. The representation of / / presents a particularly interesting problem in examining the corpus. Consider the spellings of / ) / , summarized in Table 5 (Appendix A, Table 26). This table shows that Table 5 Summary of representations of /#/ Chinese Punjabi Italian French/Port. A l l Spelling Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet E 48 31 59 44 18 25 6 12 131 37 Y 38 33 32 27 0 0 0 0 70 20 I 12 10 14 12 54 74 43 88 123 34 (omit) 13 11 12 10 1 1 0 0 26 7 although the most frequent representation for /// is in fact E i t is only used in 37% of the possible occasions. I i s used almost as often, 34% over a l l the language groups. In the case of the Italian children I i s used 74% and the bilingual French/Portuguese child uses I as a representa-tion for /•/ 88% of a l l possible occasions—an extremely high percentage. • The frequent use of I to represent / 1 / might easily be dismissed as inter-ference from the Romance languages. However, two factors prevent the acceptance of such a simple explanation. The f i r s t of these i s that both 9 Chinese and Punjabi speakers did not use E as a representation for /// with 31 a h i g h d e g ree o f f r e q u e n c y ; 41% and 44% r e s p e c t i v e l y . The Y s p e l l i n g o f was a l s o a f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r b o t h language groups; 33% and 27% f o r C h i n e s e and P u n j a b i s p e a k e r s r e s p e c t i v e l y . F u r t h e r , b o t h language groups had f r e q u e n t o m i s s i o n s : 11% and 10% r e s p e c t i v e l y . A l l o f w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e C h i n e s e and P u n j a b i c h i l d r e n d i d n o t c l e a r l y p e r c e i v e t h e phoneme-to-grapheme c o r r e s p o n d e n c e /i / t o E. I f one a c c e p t s t h a t c h i l d r e n can r e c o g n i z e p h o n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o h y p o t h e s i z e a p h o n e t i c b a s i s as an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e f a c t t h a t c h i l d r e n a c r o s s l i n -g u i s t i c groups r e p r e s e n t /l/ w i t h /Ay/. C o n s i d e r : /'% / /<*y/ s t a r t s o u t + low + back changes t o + h i g h + h i g h - low - low - back - back + t e n s e - t e n s e As i n t h e c a s e o f t h e e a r l i e r c o n f u s i o n o f E and A as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r /fe/, /i/ and /&y/ d i f f e r i n o n l y one f e a t u r e , i n t h i s c a s e t e n s e n e s s . I t may be h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t c h i l d r e n who use I as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r / « / may i g n o r e t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t e n s e n e s s between /• / and (see T a b l e 4 f o r examples). The second f a c t o r which weakens a c l a i m f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e as t h e s i n g l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e f r e q u e n t use o f I as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f / i / i s t h a t t h e r e s u l t s from t h e two I t a l i a n s u b j e c t s a r e b i f u r c a t e d . T a b l e 5 shows e i g h t e e n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /•/ w i t h E. These e i g h t e e n r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n s show 100% f r e q u e n c y o f t h i s s p e l l i n g by t h e younger I t a l i a n s t u d e n t . The 54 r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / t / w i t h I show 98% f r e q u e n c y o f t h i s s p e l l i n g by t h e o l d e r I t a l i a n s t u d e n t . A l t h o u g h t h e r e i s a s u b s t a n t i a l age d i f -f e r e n c e between t h e two s t u d e n t s , about 3 y e a r s , due t o a v a r i e t y o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e y had a c h i e v e d r o u g h l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f n a t i v e language l i t e r a c y . I t may, t h e r e f o r e , by h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t as t h e c h i l d 32 approaches puberty the degree of f i r s t language interference increases. However, the evidence i s obviously too limited for any conclusive state-ment of this nature. The phone /<3y/. Table 6 shows the predominant representation for /&\J/ is I. However, across li n g u i s t i c groups the children frequently perceived the diphthong and used AI and AY as frequent representations (see Table 4 for examples.) Table 6 Summary of the representations of /dl// Spelling Freq. Pet. I 118 51 AI 91 39 AY 3 1 (Appendix A, Table 36) The phones /O/ and / y n / . Table 7 shows the representation of /o/ were based on 0 (OW, 00, OU) 93% of a l l possible occasions. Clearly, this back tense vowel caused l i t t l e confusion for the children across li n g u i s t i c groups. Table 7 Summary of the representations of /o/ Spelling Freq. Pet. 0 132 77 OW 23 14 00 3 1 OU 2 1 (Appendix A, Table 15) 33 Table 8 shows the representation of A / H / did not cause any problem for the children. The spellings U or YU were used 86% of the possible occasions. Table 8 Summary of the representation of /yiV Spelling Freq. Pet. U 32 76 YU 4 10 (Appendix A, Tables 15 and 40) Lax-Tense Vowel Pairs, front unrounded. The representation of the lax front vowels /T/, /£/ and /c3£L/ clearly presents the children with a categorical problem: how does one extend the letter-names of A E I 0 and U to represent these front lax vowels. The evidence indicates that children do categorize these phones on a systematic phonetic basis. The phone /I./. Consider f i r s t the representation of /Z/ summar-ized in Table 9 . This table shows that children across l i n g u i s t i c groups Table 9 Summary of the representations of / I / Spelling Freq. Pet. I 213 60 E 88 25 (omit) 33 9 (Appendix A, Table 9) 34 chose I as a representation of I 60% of the occasions and E 25% of the occasions. The representation I i s the standard spelling of /X/ and although i t may be that the children realize this representation without influence from standard spelling the writer cannot be sure. Consequently, the use of the standard spelling I can t e l l us nothing for sure about children's categorization of speech sounds. However, the relatively frequent occurrence of E, see Table 10 for examples, may serve to provide further information about children's judgments. Table 10 Spellings of /J/ with E BEL (Bill) HET (hit) SEK (sick) LETL ( l i t t l e ) KEK (kick) HEL (hill) HEM (him) SEP (ship) LEP (lip) Consider: /*/ /'/ + high + high - low - low - back - back - tense + tense Once again assuming that children can recognize phonetic relationships across members of different phones, i t appears the children across l i n -guistic groups were able to ignore the difference in tenseness between I and / i / and use E as the representation for / I / . The use of E i s partic-ularly interesting in the Romance speaking children. Their representa-tion of /«/ was most frequently I, yet when faced with the problem of representing /X/, although I was the most frequent representation, 47% and 62% for the Italian and French/Portuguese speakers respectively, E was a 35 relatively frequent representation for a number of spellings, 37% and 24% respectively. This points to a general tendency to ignore tenseness as a distinguishing feature. It i s impossible, however, to determine to what degree this hypothetical tendency to ignore tenseness may be res-ponsible for I representation of / i / and E representation of. /T/ and to what extent these representations may be a result of interference. The phone /y./. Table 11 shows that, once again, the most frequent representation is the standard form, that i s E. The same argument that Table 11 Summary of the representations of /£/ Spelling Freq. Pet. E 179 56 A 93 29 (Appendix A, Table 5) was applied to the standard spelling of I for /X/ also holds. Therefore, the non-standard A representation i s of more interest in that i t occurred with 29%, cannot be accounted for by the influence of the standard form, and occurs too often for random error. It can, however, be explained i f one accepts a phonetic feature basis for children's categorical systems. Consider, fcj /£/ - high - high - low - low - back - back + tense - tense This is supportive evidence for a claim that children tend to ignore tenseness as a salient feature. In this case they also ignore 36 diphthongization. Clearly, the children use place of articulation and rounding as determining features. Table 12 presents examples of s p e l l -ings in which /£/ i s represented by A. Table 12 Spellings of /£/ with A JAN (Jen) BAD (bed) HAD (head) HAN (hen) AFLAT (elephant) NAD (Ned) TET (tent) AD (end) FAL (fell) The phone Finally, consider the spellings of /<3e-/, Table 13. A high frequency of the spellings are the standard form A. Once again, these spellings are relatively uninformative. However, the representation E also reflects a relatively high frequency of occurrence. Table 14 presents examples of the spellings in which /deV i s represented by E. Table 13 Summary of the representations of /aev Spelling Freq. Pet. A 175 62 E 60 21 (Appendix A, Table 35) Table 14 Spellings of with E BET (bat) ED (and) BEK (back) SED (sand) HET (hat) KEP (cap) 37 I t i s , however, i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e from the e v i d e n c e whether i n making t h e i r c a t e g o r i c a l judgements t h e c h i l d r e n r e c o g n i z e a r e l a t i o n s h i p between /c£,/ and / i ' / , /aey /•'/ - h i g h + h i g h + low - low - back - back - round - round + t e n s e + t e n s e and i g n o r e t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n h e i g h t , o r knowing t h e s p e l l i n g o f A V t o be E judge / < £ / l i k e /I/ / « £ / /& - h i g h - h i g h + low - low - back - back - round - round + t e n s e - t e n s e and i g n o r e t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t e n s e n e s s and t o an e x t e n t , h e i g h t a l s o . A l t h o u g h i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e from the e v i d e n c e t o s t a t e c o n c l u s i v e l y whether h e i g h t o r t e n s e n e s s i s t h e more s a l i e n t f e a t u r e t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f w i t h E may s e r v e as y e t a n o t h e r example o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p h o n e t i c p a i r i n g o f l a x - t e n s e vowels. The C e n t r a l Vowels The phone IfiJ. As T a b l e 15 shows, t h e most f r e q u e n t s p e l l i n g s f o r A V were U, 0 and A. T a b l e 16 p r e s e n t s examples o f U, 0 and A s p e l l i n g s f o r A V - The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s 0, U and A a r e a l l s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g s and as such a r e u n i n f o r m a t i v e even a l t h o u g h t h e s i t u a t i o n s i n which t h e y were used were f o r t h e most p a r t n o t t h e s t a n d a r d form. 38 Table 15 Summary of the representations of /A/ Spelling Freq. Pet. U 95 39 0 74 31 A 35 14 (omit) 26 11 (Appendix A, Table 17) Table 16 Spellings of /&/ with U, 0 and A KUP (cup) OP (up) AWA (away) LUV (love) HOG (hug) WAN (one) FUM (from) OKL (uncle) WANS (once) WUZ (was) WON (one) WAZ (was) The phone /%/. As Table 17 shows the unstressed reduced vowel /$/ is interesting in that i t was most frequently omitted in the children's writing. The fact that the vowel i s not represented does not necessarily Table 17 Summary of the representations of /-V Spelling Freq. Pet. (omit) 97 36 E 81 30 0 33 12 A 27 10 1 16 6 U 14 5 (Appendix A, Table 28) 39 i n d i c a t e that i t i s not perceived. Many of these omissions occurred i n the context of /&\ /, /s>Wt > and The c h i l d r e n do not repre-sent the reduced vowel i n the environment of a ' s y l l a b i c * consonant. The next frequent representation of / 3 / i s E. Table 18 presents examples of the E s p e l l i n g to represent /&/. Table 18 Spe l l i n g s of /&/ with E BENANE (banana) KARET (carrot) ANEML (animal) REBET (rabbit) PESEL (pencil) The c h i l d r e n may represent /^/ with E by seeking phonetic s i m i l a r i t i e s between /O/ and /I / or / S / and /£/ i t i s impossible to determine from the evidence which vowel served as a basis f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n . However, the ch i l d r e n appear to perceive the phone /^-/ as s i m i l a r to e i t h e r the high or mid unrounded front vowels. The frequent use of E as a representation f o r /&/ i s not n e c e s s a r i l y counter-evidence to a claim that backness i s a major dimension. I t i s not po s s i b l e f o r c h i l d r e n to choose a vowel that d i f f e r s from / a / only i n height and as Read points out: The high front vowel i s also a reasonable s p e l l i n g mate f o r /^/ because the l a t t e r i s often fronted and r a i s e d to a p o s i t i o n close to that of ///, p a r t i c u l a r l y when i t occurs before dental consonants. (Read, 1970; p. 32) The s p e l l i n g 0 was also a r e l a t i v e l y frequent representation of /a/ (12%). This points to a tendency i n some c h i l d r e n to group the c e n t r a l vowels with the back vowels. The s p e l l i n g O was also a frequent representation of /-<y (31%). In general, the frequent omissions and the use of several s p e l l i n g s to represent both A V and / V i n d i c a t e that the representation 40 of-the c e n t r a l vowels i s an area of some confusion f o r the c h i l d r e n . Back Vowels The most frequent s p e l l i n g of the back vowels, i r r e s p e c t i v e of tenseness or rounding, i s 0. This i s , of course, a frequent standard s p e l l i n g f o r the back vowels of Eng l i s h and the consistent use of O in d i c a t e s that the back vowels form a d i s t i n c t category f o r the c h i l d r e n . The Tense Back Vowels The tense forms / y U / and//have been discussed e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter (see section on tense vowels). Their most frequent representa-t i o n s are U and 0 (see Table 1). I t i s also noteworthy that the g l i d e /o/ was represented with OW with 14% frequency. The phone /UA As Table 19 shows, although the most frequent s i n g l e representation of /LV i s U, O (00, OU) based s p e l l i n g s are c o l l e c -t i v e l y more frequent. The three most frequent U, 0 and 00 are a l l po s s i b l e s p e l l i n g s . Table 19 Summary of the representations of / U / S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. U 30 32 0 24 26 00 24 26 OU 4 4 (Appendix A, Table 21) 41 The phone / U / . The s p e l l i n g o f f\J/ a g a i n r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n as t o whether t e n s e - l a x p a i r s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e same s p e l l i n g . As T a b l e 20 shows t h e most f r e q u e n t s i n g l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /fc^ i s U; however, O (00, OU) b a s e d s p e l l i n g s a r e more f r e q u e n t . Thus t h e t e n s e and l a x a r e i n d e e d r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e same way. F u r t h e r , 00 i s a f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n -t a t i o n f o r b o t h /U/ and hj/. T h i s i s a s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g f o r b o t h ' s c h o o l ' and ' c o o k i e ' , f o r example. The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s s t u d y a r e r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e by s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g . I t may, t h e r e f o r e , be h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h e y added a second 0 i n an attempt t o show l e n g t h . T a b l e 20 Summary o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /O/ S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . U 14 32 0 12 27 OO 10 23 0U 1 2 (Appendix A, T a b l e 21) The phone /O/. As T a b l e 21 shows t h e most f r e q u e n t s p e l l i n g o f i s 0. T h i s i s a s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g f o r b u t n o t a f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f / o / i n t h e s t a n d a r d form. T a b l e 22 l i s t s t h e p e r c e n t -age o f 0 s p e l l i n g among the i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g s o f t h e back rounded vowels and compares t h e s e w i t h p e r c e n t a g e s f o r s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g . ( R i c h a r d L. Venezky t a b u l a t e d t h i s d a t a i n 1963.) 42 Table 21 Summary of the representations of /}/ Spelling Freq. Pet. 0 71 73 A 14 14 OW 2 2 OO 5 5 OU 1 1 (Appendix A, Table 21) Table 22 0 spellings for Back Rounded Vowels Vowel Children % 0 Standard % 0 /U/ 26 6 /XT/ 27 7 / 0 / 79 81 /J>/ 73 21 /AvJ/ 63 0.3 The high frequency of O as a representation of /o/ in the children's system i s a strong indicator that back vowels form a distinct category for the children. The phone /<3/. The spelling of the low back unrounded vowel /o/ is most frequently 0, closely followed by A (as shown in Table 23). Clearly, some children identify /3/ with the back rounded vowels. Others may identify /<9/ with /<&,/. 43 T a b l e 23 Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /3k/ S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . 0 A I (omit) ,127 100 12 40 45 35 4 14 C o n s i d e r : /a/ - h i g h + low - round + t e n s e + back (Appendix A, T a b l e 1) /<3e/ - h i g h + low - round + t e n s e - back The c h i l d r e n may i g n o r e t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n b a c k n e s s , a l t h o u g h t h e i r o t h e r s p e l l i n g s do n o t s u p p o r t t h e n o t i o n o f backness as a minor d i m e n s i o n . Both 0 and A a r e , however, s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g s f o r /<!/ and i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s s e s s t h e i n f l u e n c e t h e s t a n d a r d form may have had on t h e i n v e n t e d systems. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o not e t h a t as i n Read's s t u d y t h e most f r e q u e n t n o n - s t a n d a r d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t h e p r e s e n t one i s a l s o I . F u r t h e r , i n b o t h s t u d i e s t h e examples o f I s p e l l i n g s came from j u s t one c h i l d . T a b l e 24 p r e s e n t s examples o f s p e l l i n g s o f /cV w i t h I . T a b l e 24 S p e l l i n g s o f /cV w i t h I TIP (top) CLIK ( c l o c k ) RIK (rock) HIT (hot) BIDE (body) FIKS (fox) I t a ppears t h a t t h i s c h i l d r e l a t e s t h e l e t t e r name t o /&/, i g n o r i n g 44 d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e n g t h , t e n s e n e s s and d i p h t h o n g i z a t i o n . However, t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /Q/ w i t h I o c c u r r e d o n l y on 4% o f t h e p o s s i b l e o c c a s i o n s and i s n o t s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r p h o n e t i c p a i r i n g o f l a x - t e n s e v o w e l s . A complete a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a o f i n d i v i d u a l s would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o a s c e r t a i n whether each c h i l d c o n s i s t e n t l y uses t h e same a r t i c u l a t o r y d i m e n s i o n s as major d e t e r m i n a n t s o f s p e l l i n g . However, t o d a t e no such a n a l y s i s has been u n d e r t a k e n . The phone /oy/. As T a b l e 25 shows t h e phone A y / a l m o s t n e v e r o c c u r s . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o c o n c l u d e much from t h i s e v i d e n c e . Once a g a i n , however, 0 (OE) b a s e d s p e l l i n g s a r e t h e most f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . T a b l e 25 Summary o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f A y / S p e l l i n g F r e q . Pet, 0 6 46 OE 7 54 The phone /d\J/. F i n a l l y , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s p e l l i n g s o f t h e phone / d l J / , i t i s c l e a r t h a t once a g a i n 0 (00, OW) b a s e d s p e l l i n g s a r e t h e most f r e q u e n t (95% c o l l e c t i v e l y ) (see T a b l e 26). I t i s noteworthy t h a t OW c o n s t i t u t e s 27% o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /&<»J/, w i t h t e n o f t h e f i f t e e n examples coming from one P u n j a b i c h i l d who c l e a r l y p e r c e i v e d t h e d i p h t h o n g i z a t i o n . 45 T a b l e 26 Summary o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /&\J/ S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . 0 OW OO 35 15 3 63 27 5 (Appendix A, T a b l e 31) In g e n e r a l , t h e back vowels a r e l e s s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a n t h e f r o n t . They a r e u s u a l l y s p e l l e d O, U, OO, OW, OU and appear t o form a d i s t i n c t c l a s s f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . J u s t as f o r t h e f r o n t vowels b a c k n e s s appears t o be a major d i m e n s i o n f o r c a t e g o r i c a l judgments. F u r t h e r , i n t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f b o t h f r o n t and back vowel n u c l e i some c h i l d r e n appear t o p e r c e i v e d i p h t h o n g i z a t i o n as a s a l i e n t f e a t u r e . T h e r e i s , a l s o , some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t l a x - t e n s e vowels c o n s t i t u t e a p h o n e t i c p a i r f o r t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e back vowels, namely / U / and , as w e l l as t h e f r o n t . However, t h e c o n s i s t e n t use o f 0 f o r a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f back vowels makes the back vowels r e l a t i v e l y l e s s i n f o r m a t i v e t h a n t h e f r o n t unrounded v o w e l s . T a b l e 27 p r e s e n t s examples o f s p e l l i n g s o f back vowels w i t h 0. T a b l e 27 S p e l l i n g s o f back vowels w i t h 0 BOT (boat) SKOL ( s c h o o l ) BOK (book) KOT (coat) KOL ( c o o l ) COKE (co o k i e ) BOT (bought) BO (boy) FOL ( f a l l ) TOE (toy) 46 Vowel A l t e r n a t i o n s The p h o n e t i c a l t e r n a t i o n s which r e s u l t from t h e vowel s h i f t a r e n o t r e f l e c t e d i n s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g - T h i s s h i f t c a u s e d t h e q u a l i t y , t e n s e t o l a x , o f t h e vowel t o a l t e r d e p e n d i n g on t h e s y l l a b i c s t r e s s . Chomsky and H a l l e (1968) have shown t h a t t h e s e p h o n e t i c a l t e r n a t i o n s a r e r u l e bound and p r e d i c t a b l e . The m o r p h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d a r e u s u a l l y f o u n d i n p o l y s y l l a b i c words o f Romance o r i g i n f o r example, d i v i n e - d i v i n i t y , s e r e n e -s e r e n i t y , t o n e - t o n i c , n a t i o n - n a t i o n a l , and so on. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o a n a l y s e how t h e c h i l d r e n r e l a t e t h e s e vowel a l t e r n a t i o n s . However, due t o t h e l i m i t e d v o c a b u l a r y o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s u c h an a n a l y s i s d i d n o t p r e s e n t i t s e l f i n t h i s r e s e a r c h . Consonants In g e n e r a l t h e consonants c a u s e d few problems f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . T h e r e was r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /$/ by one I t a l i a n s u b j e c t . She c o n s i s t e n t l y u s ed K as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A)/. T h i s i s t h e same I t a l i a n c h i l d who r e p r e s e n t e d A / w i t h I . However, t h i s c h i l d a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p r e s e n t e d /U/ w i t h V. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e , s i n c e t h e A ' / - / / / d i s t i n c t i o n i s n o t a s o u r c e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e from I t a l i a n , whether h e r e r r o r s were p e r c e p t u a l l y b a s e d , c a u s e d by i n t e r f e r e n c e o r , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c a s e o f / V / and /vJ/, d e v e l o p m e n t a l i n n a t u r e . With t h e one e x c e p t i o n mentioned above, t h e c h i l d r e n used s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g s f o r t h e consonants whenever t h e l e t t e r -names were a v a i l a b l e f o r phoneme-to-grapheme c o r r e s p o n d e n c e . F o r t h o s e c o n s o n a n t s V\, 6 , »T/ whose s p e l l i n g s do n o t o c c u r i n l e t t e r names t h e c h i l d r e n t e n d e d t o use t h e s t a n d a r d form (see T a b l e 2 8 ) . However, t h e r e were a l s o f r e q u e n t o m i s s i o n s o f r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /hj and a h i g h f r e q u e n c y 47 T a b l e 28 Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /}/, / h / , /0/ and / £ / Phone S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . A3/ G 115 74 /h/ H 97 77 /€/ TH 44 47 /*/ TH 50 53 (Appendix A, T a b l e s 7, 8, 32 and 33) o f T and D as r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f b o t h /&/ and /&/ i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e s e s p e l l i n g s were n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c h i l d r e n . The s p e l l i n g s o f co n s o n a n t s r e f l e c t fewer p h o n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a n t h e vowels b u t t h e r e i s some e v i d e n c e t o be found o f n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s p h o n o l o g i c a l p e r c e p -t i o n s i n an a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a . A f f r i c a t i o n When /+/ and / d / o c c u r b e f o r e /r/ i n E n g l i s h t h e y a r e a f f r i c a t e d . E n g l i s h s p e l l i n g does n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e a f f r i c a t i o n , b u t two c h i l d r e n i n t h i s r e s e a r c h do. There were n i n e examples, s i x from a C h i n e s e c h i l d and t h r e e from an I t a l i a n c h i l d , w h i c h c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d t h e a f f r i c a t i o n o f b e f o r e /K/. There were no examples o f a f f r i c a t i o n o f / d / b e f o r e A * / . T a b l e 29 p r e s e n t s t h e examples o f /+>*/ s p e l l i n g s w i t h CHR. T a b l e 29 S p e l l i n g o f /t\T/ w i t h CHR CHRK ( t r u c k ) CHRK ( t r i c k ) CHRGL ( t r i a n g l e ) CHRI ( t r y ) CHRA ( t r a i n ) . CHRIP ( t r i p ) 48 The evidence i s extremely l i m i t e d , based only on two c h i l d r e n and nine examples. However, i t points up some i n t e r e s t i n g notions, namely, that some c h i l d r e n do not know that the a f f r i c a t i o n of / r / i s p r e d i c t a b l e when i t comes before /f/, consequently they represent a phonetic feature which i s ignored i n standard s p e l l i n g . Nasals Table 30 shows that of the nasals /m/, /r)/ and /^/, only the f i r s t two occur i n an i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n i n Eng l i s h and i n t h i s p o s i t i o n the c h i l -dren s p e l l e d them i n the standard form: MAI (my) NAIC (nice) Table 30 Summary of the Representation of Nasals Phone S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. A V M 314 95 M/ omit 9 3 / / N 302 83 /«/ omit 57 16 M/ N 63 45 / f l / omit 35 25 /fl/ NG 24 17 G 14 10 Appendix A, Tables 13, 14 and 34) In the f i n a l p o s i t i o n A V and /f\/ were also s p e l l e d i n the standard way. HEM (him) HAN (hen) This i s not s u r p r i s i n g since A V and / *y occur i n t h e i r letter-names. The ve l a r nasal //)/ does not occur i n a letter-name, and the c h i l d r e n represent i t most frequently with N (45%), i n d i c a t i n g that they categorize i t as a nasal. Three c h i l d r e n , two Chinese and the French/Portuguese c h i l d , 49 occasionally (10%) represented /rj/ as G, grouping i t with the other voiced velar. The standard spelling occurred relatively frequently (17%) and the percentage of omissions was also relatively high (25%). The proportion of the omission of nasal i s in general rather high for non-vowels; (this i s also true for Read's research). The proportions of omissions in the present study are: 3% for M/1 16% for /r\/ and 25% for /Tj/. Further, as in Read's findings, most of these omissions occured before a stop or a fr i c a t i v e . Table 31 presents examples of omissions of pre-consonantal nasals. Table 31 Omissions of Pre-consonantal Nasals HAD (hand) ED (end) AGR (angry) HUT (hunt) DOT (dont) TAK (thank) AD (and) SAD (sand) Not a l l 25% of the velar nasal omissions were before consonants: some were in f i n a l position and indicate confusion as to how to represent /?/• Read offers three alternative explanations for the omission of the pre-consonantal nasal. They are as follows: 1. that in spelling, unlike adults, children do not take a nasalized vowel, followed possibly by a brief nasal segment, to be equivalent to a vowel plus nasal sequence, and that this judgment may depend on the duration of the nasal segment. In this view, the spellings are essentially accurate as phonetic, but not phonemic representa-tions. 2. that children's spelling has an important kinesthetic component, that i t s segmentation corresponds to f e l t gestures, so that for children there can be a nasalized stop (a phonetic contradiction in most systems). 3. that young children's spelling actually anticipates the kind of abstraction found in standard English spelling, indeed excessively in this case. This claim contrasts most directly with the acoustic and articulatory narrowness put forth in 1 and 2 above. (Read, 1976, p. 57) 50 Read has c o n d u c t e d some e x p e r i m e n t s which i n d i c a t e t h a t c h i l d r e n do p e r -c e i v e t h e n a s a l i t y t h e y do n o t r e p r e s e n t . T h i s i s an a s s u m p t i o n s h a r e d by a l l t h r e e e x p l a n a t i o n s . F u r t h e r , M a l e c o t has p r o v i d e d some t h e o r e t i c a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e f i r s t e x p l a n a t i o n . He has shown "the p r e c o n s o n a n t a l n a s a l s have the e f f e c t o f n a s a l i z i n g p r e c e d i n g l a x vowels" (Read, 1970: p. 54). Of t h e t h r e e e x p l a n a t i o n s t h e f i r s t a p p e a r s , i n g e n e r a l , t o be t h e most a c c e p t a b l e . However, a l l t h r e e e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e a l i k e i n t h a t t h e y i n v o l v e a b s t r a c t i o n and t h a t p l a c e o f a r t i c u l a t i o n i s a major d i m e n s i o n and n a s a l i z a t i o n a minor d i m e n s i o n i n t h e c h i l d r e n ' s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f p r e -c o n s o n a n t a l n a s a l s . However, a l l t h a t can be c o n f i r m e d from t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y i s t h a t n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n , l i k e n a t i v e c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e a p h o n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p when c a t e g o r i z i n g p r e c o n s o n a n t a l n a s a l and o mit t h e n a s a l r e l a t i v e l y f r e q u e n t l y . S y l l a b i c Segments When /t/1 /1/1 /ff/1 o r /rV o c c u r i n an E n g l i s h word between two c o n s o n a n t s o r a t t h e end o f a word a f t e r a consonant, t h e y become s y l l a b i c . . . t h a t i s t h e segment becomes a s o - c a l l e d l o u d n e s s maximum and i s p e r c e i v e d as a s e p a r a t e s y l l a b l e . (Read, 1970: p. 57) In s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g t h e vowel i s u s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d by E and comes e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e s y l l a b i c segment. In b o t h Read's and th e p r e s e n t s t u d y t h e c h i l d r e n v i r t u a l l y n e v e r r e p r e s e n t the vowel. T a b l e 32 pre§ents t h e s p e l l i n g o f s y l l a b i c segments. The o m i s s i o n o f t h e vowel i n t h e s p e l l i n g o f s y l l a b i c segments i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g i n t h a t i t i s p r o b a b l y p h o n e t i c a l l y a c c u r a t e . I t i s n o t e -worthy t h a t once a g a i n , n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n make the same c a t e g o r i c a l j u d g -ments as t h e n a t i v e c h i l d r e n i n Read's s t u d y . Both c h i l d r e n made t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s h o r t r e d u c e d vowel which t h e y r e p r e s e n t i n an environment o t h e r t h a n fity', /&ty, /&r/'or /ar/ and t h e s o n o r a n t consonant. 51 Table 32 Sp e l l i n g s of S y l l a b i c Sonorants LITL ( l i t t l e ) TECR (teacher) KTN (kitten) OPN (open) TAIGR (tiger) BUTR (butter) MUTR (mother) TABL (table) Further, as Read points out . . . the f a c t that c h i l d r e n can make t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n shows that the category "vowel" (as opposed to s y l l a b l e only) i s a part of t h e i r phonetic a n a l y s i s . The c h i l d r e n t a c i t l y d i s t i n g u i s h among s y l l a b i c segments, between vowels and s y l l a b i c sonorants. This evidence supports the a s s e r t i o n that vowels c o n s t i t u t e a phonetic category f o r c h i l d r e n . (Read, 1970: p. 62) I n t e r v o c a l i c Flaps When an a l v e o l a r stop intervenes between two vowels there i s no contrast, i n t e r v o c a l i c a l l y , between / f/ and /c|/: both become a voiced tongue-tap or ' i n t e r v o c a l i c f l a p * . However, since the sound i s voiced i t i s c l o s e r to /d/. This i s an occasion f o r the c h i l d r e n to invent p h o n e t i c a l l y accurate but non-standard s p e l l i n g s . The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study f a i l e d to represent t h i s phonetic form. In f a c t they used the standard s p e l l i n g T i n words where t h e i r other representations were non-standard. The c h i l d r e n may have learned the standard form but i t i s doubtful since even i n t h e i r e a r l i e s t writings no examples of a phonetic representation of ' f l a p ' appeared. I t seems more l i k e l y , and l a t e r evidence w i l l support t h i s claim, that at a very e a r l y stage c h i l d r e n abstract from the d i f f e r e n c e they hear and t r e a t the v o i c i n g process as p r e d i c t a b l e and therefore redundant. I t i s noteworthy that although Read reports that young native c h i l d r e n represent t h i s phonetic v a r i a t i o n , he also reports " t h i s i s one of the e a r l i e s t invented s p e l l i n g s to disappear" 52 (Read, 1970: p. 48). He s u g g e s t s : . . . t h a t t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n between t h e v o i c e d f l a p and t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g v o i c e l e s s s t o p become a p a r t o f t h e s e c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge o f t h e l a n g u a g e , and t h a t t h e y a dopted the a b s t r a c t form i n t h e i r s p e l l i n g as a r e s u l t . (Read, 1970: p. 50) The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s c l e a r l y s u p p o r t i v e o f t h e n o t i o n t h a t young c h i l d r e n a b s t r a c t from p r e d i c t a b l e a l t e r n a t i o n s i n v o i c i n g . A l t e r n a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g v o i c i n g We f i n d o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n 1 s f a i l u r e t o r e p r e s e n t p h o n e t i c d i s t i n c t i o n s i n an a n a l y s i s o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s p e l l i n g o f morpho-phonemic a l t e r n a n t s . In E n g l i s h t h e r e i s a v o i c i n g a s s i m i l a t i o n r u l e f o r t h e ' p l u r a l ' , ' p o s s e s s i v e ' , ' t h i r d p e r s o n s i n g u l a r p r e s e n t t e n s e ' and ' p a s t t e n s e ' f o r m a t i v e s . C o n s i d e r t h e p a s t t e n s e f o r m a t i v e s i n : /jsrrjpy, / la&ff/ and /bekt/~ In each case t h e p h o n e t i c form o f t h e f o r m a t i v e i s /t/ which i s - v o i c e j u s t l i k e t h e l a s t c onsonant o f t h e r o o t t o which i t i s s u f f i x e d . Now c o n s i d e r : /faetjcf/, //ca/d/, and / h>jd/. I n each case t h e p h o n e t i c form o f t h e f o r m a t i v e i s + v o i c e j u s t l i k e t h e l a s t c o n s o n a n t o f t h e r o o t word t o which i t i s s u f f i x e d . In s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g t h e p a s t t e n s e s p e l l i n g i s ed whether i t o c c u r s i n i t s v o i c e d o r v o i c e l e s s v a r i a n t . The same s i t u a t i o n a p p l i e s t o p l u r a l s ; i n s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g t h e p l u r a l i s r e p r e s e n t e d as s_ whether i t s p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n i s /S / o r /z/. In o t h e r words t h e s t a n d a r d system a b s t r a c t s away from v o i c e d / v o i c e l e s s a l t e r n a t i o n s . The q u e s t i o n p o s e d h e r e i s : Do n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n r e p r e s e n t t h e p h o n e t i c r e a l i z a t i o n s o r do t h e y a b s t r a c t away from th e v o i c e d / v o i c e l e s s a l t e r n a -t i o n s and a s s i g n t h e s t a n d a r d form f o r b o t h p a s t t e n s e and p l u r a l markers? 53 Past-tense markers In t h e i r representation of past tense markers non-native c h i l d r e n , l i k e native c h i l d r e n , "generally represent past tense markers p h o n e t i c a l l y " (Read, 1976: p. 65). The c h i l d r e n s p e l l /t/ as T, /d/ as D, and /ac(/ as ID exactly l i k e the native c h i l d r e n . Table 33 presents examples of the s p e l l i n g s of the past tense. Table 33 Spell i n g s of past tense markers JIMPT (jumped) TAGD (tagged) STARTID (started) LAFT (laughed) FELD ( f i l l e d ) WATID (wanted) LAIKT (liked) WARD (walked) WATID (waited) There are two i n t e r e s t i n g notions which are r a i s e d from the evidence: the non-native c h i l d r e n d i d not, i n many instances, pronounce the f i n a l allophones /+/, / d / and /^c|/, however, t h e i r w ritten representation of these phones c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s that they perceived them. This i s us e f u l pedagogical information. The second poi n t of i n t e r e s t which i s r a i s e d from the chi l d r e n ' s representation of past tense i s that they overgeneral-i z e d t h e i r representations of the past tense markers of regular verbs and used these markers f o r i r r e g u l a r verbs a l s o . Table 34 presents examples of t h i s type of overgeneralization. Table 34 Overgeneralizations of representation of past tense GOD (goed) BAID (buyed) SIND (singed) HITID (hitted) TIKT (thinked) GEVD (gived) 54 These n o n - s t a n d a r d b u t p h o n e t i c a l l y a c c u r a t e s p e l l i n g s f o r p a s t t e n s e i n f l e c t i o n s p e r s i s t e d f o r some tim e even a f t e r f o r m a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g had begun. The P l u r a l Markers The c h i l d r e n ' s s p e l l i n g o f p l u r a l s and i n d e e d / z / i n g e n e r a l , i s e x t r e m e l y i n t e r e s t i n g . The most f r e q u e n t s p e l l i n g o f /Z/, as T a b l e 35 shows, i s S. The Z s p e l l i n g s o f / o c c u r w i t h o n l y 20% f r e q u e n c y . The h i g h f r e q u e n c y o f S r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f /z-/ o c c u r s as a r e s u l t o f c h i l d r e n ' s f a i l u r e t o mark v o i c e d and u n v o i c e d v a r i a n t s when t h e y s p e l l p l u r a l s . T a b l e 36 p r e s e n t s examples o f s p e l l i n g s o f /Z/ p l u r a l a l l o p h o n e s w i t h S„ T a b l e 35 Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e p l u r a l marker /z/ Phone S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . /V S 121 61 /z/ Z 40 20 (Appendix A, T a b l e 25) T a b l e 36 S p e l l i n g o f p l u r a l /Z/ w i t h S PEGS (p i g s ) COUS (cows) DORS (doors) HADS (hands) LADES ( l a d i e s ) PENS (pens) The c h i l d r e n a l s o o c c a s i o n a l l y u s e d S t o r e p r e s e n t /-Z/ i n p o s i t i o n s o t h e r t h a n i n f l e c t i o n s . T a b l e 37 p r e s e n t s examples o f such usage. 55 T a b l e 37 S p e l l i n g o f /Z./ w i t h S HES ( h i s ) SEPR ( z i p p e r ) WUS (was) SRO (zero) DIS (does) KOS (cause) The f a c t t h a t c h i l d r e n f r e q u e n t l y do n o t d i s t i n g u i s h between / / and / / r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n as t o whether o r n o t t h e c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e t h e two sounds as d i s t i n c t . From o b s e r v a t i o n t h e c h i l d r e n c e r t a i n l y appear t o p e r c e i v e t h e d i f f e r e n c e and f u r t h e r t h e y do, i n f a c t , r e p r e s e n t / / w i t h Z i n i n i t i a l p r e - v o c a l i c p o s i t i o n and a l s o i n f i n a l p o s i t i o n . T a b l e 38 p r e s e n t s examples o f s p e l l i n g o f /Z/ w i t h Z. T a b l e 38 S p e l l i n g s o f /z./ w i t h Z IZ ( i s ) ZU (zoo) HEZ ( h i s ) WAZ (was) DOZ (does) GOZ (goes) The answer i s , t h e r e f o r e , a f f i r m a t i v e . However, a p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' s use o f S t o r e p r e s e n t b o t h / S / and / 2 / may l i e i n t h e e x p l a n a t i o n which Read o f f e r s t o e x p l a i n t h i s same phenomenon i n t h e i n v e n t e d system o f n a t i v e c h i l d r e n . A c o n t r a s t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n d i s t i n g u i s h /s/ and /2J q u i t e e a r l y and, perhaps even b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g t o w r i t e , c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e i s p r e d i c t a b l e , so t h a t t h e s p e l l i n g can be a b s t r a c t e d from t h i s d i f f e r e n c e w i t h o u t l o s s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n may be a s l i g h t o v e r - g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , b u t n o t f o r p l u r a l s , t h e most common examples. (Read, 1970: p. 72) T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s p l a u s i b l e . Berko (1958) has shown t h a t t h e f o r m a t i o n o f p l u r a l s i s a c q u i r e d v e r y e a r l y i n t h e c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f morphology. 56 i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t young n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n a l s o a c q u i r e p l u r a l f o r m a t i o n a t an e a r l y s t a g e o f language a c q u i s i t i o n and i n t h e i r w r i t t e n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a b s t r a c t from t h e /s>/ and /2J d i f f e r e n c e s . The s p e l l i n g o f /J>Z/ was f a i r l y c o n s i s t e n t l y IS a l s o . One i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n remains i n a d i s c u s s i o n o f a l t e r n a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g v o i c i n g , t h a t i s , why does t h e s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g o f /«S/ and / Z / as p l u r a l markers appear e a r l i e r t h a n t h e s t o p p a s t t e n s e marker? I n t h e c a s e o f b o t h n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n t h e answer may s i m p l y be o r d e r o f a c q u i s i t i o n . Brown, de V i l l i e r s and B u r t and D u l a y i n t h e i r s t u d i e s o f f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n o r d e r o f n i n e f u n c t o r s have a l l shown t h a t p l u r a l s a r e a c q u i r e d b e f o r e p a s t r e g u l a r . T a b l e 39 p r e s e n t s f i r s t and second language a c q u i s i t i o n o r d e r s f o r b o t h the p l u r a l and t h e p a s t r e g u l a r . T a b l e 39 L I and L2 o r d e r s f o r p l u r a l and p a s t r e g u l a r L I Brown Rank O r d e r de V i l l i e r s Method. I de V i l l i e r s Method I I L2 Group Sc o r e Rank Order Group Mean SAI p l u r a l p a s t r e g u l a r 2 6 1.5 7.5 1 4 4 6 4 5 6 8.5 In a c q u i r i n g t h e p l u r a l e a r l i e r t h e c h i l d r e n have more time t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e i r o c c u r r e n c e i s p r e d i c t a b l e . The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f one phone \ e i t h e r /t-/ o r /dV w i t h two l e t t e r s ED may f u r t h e r s e r v e t o d e l a y t h e use o f t h e s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g f o r p a s t t e n s e markers. 57 C o n c l u s i o n As s t a t e d above, t h e c o n c l u s i o n s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d w i t h i n t h e frame-work o f t h e p r e v i o u s l y o u t l i n e d h y p o t h e s i s . 1. C h i l d r e n l e a r n i n g E n g l i s h as a second language can i n v e n t a s p e l l i n g system which i s c o n s i s t e n t and i s s y s t e m a t i c , t h a t i s , b a s e d on c a t e g o r i c a l judgments, p h o n e t i c p e r c e p t i o n s o r a knowledge o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s o f E n g l i s h . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h i s r e s e a r c h i s n o t an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g s c r e a t e d by t h e c h i l d r e n , r a t h e r i t i s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e system u n d e r l y i n g t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g s . The i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h i s system has b o t h t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e , whereas a s t u d y o f t h e i n v e n t e d forms t h e m s e l v e s p r e s e n t s o n l y a p a r t i a l and s u p e r f i c i a l a n a l y s i s -o f what can be d e t e r m i n e d from the c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g . Chomsky has p o s i t e d a fundamental d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e two t y p e s o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The f i r s t he c a l l s a s t u d y o f 'competence', t h e sec o n d a s t u d y o f 'perform-ance '. He s t a t e s : The p r o b l e m f o r t h e l i n g u i s t as w e l l as f o r the c h i l d l e a r n i n g t h e language, i s t o d e t e r m i n e from t h e d a t a o f performance t h e u n d e r l y i n g system o f r u l e s t h a t has been mastered by t h e s p e a k e r - h e a r e r and t h a t he p u t s t o use i n a c t u a l p e r f o r m a n c e . Hence i n t h e t e c h n i c a l s e n s e , l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y i s m e n t a l i s t i c , s i n c e i t i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h d i s c o v e r i n g a mental r e a l i t y u n d e r l y i n g a c t u a l b e h a v i o r . (Chomsky, 1958: p. 4) Competence i s the n an ' u n d e r l y i n g mental system'; i t i s n o t o b s e r v a b l e b e h a v i o u r . The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s i n a d d r e s s i n g the c h i l d r e n ' s competence r e q u i r e s a judgment t o be made which i s n o t based on d i r e c t e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e . T h i s t y p e o f m e n t a l i s t i c a p p roach i s o b v i o u s l y open t o c r i t i c i s m . However, i n making a judgment o f t h i s k i n d t h e a u t h o r i s n o t s i m p l y r e l y i n g on h e r n a t i v e s p eaker i n t u i t i o n s t o p l a y a r o l e i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a . R a t h e r , t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l be p r e s e n t e d t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e argument, and on t h i s b a s i s a judgment o f t h e c h i l d r e n ' s competence w i l l be made. 58 In making a judgment o f t h i s n a t u r e t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s must be c o n s i d e r e d : on an a n a l y s i s o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t vowels form a d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r y f o r t h e c h i l d r e n - Non-vowels were n e v e r used t o r e p r e s e n t vowels even when t h e vowel, f o r example / £ / , o c c u r r e d i n t h e l e t t e r name o f a non-vowel. Vowels, i n p a r t i c u l a r f r o n t vowels, were s u b j e c t t o an i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g w i t h f a r g r e a t e r f r e -quency t h a n non-vowels. F u r t h e r , i t was n o t e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p between l a x - t e n s e vowels. P r e c o n s o n a n t a l n a s a l s were o m i t t e d f r e q u e n t l y and i t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t c h i l d r e n may r e g a r d t h e n a s a l as a f e a t u r e o f t h e p r e c e d i n g vowel. T h i s s u g g e s t i o n has t h e o r e t i c a l s u p p o r t ( M a l e c o t , 1960). F u r t h e r , i n c a t e g o r i z i n g s y l l a b i c s o n o r a n t s t h e / s / was a l s o f r e q u e n t l y o m i t t e d and s i n g l e l e t t e r s M, L, N, and R r e p r e s e n t e d t h e whole s y l l a b i c segment. O t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s o f s y s t e m a t i c s p e l l i n g s were found i n an a n a l y s i s o f t h e e v i d e n c e . They a r e l e s s s u p p o r t i v e , however, i n t h a t t h e y may a l s o be a t t r i b u t e d t o the i n f l u e n c e o f s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g . The e v i d e n c e p o i n t s t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r y o f back-vowels f o r t h e c h i l d r e n . The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a l l back vowels was c o n s i s t e n t l y O. However, as t h i s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g o f t h e back vowels on many o c c a s i o n s , one cannot d e t e r m i n e t h e b a s i s o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between f r o n t and back vowels. I n g e n e r a l , i t appears as though backness i s a major d i m e n s i o n f o r c a t e g o r i z a t i o n f o r a l l vowels. The e v i d e n c e t h a t / + r / was s p e l l e d CHR on n i n e o c c a s i o n s i s a n o t h e r i n d i c a t o r o f s y s t e m a t i c s p e l l i n g . The c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e d t h e a f f r i c a t i o n o f / t / when i t p r e c e d e d / r V and r e p r e s e n t e d i t a c c o r d i n g l y . T h i s r e p r e -s e n t a t i o n i s n o t i n f l u e n c e d by s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g b u t t h e e v i d e n c e i s t o o l i m i t e d f o r any c o n c l u s i v e f i n d i n g s . . 59 F i n a l l y , t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g o f f l a p s , p a s t - t e n s e a f f i x e s and' p l u r a l a f f i x e s p r o v e s t o be i n t e r e s t i n g , i n t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p o i n t s t o a b s t r a c t i o n away from t h e p e r c e i v e d p h o n e t i c d i f f e r e n c e s where t h e s e d i f -f e r e n c e s a r e p r e d i c t a b l e and r u l e - b o u n d . The f l a p s and t h e p l u r a l i n f l e c -t i o n s a r e t h e c l e a r e s t examples, the p a s t t e n s e f o r t h e most p a r t b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d i n a p h o n e t i c a l l y a c c u r a t e b u t n o n - s t a n d a r d way. The a b s t r a c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f f l a p s and p l u r a l s would be s t r o n g l y s u p p o r t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r r u l e - b o u n d s p e l l i n g . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , however, the i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g i s a l s o s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g and t h i s p r o h i b i t s t h e use o f such s u p p o r t . The e v i d e n c e i s f r a g m e n t a r y b u t t h e w r i t e r b e l i e v e s i t t o be s t r o n g enough, a t t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y l e v e l , t o s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t non-n a t i v e c h i l d r e n can i n v e n t a s p e l l i n g system which i s a c c e p t a b l e t o a n a t i v e - s p e a k e r as a w r i t t e n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f E n g l i s h . The f i r s t hypo-t h e s i s i s , t h e r e f o r e , t e n a b l e . 2. The s p e l l i n g s ystem i n v e n t e d by second language l e a r n e r s w i l l be t h e same a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c g r o ups. An e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e f o r t y phone t a b l e s (Appendix A, T a b l e s 1-40) shows t h a t f o r t h e most p a r t th e c h i l d r e n a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c groups r e p r e -s e n t e d t h e v a r i o u s phones i n e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same way. However, t h e phones, / c / , / ^ / , / h / , /• /, /©/ and /%/ appear t o i n d i c a t e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c g r o u p s . A c l o s e r a n a l y s i s o f t h e s e phones may s e r v e t o c l a r i f y t h e s e p o s s i b l e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . As T a b l e 40 shows t h e most f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /<•/ i s CH, t h e s t a n d a r d form. T h i s i s o b v i o u s l y a l e a r n e d s p e l l i n g . The n e x t most f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /c/ i s C. The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /c/ w i t h C i s a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e from the I t a l i a n w r i t i n g system. One I t a l i a n c h i l d r e p r e s e n t e d / c / w i t h C w i t h 100% f r e q u e n c y . However, t h e 60 T a b l e 40 Summary o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / / C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . Pet. CH 7 50 7 41 0 0 6 43 20 41 C 4 29 5 29 8 100 0 0 17 35 T 3 21 4 24 0 0 3 21 10 20 f o u r examples o f C r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f A V f o r t h e C h i n e s e s u b j e c t s r e f l e c t 100% f r e q u e n c y o f such r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s by one C h i n e s e c h i l d . F u r t h e r , f o u r o f t h e f i v e examples o f t h e P u n j a b i s p e a k i n g s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f A V w i t h C r e f l e c t s 80% f r e q u e n c y o f t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by one P u n j a b i s p e a k e r . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , i m p o s s i b l e t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e I t a l i a n c h i l d ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s a r e s u l t o f i n t e r f e r e n c e . I t can be s t a t e d , however, t h a t whatever t h e s o u r c e o f t h e e r r o r i t i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e S.E.'s o f b o t h t h e C h i n e s e and P u n j a b i s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n . The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A j / w i t h K (shown i n T a b l e 41) has been d i s -c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y (Chapter 3, s e c t i o n on c o n s o n a n t s ) , however, i t i s n o t e -worthy t h a t t h e C h i n e s e c h i l d r e n used K as a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f A J / w i t h 14% f r e q u e n c y . T h i s c a n n o t be e x p l a i n e d by i n t e r f e r e n c e and i s t o o h i g h f o r random e r r o r . I t may be t h a t v o i c i n g i s a l e s s s a l i e n t f e a t u r e f o r some c h i l d r e n . T h e re i s s u p p o r t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r t h i s c l a i m d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h e s e c t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e two I t a l i a n c h i l d r e n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a r e once a g a i n b i f u r c a t e d ; t h e G r e p r e s e n t a t i o n r e f l e c t s 100% f r e q u e n c y f o r o n l y one I t a l i a n s u b j e c t . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , i m p o s s i b l e t o a s s e s s t h e degree t o which i n t e r f e r e n c e may o r may n o t be r e f l e c t e d i n t h e r e p r e s e n -t a t i o n o f / ( ) / w i t h K. 61 Table 41 Summary of the representations of /J/ Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. G 36 86 34 94 15 32 30 100 115 74 K 6 14 2 6 32 68 0 0 40 26 (Appendix A, Table 7) As Table 42 shows, the representations of /h/ are i n t e r e s t i n g i n that there i s a high frequency of omissions f o r both Romance language groups. These omissions may be as a r e s u l t of int e r f e r e n c e i n the produc-t i o n of /h/ i n spoken E n g l i s h by these students. However, i n other instances the c h i l d r e n represented phones which they d i d not produce. A more p l a u s i b l e explanation may l i e i n the f a c t that fa/ does not occur i n a letter-name. This i s a learned representation. The omission may simply r e f l e c t the f a c t that the c h i l d r e n do not know how to represent / / ) / . Table 42 Summary of the representations of /h/ Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. H 30 100 35 97 12 52 20 54 97 77 omit 0 0 1 2 11 48 17 46 29 23 The representation of /\/ (Table 5) i s perhaps the c l e a r e s t example of p o s s i b l e inconsistency across l i n g u i s t i c groups. As stated above, however, native language interference may not be the s i n g l e p l a u s i b l e explanation f o r the I representation of /»/. The other i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s 62 T a b l e 5 ( r e p e a t e d f o r c o n v e n i e n c e ) Summary o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / i / C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . E 48 41 59 44 18 25 6 12 131 37 Y 38 22 32 27 0 0 0 0 70 20 I 12 10 14 12 54 74 43 88 123 34 a r e t h a t t h e I r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s b a s e d on a c a t e g o r i c a l judgment a c r o s s / i / and /&y/, w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n i g n o r i n g t h e d i p h t h o n g i z a t i o n and t e n s e n e s s and r e p r e s e n t i n g /'\ / w i t h /ay/. T h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s n o t w i t h o u t sup-p o r t i v e e v i d e n c e . C h i l d r e n a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c groups r e p r e s e n t e d /&/ w i t h /6y/ r e l a t i n g t h e v o c a l i c n u c l e u s o f t h e l e t t e r - n a m e t o t h e phone and i g n o r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n l e n g t h , t e n s e n e s s and d i p h t h o n g i z a t i o n . F u r t h e r t h e C h i n e s e and P u n j a b i c h i l d r e n r e p r e s e n t e d /) / w i t h I 10% and 12% r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s cannot be a c c o u n t e d f o r by i n t e r f e r e n c e and i s t o o h i g h f o r random e r r o r . The I r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f / //, t h e r e f o r e , cannot be d e t e r -mined as i n c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s language g r o u p s . F i n a l l y , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f b o t h /&/ and /J/" ( T a b l e 43) a r e e x t r e m e l y i n t e r e s t i n g . They s e r v e t o p r o v i d e c o u n t e r - e v i d e n c e t o t h e n o t i o n o f i n t e r f e r e n c e . C o n s i d e r t h e s p e l l i n g o f /©/. The most f r e q u e n t s p e l l i n g i s t h e s t a n d a r d form TH. As f o r /c7 t h e s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g i s c l e a r l y n o t i n v e n t e d and has been l e a r n e d . The phone /&/ i s a s o u r c e o f i n t e r f e r e n c e from I t a l i a n and P o r t u g u e s e . The F r e n c h / P o r t u g u e s e b i l i n g u a l c h i l d u s e s the s t a n d a r d form w i t h 75% f r e q u e n c y , so t h a t t h e r e i s no e v i -dence o f i n t e r f e r e n c e . The I t a l i a n c h i l d r e n use t h e s t a n d a r d form w i t h 41% f r e q u e n c y . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e r e a r e no examples o f the p r e d i c t e d 63 Table 43 Summary of the representations of /Q/ and /X/ Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l Phone S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. TH 13 41 15 47 7 41 9 75 44 47 T 9 28 17 53 0 0 0 0 26 28 D 5 16 0 0 5 29 0 0 10 11 T 22 73 14 42 2 10 12 100 50 52 D 4 13 0 0 18 90 0 0 22 23 TH 4 13 12 36 0 0 0 0 16 17 (Appendix A, Tables 32 and 33) inte r f e r e n c e , that i s T s p e l l i n g s , i n the w r i t i n g of the I t a l i a n subjects. I t i s noteworthy, however, that there were f i v e examples of D representa-t i o n s o f /O/ a l l with the s p e l l i n g D. The examples of D representations of /€/ a l l come from the same c h i l d who s p e l l e d /^/ with K. I t seems that t h i s c h i l d does not perceive a d i f f e r e n c e i n v o i c i n g between c e r t a i n phones. One Chinese student also c o n s i s t e n t l y used D to represent /Q/, c l e a r l y , he a l s o ignored the v o i c i n g d i s t i n c t i o n . The most frequent representation of A V was T. A p l a u s i b l e explanation f o r t h i s represen-t a t i o n , and one that i s supported by the wr i t e r ' s observation, i s that i t was used to make a v i s u a l d i s t i n c t i o n between /&/ and rather than a ph o n e t i c a l l y based d i s t i n c t i o n . The c h i l d r e n learned the standard form of /©/ f i r s t : 'thank' and 'three' were high frequency words which were acquired e a r l y by the c h i l d r e n . When required to represent /"&/ they may have perceived a d i f f e r e n c e i n v o i c i n g and assigned a d i f f e r e n t represen-t a t i o n f o r /£/ on a v i s u a l b a s i s ; that i s they omitted the H. I t i s extremely d i f f i c u l t to determine co n c l u s i v e l y exactly how the ch i l d r e n a r r i v e d at t h e i r representation- f o r the various speech sounds of 64 E n g l i s h . Some o f t h e e r r o r s , t h a t i s n o n - s t a n d a r d forms, were s y s t e m a t i c , o t h e r s were n o t . The l a t t e r t y p e o f e r r o r s were, i n terms o f R i c h a r d ' s taxonomy, random e r r o r s . T h e r e were s u r p r i s i n g l y few e r r o r s o f t h i s t y p e . F o r t h e most p a r t t h e r e was a p l a u s i b l e r e a s o n f o r each r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e c h i l d r e n w r o t e . The former t y p e o f e r r o r can be t r a c e d back t o s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s . Some e r r o r s , f o r example I f o r ///, were p o s s i b l y c a u s e d by i n t e r f e r e n c e from t h e c h i l d ' s n a t i v e l anguage. However, f o r each S.E. which c o u l d be a c c o u n t e d f o r by i n t e r f e r e n c e , t h e r e was always a n o t h e r e q u a l l y p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r such a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . T h i s i s n o t t o r e j e c t t h e n o t i o n o f i n t e r f e r e n c e as a p o s s i b l e s o u r c e o f S.E., i t i s , however, not p o s s i b l e from t h e e v i d e n c e t o s t a t e c o n c l u s i v e l y t h a t i n t e r f e r e n c e i s a s o u r c e o f S.E. Some S.E. a r e caused by o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . F o r example, as t h e e v i d e n c e has shown t h e c h i l d r e n a b s t r a c t from t h e p h o n e t i c a l l y a c c u r a t e /&/, /zy d i s t i n c t i o n i n p l u r a l a f f i x e s and r e p r e s e n t b o t h p l u r a l a l l o m o r p h s w i t h S. They o v e r g e n e r a l i z e t h i s knowledge and r e p r e s e n t / £ / i n e n v i r o n -ments o t h e r t h a n t h e p l u r a l i n f l e c t i o n w i t h S a l s o . By f a r t h e m a j o r i t y o f e r r o r s (S.E.) a r e , however, 'markers o f t r a n s i t i o n a l competence'. The c h i l d r e n a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c groups b a s e t h e i r systems on c e r t a i n a s s e r t i o n s about E n g l i s h p h onology. They p e r c e i v e p h o n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c r o s s members o f d i f f e r e n t phonemes and o r g a n i s e t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s i n a way which e n a b l e s them t o i n v e n t a s p e l l i n g system. An a n a l y s i s o f t h e i n v e n t e d systems, summarized i n Appendix A, T a b l e s 1-40, shows t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e spoken forms a r e r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r . I t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f S.E.'s c a u s e d by t r a n s i t i o n a l competence a r e a l s o r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r . T h i s t y p e o f e r r o r r e s u l t s from l a c k o f f o r m a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n s t a n d a r d E n g l i s h o r t h o g r a p h y . 65 The argument may be r a i s e d t h a t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f f e r e d h e r e a r e ad hoc, t h a t i s f o r any s p e l l i n g o d d i t y a s i n g l e f e a t u r e e x p l a n a t i o n may be o f f e r e d . The a u t h o r r e c o g n i z e s t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d . However, the c o n s i s t e n c y w i t h which t h e c h i l d r e n chose c e r t a i n a r t i c u l a t o r y d i m e n s i o n s as a means o f i n v e n t i n g t h e i r s p e l l i n g s must s t a n d as t h e counter-argument t o any arguments o f t h i s n a t u r e . In c o n c l u s i o n t h e n , t h e s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y o f S.E.'s cau s e d by t r a n s i t i o n a l competence, the s i m i l a r i t y i n o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c groups and t h e l a c k o f c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t an i n t e r -f e r e n c e h y p o t h e s i s t o g e t h e r s u g g e s t t h a t c h i l d r e n a c r o s s l i n g u i s t i c groups can i n v e n t a s i m i l a r system. The second h y p o t h e s i s i s t h e r e f o r e t e n a b l e , b e a r i n g i n mind t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t o any c l a i m f o r a b s o l u t e s i m i l a r i t y . 3. The s p e l l i n g s ystem i n v e n t e d by second language l e a r n e r s w i l l show s i m i l a r i t i e s t o t h e system i n v e n t e d by f i r s t l anguage l e a r n e r s as d e s c r i b e d by Read 1970. A l t h o u g h b o t h n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n i n v e n t e d e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same system, two a r e a s need f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n b e f o r e t h e t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s can be h e l d t e n a b l e o r n o n - t e n a b l e . The f i r s t o f t h e a r e a s t o be d i s c u s s e d i s t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t e n s e vowels. As T a b l e 44 shows t h e most f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /Q./ f o r b o t h n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n i s A. However, E i s a r e l a t i v e l y low f r e q u e n c y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r f i r s t language c h i l d r e n , i t i s a r e l a -t i v e l y h i g h f r e q u e n c y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r t h e second language c h i l d r e n . The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f / ) / by b o t h groups p o i n t up t h e d i f f e r e n c e more c l e a r l y . F o r b o t h groups t h e most f r e q u e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s E . How-e v e r , f o r t h e n o n - n a t i v e group t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f / l / i s a l m o s t b i m o d a l , the o t h e r mode b e i n g I ( 3 4 % ) . The n a t i v e group r e p r e s e n t s / i / w i t h I 66 T a b l e 44 Comparison o f L I and L2 c h i l d r e n ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e t e n s e vowels L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n Phone S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . A 191 68.2 151 58.3 E 11 3.9 56 27.6 E 221 44.6 131 36.6 I 35 7.1 123 34.4 I 176 77.5 118 50.6 AI 2 0.9 91 39.1 0 171 69.5 132 78.6 a/u 25 61.0 32 76.2 (Appendix B, T a b l e s 27, 26, 36, 15 and 40) o n l y on 6% o f t h e o c c a s i o n s . F u r t h e r , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f /&y/ i s once a g a i n d i f f e r e n t a c r o s s n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e g r o u p s . The r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was t h e most f r e q u e n t f o r b o t h g r o u p s , however, AI s p e l l i n g s were used on 39% o f t h e p o s s i b l e o c c a s i o n s by n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n and o n l y 0.9% by n a t i v e c h i l d r e n . The d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e t e n s e vowels o c c u r o n l y i n t h e t e n s e f r o n t v o w e l s . As T a b l e 44 p o i n t s up the s p e l l i n g s f o r t h e t e n s e back vowels were c o n s i s t e n t a c r o s s b o t h g r o u p s . G i v e n t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n a r e c a p a b l e o f making c a t e g o r i c a l judgments and do p e r c e i v e p h o n e t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s a c r o s s members o f d i f f e r e n t phones, one assumes t h a t t h e r e i s a r e a s o n f o r t h e i r f r e q u e n t f a i l u r e t o use t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l l e t t e r - n a m e s A, E and I t o r e p r e s e n t t h e phone /€/, / » / and /&y/. The a u t h o r s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e S.E.'s a r e d e v e l o p m e n t a l i n n a t u r e . I n h i s o b s e r v a t i o n o f t h e development o f f i r s t l anguage c h i l d r e n ' s i n v e n t e d system Read n o t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g : A f t e r t h e y knew t h e s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g f o r t h e l a x vowels, /!/, /£./ and /^/, some c h i l d r e n o c c a s i o n a l l y adopted t h a t s p e l l i n g f o r t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g t e n s e - v o w e l , thus w r i t i n g I f o r / » / , E f o r /€/, and 67 even AY or AI for /dU"/. Having learned the p r e v a i l i n g s p e l l i n g f o r . the lax vowels, these c h i l d r e n sometimes maintained the correspon-dence between tense and lax vowels, even at the cost of overthrowing the straightforward correspondence between tense vowels and l e t t e r -names with which they t y p i c a l l y had begun. (Read, 1976: p. 46) In other words i t could be that the d i s t i n c t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the represen-t a t i o n s of the f r o n t tense vowels by the native and non-native c h i l d r e n were developmental. They may have been a r e s u l t of the age d i f f e r e n c e and the consequent formal i n s t r u c t i o n i n reading and w r i t i n g received by the second language students rather than any i n t r i n s i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n the systems of both groups. I t i s noteworthy that an explanation of t h i s nature serves as yet another example of counter-evidence to the notion of f i r s t language in t e r f e r e n c e i n representing /// with I. The second area of d i f f e r e n c e i n the s p e l l i n g s invented by both groups i s the number of representations put forward by each group f o r any given phone. An a n a l y s i s of Appendix B, Tables 1-40, shows that i n general the f i r s t language c h i l d r e n used f a r more representations f o r each phone that d i d the second language groups. Once again the reason may be developmental. The younger native c h i l d r e n represented the phones, at times, i n a way which could only be explained by random e r r o r . They grouped together 'non-English' consonant and vowel c l u s t e r s f o r example, KCE for /K./, UOO f o r /Ci/• The non-native c h i l d r e n d i d not represent the phones i n a way which was not v i s u a l l y acceptable as an E n g l i s h l e t t e r combination. The age f a c t o r appears to make a d i f f e r e n c e i n t h i s d i r e c -t i o n . An a l t e r n a t i v e explanation may l i e i n the f a c t that i n Read's study 32 c h i l d r e n contributed words with non-standard s p e l l i n g s . Of these 32 c h i l d r e n seventeen contributed fewer than 25 words each. The v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t s p e l l i n g s may be caused by the i n c l u s i o n of the invented s p e l l -ings of a large number of c h i l d r e n who wrote in f r e q u e n t l y . 68 In g e n e r a l , t h e n , a p a r t from d i f f e r e n c e s o f a d e v e l o p m e n t a l n a t u r e , t h e s p e l l i n g systems i n v e n t e d by second language l e a r n e r s show s i m i l a r -i t i e s t o t h e system i n v e n t e d by f i r s t l a n guage l e a r n e r s , as d e s c r i b e d by Read, 1970. The a u t h o r i s aware t h a t a s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s h o u l d be used on t h e 40 t a b l e s (Appendix B, T a b l e s 1-40) i n o r d e r t o g i v e a s t a t i s t i c a l b a s i s f o r any d e c i s i o n as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s . How-e v e r , t h e e n o r m i t y o f the t a s k has p r e v e n t e d s u c h an u n d e r t a k i n g t o d a t e . I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , on an i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c r a t h e r t h a n s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a t h a t t h e t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s i s h e l d t o be t e n a b l e . CHAPTER IV Comparison w i t h o t h e r Approaches t o L i t e r a c y Any t e a c h e r c o n c e r n e d i n t e a c h i n g E n g l i s h as a second language i n e v i t a b l y f a c e s c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f l i t e r a c y s k i l l s . When, f o r i n s t a n c e , s h o u l d r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g be t a u g h t ? I s t h e t e a c h i n g o f l i t e r a c y s k i l l s p a r t o f t h e E.S.L. t e a c h e r ' s r o l e o r s h o u l d she d i r e c t h e r e n e r g i e s t o g u i d i n g t h e c h i l d r e n t o o r a l f l u e n c y ? What method s h o u l d be used t o t e a c h t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d t o read? F a c e d w i t h so many q u e s t i o n s o f t h i s n a t u r e , i t i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h e t e a c h i n g o f l i t e r a c y s k i l l s has been an a r e a o f c o n f u s i o n and bewilderment f o r many E.S.L. t e a c h e r s . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h a d d r e s s e s i t s e l f t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s . T h i s c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s t h e s p e c i a l needs o f the n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d , f o l l o w e d by an e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e c u r r e n t approaches t o t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g and f i n a l l y d i s c u s s e s t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n t h i s r e s e a r c h hopes t o make t o n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s a c q u i s i t i o n o f l i t e r a c y . I n o r d e r t o t e a c h t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d t o r e a d t h e r e a r e t h r e e main a r e a s o f c o n c e r n which t h e t e a c h e r and h e r r e a d i n g program must t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i f t h e y a r e t o e f f e c t i v e l y g u i d e t h e c h i l d t o l i t e r a c y . They a r e t h e c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e and v a l u e s o f t h e c h i l d , t h e c h i l d ' s sense o f s e l f - r e s p e c t , and t h e c h i l d ' s language a b i l i t y . I n t e a c h i n g l i t e r a c y i t i s e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e t e a c h e r o f n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n , and t h e program she ado p t s , be s e n s i t i v e t o t h e c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e and t h e c u l t u r a l v a l u e s o f t h e c h i l d r e n she t e a c h e s . 69* 70 F o r t h e most p a r t t h e t e a c h e r w i l l come from a background where t h e h e r i t a g e and v a l u e s a r e r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e o f h e r s t u d e n t s . These d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l r e s u l t from many d i f f e r e n t s o u r c e s : background o f e x p e r i e n c e s , s o c i o e c o n o m i c l e v e l , r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s , t h e r o l e o f t h e sexes and t h e l i k e . To be s u c c e s s f u l i n t e a c h i n g t h e v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds t h e t e a c h e r , and h e r m a t e r i a l s , must n o t impose t h e i r own v a l u e s t o t h e disparagement o f t h o s e i d e a s and v a l u e s h e l d by t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r p a r e n t s . R a t h e r , t h e y s h o u l d s e r v e t o b r i d g e t h e gap between t h e n a t i v e and n o n - n a t i v e c u l t u r e s . Many c h i l d r e n may come from environments i n which t h e y have n o t a c q u i r e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s i n t h e Ca n a d i a n s c h o o l system. The n o t i o n s o f r e s p e c t f o r p e r s o n a l and common p r o p e r t y , s h a r i n g , t a k i n g t u r n s and so on may be t o t a l l y a l i e n t o t h e c h i l d . A l t h o u g h t h e s e b e h a v i o u r a l p a t t e r n s may seem fundamental t o t h e t e a c h e r , t h e y may n o t come n a t u r a l l y t o many o f h e r s t u d e n t s . Her r o l e , t h e r e -f o r e , i s n o t s i m p l y one o f t e a c h i n g t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s k i l l s o f r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g b u t d o i n g so w i t h i n a framework whereby t h e v a l u e s o f t h e new c u l t u r e a r e t a u g h t ' p a i n l e s s l y ' , w i t h o u t t h e c h i l d f e e l i n g i n any way t h r e a t e n e d , a l i e n a t e d o r i n f e r i o r . T h i s l e a d s t o t h e second a r e a o f c o n c e r n , namely t h e c h i l d ' s sense o f p e r s o n a l worth. In o r d e r t o e s t a b l i s h o r m a i n t a i n a sense o f p e r s o n a l w orth, i t i s e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t t h a t t h e c l a s s r o o m atmosphere s h o u l d be, f i r s t and f o r e m o s t , one o f t r u s t . The c h i l d r e n s h o u l d f e e l f r e e t o r e l a x , t o be happy and t o s h a r e t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h t h e t e a c h e r and w i t h each o t h e r . A c h i l d w i l l n o t l e a r n E n g l i s h , e i t h e r spoken o r w r i t t e n , o r any-t h i n g e l s e f o r t h a t m a t t e r , u n l e s s he i s m o t i v a t e d t o do s o . F o r young c h i l d r e n , t h e i d e a o f ' f u t u r i t y ' , t h a t i s o f l e a r n i n g now f o r t h e p r o m i s e 71 o f t h i n g s i n t h e f u t u r e , s i m p l y does n o t h o l d . The c h i l d w i l l l e a r n t o speak, r e a d and w r i t e E n g l i s h b e s t when he i s happy, r e l a x e d and d e s i r o u s o f communicating w i t h h i s p e e r s who a r e l i k e l y t o be from o t h e r language groups. The i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y program i n t r o d u c e d by t h e t e a c h e r must encourage and f o s t e r a happy, r e l a x e d c l a s s r o o m atmosphere. The t e a c h e r must t a k e c a r e t h a t when she i n t r o d u c e s r e a d i n g i n t o t h e c l a s s r o o m she does n o t a l s o i n t r o d u c e c o m p e t i t i o n , a n x i e t y and f r u s t r a t i o n . I f a c h i l d e x p e r i e n c e s s u c c e s s , i n i t i a l l y , he w i l l d e v e l o p a h e a l t h y a t t i t u d e t o r e a d i n g and a h e a l t h y s e l f - i m a g e . I f a c h i l d e x p e r i e n c e s d i f f i c u l t y , a d e f e a t i s t a t t i t u d e and a h a t r e d o f r e a d i n g w i l l ensue. The t e a c h e r ' s own a t t i t u d e i s i m p o r t a n t b u t so i s h e r c h o i c e o f an i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y program. T o g e t h e r t h e y w i l l d e t e r m i n e , t o a l a r g e e x t e n t , t h e s u c c e s s o r f a i l u r e o f many c h i l d r e n . F i n a l l y , t h e s p e c i a l language needs o f t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d must be met, i n o r d e r f o r him t o e f f e c t i v e l y a c q u i r e l i t e r a c y . O f t e n t i m e s , t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d ' s v o c a b u l a r y i s i n a d e q u a t e f o r him t o comprehend t h e mater-i a l s he i s b e i n g a s k e d t o r e a d . F u r t h e r , t h e c o n c e p t s he must p r o c e s s may n o t be w i t h i n h i s range o f e x p e r i e n c e . I n a s k i n g t h e c h i l d t o l e a r n t o r e a d u s i n g m a t e r i a l s o f t h i s k i n d , one demands t h a t he p e r f o r m a t a s k o f i n c r e d i b l e magnitude. The c h i l d must decode t h e new word, a c q u i r e a new l e x i c a l i t e m and p r o c e s s a new c o n c e p t a l l a t once. Even when t h e r e a d -i n g m a t e r i a l does c o n t r o l f o r v o c a b u l a r y , few r e a d i n g s e r i e s base t h e i r c o n t r o l on e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e as t o e i t h e r f r e q u e n c y o f word usage o r r e l e v a n c e t o c h i l d language. F u r t h e r , i t i s o n l y r a r e l y t h a t r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l s t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e s y n t a c t i c forms used by young c h i l -d r e n . G e n e r a l l y , t h e word o r d e r and t h e degree o f c o m p l e x i t y i n t h e s e n t e n c e w i l l be f a r removed from t h o s e s y n t a c t i c forms used by young 72 c h i l d r e n . These three concerns then, the concern for c u l t u r a l heritage and values, the concern f o r the c h i l d ' s f e e l i n g of personal worth, and the concern f o r the language used by c h i l d r e n , w i l l be used as c r i t e r i a f o r judging the current approaches to reading and the c o n t r i b u t i o n the present research can make i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n . For the purposes of t h i s study two main approaches to teaching l i t e r a c y to non-native c h i l d r e n w i l l be discussed. They are the Native L i t e r a c y approach and the Standard Language approach. The native l i t e r a c y approach i s based on the assumption that the most e f f e c t i v e method f o r teaching non-native c h i l d r e n to read E n g l i s h i s to teach the c h i l d native-language l i t e r a c y f i r s t , then teach o r a l E n g l i s h fluency and f i n a l l y teach reading i n E n g l i s h . This approach has gained support i n that i t does not hold back the c h i l d ' s development i n acquiring native l i t e r a c y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l l y as w e l l as l o g i c a l l y t h i s approach makes sense. Both non-native c h i l d r e n and t h e i r parents often f e e l that time i s being l o s t or wasted i f school hours are not spent i n becoming l i t e r a t e . This approach also has the advantage of recognizing the c h i l d ' s own c u l t u r a l heritage and values, developing h i s knowledge and understanding of these while i n another country. F i n a l l y t h i s approach enables the d i f f i c u l t task of learning to read to be undertaken i n the language with which the c h i l d i s most f a m i l i a r and therefore most comfortable. A n a t u r a l r e s u l t of t h i s approach would seem to be a healthy self-image f o r the non-native learner. This approach, therefore, seems to f i t the three c r i t e r i a out-l i n e d f o r a good i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y program. There are, however, disadvantages. The main disadvantage of t h i s program i s that i t i s simply not 73 p r a c t i c a l . T h e r e a r e n o t , f o r i n s t a n c e , enough t r a i n e d t e a c h e r s who c o u l d i n s t r u c t f o r n a t i v e language l i t e r a c y . F u r t h e r , i f t h i s t y p e o f approach were adopted c h i l d r e n would be i n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o n a t i v e language backgrounds. One o f t h e s t r o n g e s t m o t i v a t i o n s t o l e a r n E n g l i s h i s t o communicate w i t h c h i l d r e n who do n o t speak t h e same n a t i v e language, i . e . , where t h e o n l y common language i s E n g l i s h . In s e t t i n g up c l a s s r o o m s on t h e b a s i s o f n a t i v e language backgrounds t h i s p o w e r f u l m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r i s removed. F i n a l l y , and perhaps t h e most p r a c t i c a l i s s u e o f a l l , t h e n a t i v e l i t e r a c y a p p r oach t o t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g i s e x p e n s i v e . I t r e q u i r e s t h a t m a t e r i a l be bought a t a v a r i e t y o f l e v e l s , f o r a v a r i e t y o f language backgrounds. C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h i s a p p r oach would be implemented i n many s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s . The second approach i s one i n which t h e t e a c h i n g o f o r a l E n g l i s h comes f i r s t f o l l o w e d by t h e t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g . T h i s approach d e l a y s t h e t e a c h i n g o f r e a d i n g from f o u r months t o a y e a r , d e p e n d i n g on t h e c h i l d and t h e t e a c h e r . W i t h i n t h i s approach t h e r e a r e many methods, each w i t h i t s own p h i l o s o p h y and emphasis. The f o u r d i s c u s s e d h e r e a r e t h e most com-monly used; t h e b a s a l a p p r o a c h , t h e l i n g u i s t i c a p p r o a c h , t h e i n d i v i d u a l -i z e d a pproach, t h e l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e approach. The b a s a l approach has been used e x t e n s i v e l y o v e r t h e y e a r s t o t e a c h n a t i v e E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n t o r e a d . T h i s use has a l s o been extended i n many c l a s s r o o m s t o t e a c h i n g n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d r e n t o r e a d . The c o r n e r s t o n e o f t h i s a p p r o a c h i s t h a t i t p r e s e n t s t h e r e a d i n g s k i l l s i n an o r d e r l y s e q u e n t i a l p l a n t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f r e a d e r s . The advantages o f such a program a r e t h a t t h e l e s s o n , i t s p r e p a r a t i o n and p l a n a r e c a r e f u l l y l a i d o u t f o r t h e t e a c h e r . I t g u a r a n t e e s t h a t , i f f o l l o w e d c a r e f u l l y , t h e c h i l d w i l l be exposed t o a l l t h e s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y t o decode. T h e r e a r e 74 u s u a l l y s u g g e s t i o n s f o r o r a l language a c t i v i t i e s and i n g e n e r a l t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e program i s a r r a n g e d f o r t h e t e a c h e r . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h a t i s , t h e removal o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and time p r e s s u r e s , from the t e a c h e r , t h i s t y p e o f program i s f a v o u r e d by many. The d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f a b a s a l approach a r e t h e w h i t e , m i d d l e c l a s s emphasis o f t h e s t o r y c o n t e n t , t h e tendency t o p r o d u c e c o m p e t i t i o n , and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e language. In g e n e r a l t h e r e a r e few s t o r i e s t o which the n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d can r e l a t e . F u r t h e r t h e r e a d e r s a r e r i g i d l y s t r u c -t u r e d i n terms o f d i f f i c u l t y and t h e c h i l d r e n d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e g r o u p s , low, average and h i g h f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s . The r e s u l t o f t h i s t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n i s , o n l y t o o f r e q u e n t l y , a h i e r a r c h i c a l s o c i a l s ystem w i t h i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . T h i s t y p e o f system c r e a t e s t h e k i n d o f t e n s i o n s o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r as b e i n g d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a h e a l t h y s e l f - i m a g e , t h a t i s c o m p e t i t i o n , f r u s t r a t i o n , a n x i e t y , i n f e r i o r i t y complexes and t h e l i k e . I n terms o f t h e language used i n b a s a l programs, s t r i c t c o n t r o l i s u s u a l l y p l a c e d on v o c a b u l a r y and s e n t e n c e l e n g t h b u t no c o n t r o l i s p l a c e d on s y n t a x o r t h e r e l e v a n c e o f t h e language used t o t h e c h i l d r e n . The s e n t e n c e s a r e s h o r t which u s u a l l y means t h a t complex t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s must be i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e c h i l d b e f o r e any r e a s o n a b l y m e a n i n g f u l u t t e r a n c e can be o b t a i n e d . A l t h o u g h t h e a u t h o r i s aware t h a t good t e a c h i n g makes a d i f f e r e n c e t o any r e a d i n g a p p r o a c h , t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a p p r oach i s v e r y f a r removed from the c r i t e r i a s e t o u t f o r t h e s u i t a b i l i t y o f a r e a d i n g a p p r o a c h . C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t i s n o t t o be recommended as a r e a s o n a b l e means o f t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g t o n o n - n a t i v e s t u d e n t s . The s o - c a l l e d ' l i n g u i s t i c ' a pproach t o r e a d i n g i s i n many ways l i k e t h e b a s a l a p p r o a c h . However, what i s meant by t h e d e s c r i p t i o n ' l i n g u i s t i c ' i s n o t c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d . Reading s e r i e s b e a r i n g t h i s l a b e l do s h a r e 75 some common f e a t u r e s , however, which s e r v e t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e them somewhat from t h e b a s a l approach. With t h i s t y p e o f approach the emphasis i s b a s e d on t h e d e c o d i n g a s p e c t o f r e a d i n g . P u p i l s a r e encouraged t o seek p a t t e r n s and word f a m i l i e s as a b a s i s f o r u n l o c k i n g u n f a m i l i a r words. A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e some n o t a b l e e x c e p t i o n s , t h e Miami L i n g u i s t i c s e r i e s f o r example, t h i s t y p e o f approach t o r e a d i n g s h a r e s t h o s e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f t h e b a s a l s e r i e s o u t l i n e d above p l u s some o f i t s own. The c o n t r o l p l a c e d on phoneme-grapheme c o r r e s p o n d e n c e l e a d s t o t o t a l l y u n n a t u r a l u t t e r a n c e s which a r e b o t h b a n a l and u n i n t e r e s t i n g . Even t h e Miami L i n g u i s t i c s e r i e s f a l l s i n t o t h i s t r a p i n i t s i n i t i a l r e a d e r s . F u r t h e r , t h e l i n g u i s t i c a p proach encourages w o r d - c a l l i n g p r a c t i c e s as opposed t o r e a d i n g . C h i l d r e n o f t e n c o n f u s e e x a c t l y what i s meant by r e a d i n g a f t e r b e i n g i n s t r u c t e d i n t h i s approach. They t e n d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t r e a d i n g and g a i n i n g meaning from t h e p r i n t e d word a r e two d i f f e r e n t p r o c e s s e s . T h i s i s a d i f f i c u l t c o n c e p t t o change once i t has been formed. The l i n g u i s t i c a p p r o ach t h e r e f o r e , does n o t p r o v i d e a s u i t a b l e v e h i c l e f o r t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g t o t h e n o n - n a t i v e c h i l d . The i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach t o r e a d i n g i s b a s e d on t h e assumption t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e c a p a b l e o f t h r e e p r o c e s s e s : s e l f - s t a r t i n g , s e l f - p a c i n g and s e l f - s e l e c t i n g . I t r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e t e a c h e r know a g r e a t d e a l about t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e i r language background, t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s , m o t i v -a t i o n s and t h e l i k e . A l a r g e v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t books a r e n e c e s s a r y f o r t h i s program t o be e f f e c t i v e and t h e t e a c h e r must keep e x t e n s i v e r e c o r d s o f t h e books r e a d by t h e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r r e a c t i o n s t o them. T h i s approach o b v i o u s l y has i t s advantages. The t e a c h e r can s e l e c t books which i n c l u d e s t o r i e s d e p i c t i n g e x p e r i e n c e s t h e c h i l d r e n can r e l a t e t o , t h u s making s u r e t h a t t h e c h i l d i s n o t d i v o r c e d f o r e x t e n d i n g h i s 76 knowledge of h i s c u l t u r a l background and providing f a m i l i a r themes with which the c h i l d can p r a c t i c e h i s reading s k i l l s . This type of approach tends to eliminate competition and allows the c h i l d to read at a pace which i s comfortable to him, thus f o s t e r i n g h i s s e l f - r e s p e c t . F i n a l l y , of course, i n her s e l e c t i o n of the reading materials the teacher can ensure that the language used w i l l be i n keeping with the language of the c l a s s -room and the s y n t a c t i c forms f a m i l i a r to the c h i l d r e n . This approach appears to meet the needs of non-native c h i l d r e n . However, an approach of t h i s kind i s not without i t s problems. I t demands a great deal of both the c h i l d and the teacher. As stated above, assumes that c h i l d r e n are s e l f - s t a r t i n g , s e l f - p a c i n g and s e l f - s e l e c t i n g . For many immigrant c h i l d r e n t h i s assumption i s i n v a l i d . Many come from r i g i d school systems where such p r a c t i c e s are strongly discouraged. Further, l e a r n i n g to read may not be a high p r i o r i t y i n the native c u l t u r e and the c h i l d may simply have no immediate need or de s i r e to l e a r n . Even i f the c h i l d i s anxious to learn to read, choosing h i s own materials may lead to a very narrow s e l e c t i o n . The c h i l d f a i l s to gain i n s i g h t s i n t o other worlds and cultures unless d i r e c t e d to do so. I t i s p o s s i b l e , of course, f o r the teacher to guide the c h i l d through various reading i n t e r -e sts. However, i n r e a l i t y , the demands that t h i s approach make on the teacher i n terms of record-keeping, organization and the l i k e , preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y of her making sure that the needs of each i n d i v i d u a l are met. This surely defeats the purpose of t h i s approach. F i n a l l y , once again t h i s i s an expensive approach: i t demands a very w e l l equipped classroom l i b r a r y as well as a teacher who knows her books. I t i s unfortunate that economic considerations should be a f a c t o r i n determining the s u i t a b i l i t y of a reading approach. I t i s , however, only too 77 frequently the only consideration and therefore must be discussed i n any r e a l i s t i c a n a l y s i s of reading approaches. An i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach t o reading i s , therefore, not without i t s compensatory f a c t o r s but i n general i t i s simply not p r a c t i c a l f o r use i n the E.S.L. classroom. The philosophy of the language-experience approach to the teaching of reading i s r e f l e c t e d i n S y l v i a Ashton-Warner's words: What a dangerous a c t i v i t y reading i s ; teaching i s . A l l t h i s p l a s t e r i n g on of foreign s t u f f . Why p l a s t e r on at a l l when there i s so much in s i d e already? So much locked i n . I f only I could get i t out and use i t as working ma t e r i a l . And not draw i t out e i t h e r . I f I had a l i g h t enough touch i t would j u s t come out under i t s own vol c a n i c power. (1963: p. 19) I t i s , then, a basic t h e s i s i n language experience approaches that the c h i l d ' s language and experiences become the teaching t o o l s i n the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of l i t e r a c y s k i l l s . In the i n i t i a l stages of l e a r n i n g to read, reading and w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s allow f o r the expression of the c h i l d ' s own thoughts, f e e l i n g s and experiences. This approach recognizes that the c h i l d does not come to school with a 'tabula rasa': i t acknow-ledges the wealth of phonological, s y n t a c t i c and semantic information which the c h i l d brings to the task of becoming l i t e r a t e . Further, the material which the c h i l d reads i s not an adult-imposed, commercially packaged reader, rather i t contains s t o r i e s , messages, l e t t e r s and the l i k e based on the c h i l d ' s own s o c i a l , perceptual and c u l t u r a l experiences together with h i s f e a r s , emotions, ideas and b e l i e f s . Vygotsky i n h i s in v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the r e l a t i o n of language and thought e s t a b l i s h e s support f o r t h i s approach to reading. He observed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ence between ch i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to use the spoken word and to use wr i t t e n language. He concluded that i t was the abstract nature of the w r i t t e n language children-were expected.to read which was the main stumbling block 78 t o t h e i r achievement. The l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e program b e g i n s on t h e f i r s t day t h e c h i l d e n t e r s s c h o o l . The c h i l d r e n a r e encouraged t o t a l k and t o l i s t e n t o o t h e r s t a l k , f o r t h e g r a p h i c form o f t h e spoken word i s t h e m a t e r i a l t o be r e a d when u s i n g t h i s a p p r o a c h . I t i s t h e r e f o r e an approach t h r o u g h wholes, t h a t i s an a n a l y t i c r a t h e r t h a n s y n t h e t i c approach. As t h e c h i l d speaks, t h e t e a c h e r w r i t e s down t h e whole u t t e r a n c e . The c h i l d i s encouraged t o 'read' o r r e p e a t t h e u t t e r a n c e which t h e t e a c h e r has w r i t t e n down and r e i n f o r c e m e n t a c t i v i t i e s a r e p r o v i d e d . The c h i l d r e n work i n d i v i d u a l l y o r i n groups and i n d i v i d u a l and group books a u t h o r e d by t h e c h i l d r e n a r e t h e b a s i s f o r t h e c l a s s l i b r a r y . T h i s approach has d e f i n i t e advantages. In u s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s s t o r i e s as a b a s i s f o r t e a c h i n g them t o r e a d , t h e c u l t u r a l v a l u e s and h e r i t a g e s o f t h e s t u d e n t s a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e s t o r y - c o n t e n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l s t h e y a r e r e q u i r e d t o r e a d . I t s t i m u l a t e s i n t e r e s t i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g and f o s t e r s c o n f i d e n c e and s e l f - e s t e e m i n t h e c h i l d r e n . I t r e q u i r e s a s h a r i n g o f e x p e r i e n c e s and i d e a s a c r o s s c u l t u r a l backgrounds and e s t a b l i s h e s a framework o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and c o - o p e r a t i o n amongst t h e s t u d e n t s . I n u s i n g t h i s approach l i t t l e t ime i s l o s t i n g u i d i n g each c h i l d toward l i t e r a c y . O b v i o u s l y , t h e s t u d e n t s must f i r s t a c q u i r e some E n g l i s h , b u t f l u e n c y i s n o t a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r r e a d i n g u s i n g a lang u a g e -e x p e r i e n c e approach. As soon as a c h i l d has a few l e x i c a l items and a b a s i c knowledge o f s y n t a x he i s ready t o b e g i n r e a d i n g . I n t h i s way t h e r e a d i n g m a t e r i a l he uses i s o b v i o u s l y c o n s i s t e n t b o t h s y n t a c t i c a l l y and s e m a n t i c a l l y w i t h h i s s t a g e o f language development. T h i s a p p r o a c h i s n o t w i t h o u t i t s d i s a d v a n t a g e s . T h o n i s (1970) c a u t i o n s t h a t l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e p l a c e s a tremendous r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r 79 c l a s s r o o m management on the t e a c h e r . She must e f f e c t i v e l y e s t a b l i s h a happy, r e l a x e d , t r u s t i n g c l a s s r o o m environment, g e n e r a t e new-language e x p e r i e n c e s o f t e n , p r o v i d e d i f f e r e n t m a t e r i a l s , i n t e r e s t and c h a l l e n g e s f o r each c h i l d o r group o f c h i l d r e n , keep d e t a i l e d r e c o r d s o f each c h i l d ' s p r o g r e s s and expand p u p i l s ' v o c a b u l a r y and r e a d i n g i n t e r e s t s . The a u t h o r f e e l s , however, t h a t t h e s e demands a r e n o t t o o much t o ask o f a t e a c h e r . The l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e approach i s one which most c e r t a i n l y meets t h e c r i t e r i a o u t l i n e d above. I t meets t h e c u l t u r a l , p e r s o n a l and language needs o f n o n - n a t i v e s t u d e n t s . Any weak i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h i s a p p r o ach r e s u l t s from p o o r o r g a n i z a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f t h e t e a c h e r r a t h e r t h a n any i n t r i n s i c f a u l t i n t h e p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e a p p roach i t s e l f . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n t h e framework o f a m o d i f i e d l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e approach. I t must, t h e r e f o r e , be judged by t h e r e a d e r a c c o r d i n g t o much o f what has been s a i d i n t h e e x p o s i t i o n o f t h e l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e approach d i s c u s s e d above. There a r e , however, some marked d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e a p proach t o i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y u s e d by t h e a u t h o r i n t h i s r e s e a r c h and t h e more c o n v e n t i o n a l l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e a p p r o a c h e s . The e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e two approaches i s t h a t i n t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , n o t o n l y d i d t h e c h i l d r e n l e a r n t o r e a d by u s i n g t h e i r own words, t h e y l e a r n e d t o r e a d by c r e a t i n g t h e i r own s p e l l i n g s f o r t h e i r own words. The approach s u g g e s t e d h e r e r e v e r s e s t h e u s u a l o r d e r o f r e a d f i r s t , w r i t e l a t e r . I t r e c o g n i z e s and encourages each c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y t o a n a l y z e words i n t o t h e i r component sounds and as C a r o l Chomsky s t a t e s : 80 . . . what bet t e r way to read f o r the f i r s t time than to t r y recognizing the very word you have b u i l t on the table i n front of you? (1971: p. 296) This approach, l i k e the standard language-experience approach, introduces the c h i l d to the written word by making him see that the p r i n t e d word i s h i s word. This approach goes one step further, however, and shows the c h i l d that h i s words can be born of h i s c r e a t i v e e f f o r t s . In allowing the c h i l d r e n to invent t h e i r own s p e l l i n g system and i n using t h e i r w r i t i n g as a basis f o r le a r n i n g to read, the author was subject to c r i t i c i s m from her colleagues. The general f e e l i n g was that t h i s approach encourages bad habits, gives c h i l d r e n f a l s e confidence i n terms of reading s k i l l s and misleads them as to the r e a l nature of l i t e r a c y i n p a r t i c u l a r and school i n general. These points w i l l be taken up and discussed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter V. For the present, i n defense of the "write f i r s t — r e a d l a t e r " approach, i t i s the author's experience that the c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study wrote more f l u e n t l y and f r e e l y , at a much e a r l i e r date than could have been r e a l i s e d using standard s p e l l i n g . Psychologic-a l l y t h i s was extremely rewarding f o r the c h i l d r e n . They f e l t as though they were keeping abreast o f t h e i r natural development. The c h i l d r e n learned to read with words that t r u l y belonged to them about events which had grown out of t h e i r experiences. E s s e n t i a l l y they saw w r i t i n g and reading as a means of having fun not . . . something a l i e n from without, something a r b i t r a r y out there which the adult world had concocted to make l i f e d i f f i c u l t . (C. Chomsky, 1971: p. 297) The c h i l d r e n experienced very p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s about themselves and t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s . They f r e e l y exchanged s t o r i e s about t h e i r l i v e s and cultures across l i n g u i s t i c groups and were generally very relaxed about le a r n i n g to write and to read. These a c t i v i t i e s were simply two of many i n t e r e s t i n g 81 ac t i v i t i e s available to the children. They were never at any time put under those incredible pressures our society places on our children to become literate and perform totally in accordance with adult models and expectations. As Carol Chomsky suggests: If the child writes f i r s t , the written word grows out of his own consciousness and belongs to him. Why not let him? Let him trust his lin g u i s t i c judgements and expect of him only that he can accurately express his own perceptions using the means available to him. (1971: p. 299) This task i s not as impossible as i t sounds. The children in this study did after a l l , as Chapter III shows, invent their own system. From her observations the author believes that although i t i s debatable whether the children who learned to read using this approach actually became better readers than those children using a more traditional method, the children in this study appeared to have a healthier self-image, learned to read faster and in general had a more positive and meaningful relationship with the written word than those children using a more traditional approach. CHAPTER V Development o f I n v e n t e d S p e l l i n g As i n Read's s t u d y a d i s c u s s i o n o f young c h i l d r e n ' s use o f an i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g system t o w r i t e s t o r i e s and messages r a i s e s many ques-t i o n s which a r e n o t d i r e c t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p t i o n s and knowledge o f t h e p h o n o l o g i c a l r u l e s o f E n g l i s h . These q u e s t i o n s a r e o f t h e o r d e r . How do t h e c h i l d r e n s t a r t ? What do p a r e n t s do about i t ? A r e n ' t t h e s e c h i l d r e n e x c e p t i o n a l l y i n t e l l i g e n t ? Don't t h e y l e a r n t o s p e l l from l e a r n i n g t o r e a d ? What d i f f i c u l t y do t h e y have l a t e r i n l e a r n i n g s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g ? (Read, 1970: p. 151) U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no g e n e r a l i n t e l l i g e n c e s c o r e s , d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l background o r i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h i s n a t u r e i s a v a i l a b l e . Never-t h e l e s s , i t i s hoped t h a t t h e a n e c d o t a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d about t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e i r s p e l l i n g s and t h e t r a n s i t i o n t h e y make t o t h e s t a n d a r d form w i l l p r o v e u s e f u l i n p r o v i d i n g t h e r e a d e r w i t h an answer t o t h e above q u e s t i o n s . I n company w i t h Read i t must be emphasized t h a t t h e t y p e o f a n e c d o t a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s n o t by i t s e l f an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g . I n September, 1975, t h e a u t h o r was a s s i g n e d a c l a s s o f t h i r t e e n n o n - E n g l i s h s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n . She r e s o l v e d t o do what C a r o l Chomsky had p r o p o s e d . . . t h a t c h i l d r e n be p e r m i t t e d t o be a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t e a c h i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o r e a d . In f a c t t h e y ought t o d i r e c t t h e p r o c e s s . By r e v e r s i n g t h e u s u a l o r d e r o f r e a d f i r s t w r i t e l a t e r t h i s c a n be a l l o w e d t o happen. (1971: p. 266) 82 A c c o r d i n g l y , the c h i l d r e n were t a u g h t the names o f t h e l e t t e r s o f t h e a l p h a b e t and p r o v i d e d w i t h s e t s o f p l a s t i c l e t t e r s . No f o r m a l i n s t r u c -t i o n i n r e a d i n g o r w r i t i n g was g i v e n . The C h i l d r e n The c h i l d r e n who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s s t u d y were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f an average c l a s s r o o m group. They had been a s s i g n e d t o t h e c l a s s by t h e s c h o o l s e c r e t a r y and were a t r u l y random sample o f c h i l d r e n i n any second language l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n . Some o f the c h i l d r e n were e x t r e m e l y t i m i d . They had come from c o u n t r i e s where s c h o o l s were f o r m a l and i n f l e x i b l e and t e a c h e r s were r e g a r d e d w i t h f e a r . O t h e r c h i l d r e n were i n d e p e n d e n t , c o n f i d e n t and e a g e r t o l e a r n from the f i r s t day t h e y a r r i v e d . These c h i l d r e n were n o t i n t h e m a j o r i t y . As t i m e p a s s e d t h e group became more homogeneous i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s t o t h e m s e l v e s and t o s c h o o l b u t i n t h e b e g i n n i n g the group r e f l e c t e d many d i v e r s e a t t i t u d e s t o t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s . In terms o f i n t e l l i g e n c e , t h e c h i l d r e n a g a i n appeared t o be an a verage group. As mentioned above no I.Q. s c o r e s have been t a k e n on t h e s e c h i l d r e n b u t from p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n t h e range i n a b i l i t y seemed t o be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h an average c l a s s . Some few c h i l d r e n appear t o be o f above average i n t e l l i g e n c e , most e x h i b i t average i n t e l l i g e n c e and one o r two c h i l d r e n a r e h a v i n g l e a r n i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s w hich may be a t a more s e r i o u s l e v e l t h a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e language c o n t e n t . T h i s s t u d y may, t h e n , p r o v i d e a b e t t e r answer t o the q u e s t i o n " A r e n ' t t h e s e c h i l d r e n e x c e p t i o n a l l y i n t e l l i g e n t ? " (Read, 1970: p. 151), t h a n Read's s t u d y d i d . The c h i l d r e n i n t h a t s t u d y were from f a m i l i e s who were, e x c l u s i v e l y h i g h l y e d u c a t e d and r e l a t i v e l y a f f l u e n t . As Read p o i n t s o u t 84 . • . t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was e s s e n t i a l t o t h e c h i l d r e n ' s accomplishments. (Read, 1970: p. 153) However, i t l e a v e s h i s s t u d y open t o c r i t i c i s m as t o how g e n e r a l h i s f i n d -i n g s may be. Read argues w e l l t h a t i t i s n o t t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l o r s o c i a l b a ckground which i n f l u e n c e s a c h i l d t o s p e l l o r n o t t o s p e l l , b u t i t i s the p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e t o t h e s p e l l i n g s t h e m s e l v e s t h a t a f f e c t s the c h i l d ' s a ccomplishments. The argument h o l d s e q u a l l y w e l l f o r t h e c l a s s r o o m s i t u -a t i o n . I t has been t h e a u t h o r ' s e x p e r i e n c e t h a t many young c h i l d r e n , b o t h f i r s t and second language l e a r n e r s , e n t e r s c h o o l w i t h a s t r o n g d e s i r e t o w r i t e and i n some c a s e s a c t u a l l y s p e l l o u t messages f o r t h e i r t e a c h e r s . T h i s has been c o n f i r m e d by k i n d e r g a r t e n and grade-one t e a c h e r s o f t h e a u t h o r ' s a c q u a i n t a n c e . T h i s a c t i v i t y i s s t r o n g l y d i s c o u r a g e d by most t e a c h e r s , M o n t e s s o r i t r a i n e d t e a c h e r s e x c l u d e d , who f e e l t h a t i n u s i n g t h e i r own s p e l l i n g system t h e c h i l d i s a c q u i r i n g bad ' h a b i t s ' which w i l l c a u se him problems a t a l a t e r d a t e . L i k e Read, . . . i t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o know how many c h i l d r e n b e g i n t o ask about l e t t e r s and s p e l l i n g a t t h e s c r i b b l i n g age o r s l i g h t l y l a t e r , and whether t h e p a r e n t ' s answer t o t h e s e i n q u i r i e s i n f l u -ences a c h i l d ' s development toward s p e l l i n g . (1970: p. 161) The same q u e s t i o n c a n be r a i s e d about t h e t e a c h e r ' s answer. I n most c l a s s r o o m s i t i s p e r m i s s i b l e f o r c h i l d r e n t o copy b u t n e v e r a r e t h e y p e r m i t t e d , l e t a l o n e encouraged, t o i n v e n t t h e i r own system. The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s s t u d y came from v e r y d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l back-grounds b u t t h e y s h a r e d many common i n t e r e s t s w hich t e n d t o be u n i v e r s a l c h i l d h o o d a c t i v i t i e s . They l i v e d i n t h e same a r e a , i n E a s t Vancouver and t o a l a r g e e x t e n t t h e i r p a r e n t s were employed i n s i m i l a r o c c u p a t i o n s : a do c k e r , two l a b o u r e r s , a m i l l worker, a s t o r e c l e r k , a h a i r d r e s s e r . The e d u c a t i o n a l backgrounds o f t h e i r p a r e n t s v a r i e d a g r e a t d e a l . Some 85 parents were f a i r l y w e l l educated i n t h e i r own language while others were i l l i t e r a t e . None of the parents spoke E n g l i s h f l u e n t l y , although some knew a few words, and further, none of the parents were at a l l l i t e r a t e i n E n g l i s h . There was no parental influence i n t h i s study i n terms of s p e l l i n g i n s t r u c t i o n or c r i t i c i s m of the c h i l d ' s system. The author can not be sure that uncles or other v i s i t i n g r e l a t i v e s have not attempted to teach the c h i l d t r a d i t i o n a l s p e l l i n g or made comment on the c h i l d ' s system. However, she heard of no such interference. The c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study were var i e d i n i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , c u l t u r a l background and p e r s o n a l i t y but shared more common features than simply play i n t e r e s t s . They a l l appeared to come from happy, secure homes. Their parents were, without exception, anxious f o r t h e i r c h i l d r e n to do well i n school and to be good conscientious students. They d i d not, however, pressure t h e i r c h i l d r e n i n any way to perform. The parents r e a l i s e d , and t h i s r e a l i z a t i o n was strongly r e i n f o r c e d by the classroom teacher, that the c h i l d r e n were i n many cases experiencing culture shock and that e s t a b l i s h i n g p o s i t i v e f e e l i n g s about t h e i r new environment was of fundamental importance to t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l as well as s o c i a l development. Consequently, the c h i l d r e n were encouraged by t h e i r parents i n a l l t h e i r ventures and were i n some ways more relaxed, a f t e r t h e i r i n i t i a l p e r i o d of adjustment than many c h i l d r e n going to school f o r the f i r s t time i n North America. The Beginning of S p e l l i n g The classroom i n which the c h i l d r e n were lear n i n g E n g l i s h was based on the philosophies of the B r i t i s h i n f a n t school. As often as p o s s i b l e the c h i l d r e n were taken out of school to experience r e a l language lea r n i n g 86 s i t u a t i o n s and while i n school t h e i r days were spent p l a y i n g house, or stor e , " r i d i n g on buses", p a i n t i n g , working with c l a y and enjoying s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s . They often had s t o r i e s read to them but they showed no desire to learn how to read or write f o r themselves although they d i d look at p i c t u r e books. They were taught the l e t t e r s of the alphabet, and games such as "I spy" or "I have something i n my bag beginning with " were played. These kinds of a c t i v i t i e s continued f o r about two months without any sign of anyone attempting to t r y to write. A v a r i e t y of circumstances can be r a i s e d to account f o r t h i s . The c h i l d r e n knew very few E n g l i s h words and t h e i r energies and i n t e r e s t s were d i r e c t e d at becoming f l u e n t speakers rather than becoming l i t e r a t e . Many of them were s t i l l very timid during t h i s f i r s t two-month period and may have lacked the self-confidence necessary to attempt to s p e l l the few E n g l i s h words they d i d know. The l a t t e r reason f o r not s p e l l i n g i s not as strong as the former, however. At any rate i t was two to three months before the c h i l d r e n began to s p e l l : i t d i d not occur simultaneously with l e a r n -ing E n g l i s h words. The f i r s t sign of invented s p e l l i n g came i n the form of a message on a card. The message read, f r mai t i e r (for my teacher) The c h i l d , Roberta, was thanked f o r the card but no s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n was paid to the message nor d i d Roberta seem to expect any. She continued to make cards and write messages f o r her teacher and her classmates from then on. The messages on the cards and drawings were simple and generally contained a message such as: A i l a i k u (I l i k e you) 87 o r R U Mai f r n (are you my f r i e n d ? ) The c h i l d r e n responded t o t h e s e c a r d s and messages by making c a r d s and w r i t i n g t h e i r names, i n s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g , o r g i v i n g a d r a w i n g o r a c l a y model as a g i f t . A l t h o u g h R o b e r t a was t h e i n i t i a t o r o f many exchanges ( i n t e r e s t i n g l y she was somewhat o f a group l e a d e r ) , the c h i l d r e n a l l gave ea c h o t h e r drawings and t h e l i k e so t h a t R o b e r t a ' s messages d i d n o t seem i n any way s p e c i a l o r u n u s u a l . They c r e a t e d no s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n w i t h i n t h e group. The n o t i o n o f e x c h a n g i n g drawings a r o s e n a t u r a l l y o u t o f a d e s i r e t o become f r i e n d s w i t h c h i l d r e n who d i d n o t speak t h e same language. The c h i l d r e n o f t e n s i g n e d t h e s e drawings b u t t h e r e c e i v e r o f t h e g i f t i n many i n s t a n c e s , c o u l d n o t r e a d t h e name o f the g i v e r . I t was common p r a c t i c e f o r t h e c h i l d r e n t o approach the t e a c h e r w i t h t h e c a r d o r d r a w i n g which t h e y had r e c e i v e d and ask, "What does t h a t s a y ? " They would be t o l d t h e c h i l d ' s name and would d u l y thank them. R o b e r t a ' s messages were t r e a t e d i n t h e same way. I t seemed o f no importance t o h e r t h a t she was w r i t i n g messages t o o t h e r s whom she knew c o u l d n o t r e a d them. F u r t h e r , t h e c h i l d r e n who r e c e i v e d the messages found n o t h i n g s t r a n g e i n t h i s b e h a v i o u r e i t h e r and e n j o y e d h a v i n g t h e messages r e a d t o them. R o b e r t a q u i t e c l e a r l y l o v e d t o s p e l l . She n o t o n l y composed messages b u t she a l s o s p e n t a g r e a t d e a l o f t i m e p l a y i n g w i t h t h e p l a s t i c m a g n e t i c l e t t e r s i n t h e c l a s s r o o m . She would choose l e t t e r s t o make l i s t s o f a l l t h e words she c o u l d t h i n k o f and t h e n she would r e a d back the l i s t s o f words she had composed. The r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y o f a word was n o t one o f h e r c r i t e r i a f o r c h o i c e . She wrote what she p l e a s e d . She c o u l d n o t always r e a d t h e words she c o u l d s p e l l b u t t h i s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n d e p t h below.• The 88 o t h e r c h i l d r e n p a i d no a t t e n t i o n w hatsoever t o R o b e r t a ' s a c t i v i t i e s . The a u t h o r , on the o t h e r hand, found them b o t h f a s c i n a t i n g and e x c i t i n g and o c c a s i o n a l l y would d i s c u s s h e r work w i t h h e r . R o b e r t a seemed p l e a s e d when h e r word l i s t o r h e r s t o r i e s were r e a d b u t she n e i t h e r e x p e c t e d n o r sought i n t e r f e r e n c e o r p r a i s e from anyone. Her i n t e r e s t s were l a r g e l y s e l f - c e n t e r e d and s e l f - s u s t a i n e d . D u r i n g t h e t i m e R o b e r t a was t h e s o l e s p e l l e r o f t h e g r o u p — t h i s was t h e t h i r d month o f s c h o o l — h e r c l a s s m a t e s c o n t i n u e d t h e i r i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e i r r o l e - p l a y i n g a c t i v i t i e s , t h e i r a r t i s t i c e ndeavors o r t h e i r p h y s i c a l l y a c t i v e games. Sometimes an i n d i c a t i o n would be g i v e n t h a t some o f t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n were b e g i n n i n g a l s o t o s p e l l . The a u t h o r would see what might have been a s t o r y o r a message b e i n g e r a s e d from the b l a c k b o a r d b e f o r e she had t i m e t o r e a d i t . Some o f the c h i l d r e n would p l a y w i t h the a l p h a b e t b l o c k s b u t would n o t 'perform' w h i l e o t h e r s were p r e s e n t . T h i s was a busy and a c t i v e c l a s s r o o m and i t was d i f f i c u l t t o know e x a c t l y who was d o i n g what b u t i t became c l e a r t h a t some c h i l d r e n were q u i e t l y p l a y i n g w i t h t h e i r n o t i o n s o f s p e l l i n g b e f o r e t h e y would v e n t u r e a p u b l i c showing. They were v e r y s o l i t a r y i n t h e i r w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s and the a u t h o r was r e l u c t a n t t o e n c r o a c h on t h e i r p r i v a c y . One day, however, she f o u nd a few n o t e s w r i t t e n by Sandy, a C h i n e s e s t u d e n t . They made no sense what-s o e v e r b u t were v i s u a l l y somewhat l i k e an E n g l i s h message. b zhoh k f l g x t r u gdpm dog I t . Sandy was o b v i o u s l y p l a y i n g w i t h l e t t e r s . So f a r she knew t h a t t h e a l p h a -b e t had a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e w r i t t e n word b u t she was u n c l e a r as t o what t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p might be. Two t h i n g s i n Sandy's attempt a r e i n t e r -e s t i n g : one i s t h a t she was v i s u a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g i n terms o f E n g l i s h 89 w r i t t e n p a t t e r n s and t h e o t h e r i s t h a t she c o p i e d an a c t u a l E n g l i s h word from a p i c t u r e book. C o p y i n g r a i s e s an i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t . O f t e n a c h i l d would draw a p i c t u r e o f some o b j e c t o f i n t e r e s t , f o r example, a house o r a dog. He would th e n l o c a t e a p i c t u r e o f t h e o b j e c t accompanied by t h e p r i n t e d form o f t h e word. T y p i c a l l y , he would copy t h i s form b u t , a t a l a t e r d a t a many o f t h e words which t h e c h i l d had once c o p i e d were s p e l l e d i n t h e i n v e n t e d system. The c h i l d r e n d i d n o t seem t o a s s o c i a t e c o p y i n g w i t h t h e i r l a t e r ' t h i n k i n g * a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i n v e n t e d system. I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o say e x a c t l y when t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n a c t u a l l y began t o s p e l l because what happened was so n a t u r a l and spontaneous. However d u r i n g t h e months o f November and December l i t t l e messages would be s h y l y t h r u s t i n t o t h e a u t h o r ' s hand and i t was o b v i o u s t h a t some c h i l d r e n knew t h a t t h e y had made a t r u l y i m p r e s s i v e d i s c o v e r y . O t h e r c h i l d r e n s u d d e n l y p r o d u c e d a l l k i n d s o f s c r a p s o f p a p e r w i t h n o t e s and s t o r i e s w r i t t e n on them. When q u e s t i o n e d as t o when t h e y had begun t h e c h i l d r e n c l a i m e d n o t t o know o r remarked t h a t t h e y had been w r i t i n g f o r a l o n g t i m e . L i k e R o b e r t a , t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n d i d n o t seem t o choose words t o s p e l l on t h e b a s i s o f t h e i r d i f f i c u l t y . They s i m p l y a t t e m p t e d t o w r i t e whatever t h e y w i s h e d t o say. A f a i r l y common o c c u r r e n c e i n t h e s e b e g i n n i n g messages was t h e o m i s s i o n o f vow e l s . Vowels u n d o u b t e d l y gave the c h i l d r e n t h e most d i f f i c u l t y and t h e y would s i m p l y l e a v e them o u t . T h i s appeared t o be o f l i t t l e c o n c e r n t o them and t h e y would w r i t e s h o r t s t o r i e s i n which few vowels appeared. In J a n u a r y t h e a c t i v i t y o f w r i t i n g g a i n e d some k i n d o f p r e s t i g i o u s s t a t u s . Some o f t h e c h i l d r e n who had n o t y e t t r i e d t o w r i t e s a t down w i t h p e n c i l and p a p e r and assumed a v e r y a d u l t a t t i t u d e b u t t h e y soon 90 gave up, complaining that i t was too hard. One very conscientious Chinese boy was f r u s t r a t e d by the f a c t that he had not yet made the magical discovery but he d i d not seek an explanation e i t h e r from the teacher or h i s peers. Writing was obviously something he wanted to fi g u r e out f o r himself. This type of high pressure i n t e r e s t was very short l i v e d ; i t la s t e d only about two days. Other a c t i v i t i e s once more caught the child r e n ' s a t t e n t i o n and t h e i r w r i t i n g returned to being a s o l i t a r y , unnoticed pastime. Like a l l the other classroom a c t i v i t i e s , w r i t i n g appealed to various c h i l d r e n i n varying degrees. By l a t e February, how-ever, each c h i l d i n the c l a s s had written something. Some wrote only a few words and others several hundred, but a l l of them, without ever having received any formal i n s t r u c t i o n , produced representations of En g l i s h words which were i n t e l l i g i b l e to native speaking adults. Moreover they enjoyed the process. Maria Montessori reports s i m i l a r observations to those described by Chomsky, Read and the present author. Writing i s very q u i c k l y learned, because we begin to teach i t only to those c h i l d r e n who show a desire f o r i t by spontaneous attention to the lessons given by the d i r e c t r e s s to other c h i l -dren, or by watching the exercises i n which the others are occupied. Some i n d i v i d u a l s learn without ever having received any lessons, s o l e l y through l i s t e n i n g to the lessons given to others. (1964: p. 293) The c h i l d ' s readiness and motivation to write c e r t a i n l y appears to be a common f a c t o r i n a l l these studies. Further, as Read points out: The f a c t that the Casa d e i Bambini was located i n the slums of Rome i n the early years of t h i s century (and that s i m i l a r methods produced s i m i l a r r e s u l t s with c h i l d r e n I have studied from American Montessori schools) suggests that what we have observed, may not be l i m i t e d to a s i n g l e language, c u l t u r e or economic c l a s s . (1970: p. 180) This study further supports that claim. 91 The majority of the children's writings were not messages, as the e a r l i e r examples may i n c o r r e c t l y suggest. The bulk of the data f o r t h i s study was c o l l e c t e d from the children's s t o r i e s . Some of these s t o r i e s were completely o r i g i n a l . They tended to be accounts of things that had happened to the c h i l d i n recent experiences and were quite ego-c e n t r i c . Most of the s t o r i e s were not, however, o r i g i n a l and tended to be based on s t o r i e s that they had heard i n c l a s s . This changed at a l a t e r stage i n the children's development but i n the beginning the c h i l -dren preferred to r e t e l l f a m i l i a r t a l e s . The reasons f o r t h i s are not c l e a r but i t seems reasonable to suppose that they chose to do t h i s form of story w r i t i n g rather than o r i g i n a l work because t h e i r knowledge of Eng-l i s h vocabulary and syntax was so l i m i t i n g . In r e t e l l i n g a story they had heard i n c l a s s they were f a m i l i a r with the story content, the vocabulary content and also the syntax used i n the t e l l i n g of the story was i n keeping with those structures the c h i l d r e n could handle with ease. These begin-ning s t o r i e s tended to be f a i r l y short, two or three sentences, and would o u t l i n e only one or two events or ideas which probably stayed with the c h i l d . There i s evidence that at t h i s point i n the children's develop-ment they were s t i l l organizing t h e i r perceptions. They would on occa-sions, use two d i f f e r e n t s p e l l i n g s f o r the same word i n one short story. As they s p e l l e d more and more, t h e i r s p e l l i n g s became more consistent. Many of the s t o r i e s were written at home and i t was extremely i n t e r e s t i n g to read the children's s t o r i e s and discover they had i n d i v i d u a l l y invented systems which were s i m i l a r to each other. I t was equally i n t e r e s t i n g to f i n d c h i l d r e n reading t h e i r classmates' s t o r i e s and experiencing no confusion or dismay when reading a word s p e l l e d d i f f e r e n t l y to i t s s p e l -l i n g i n t h e i r system. The c h i l d could not always read the s t o r i e s 92 w r i t t e n by t h e i r c l a s s m a t e s b u t t h i s was n o t because o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n s p e l l i n g systems. Q u i t e o f t e n a c h i l d would n o t be a b l e t o r e a d something she h e r s e l f had w r i t t e n . T h i s p o i n t has been d i s c u s s e d above (Chapter I V ) . However, t o r e t u r n b r i e f l y t o t h e i s s u e o f u s i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ' s w r i t i n g as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r r e a d i n g , even f o r t h o s e who a c c e p t t h i s l i n e o f argument, t h e s u g g e s t e d use o f t h i s approach i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n i s s t i l l open t o t h e q u e s t i o n : How do c h i l d r e n make t h e t r a n s -i t i o n f rom t h e i r own s p e l l i n g t o t r a d i t i o n a l o r t h o g r a p h y ? The T r a n s i t i o n L i k e t h e spontaneous s p e l l i n g i t s e l f t h e t r a n s i t i o n seems t o come n a t u r a l l y t o c h i l d r e n . One c h i l d , Sandy, made t h e t r a n s i t i o n " a l m o s t o v e r n i g h t " . She had been r e a d i n g some l i b r a r y books, b u t made no com-ment t h a t t h e s p e l l i n g s were d i s t i n c t from h e r own, t h e n , w i t h o u t any t r a n s i t i o n a l p e r i o d , she began t o use s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g . She would a t tim e s make e r r o r s i n v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( f i r e n d - f r i e n d ) b u t o t h e r t h a n t h i s t y p e o f e r r o r s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g was adopted w i t h amazing a c c u r a c y and speed. F o r most o f t h e c h i l d r e n , however, t h e two systems seem t o c o - e x i s t f o r some t i m e . When t h e c h i l d r e n e x p r e s s e d a d e s i r e t o l e a r n how t o r e a d s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g , t h e y were encouraged t o t a k e c e r t a i n s i m p l e books from t h e l i b r a r y . The c h i l d r e n a p p e ared t o have l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y i n r e a d i n g t h e s t a n d a r d p r i n t and l e a r n e d t o r e a d w i t h l i t t l e f o r m a l i n s t r u c t i o n . F o r some c h i l d r e n t h e r e a d i n g p r o c e s s was a l m o s t e n t i r e l y s e l f - t a u g h t . As a means o f t r a n s i t i o n from t h e i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g s t o t h e s t a n d a r d form, a more c o n v e n t i o n a l l a n g u a g e - e x p e r i e n c e a p proach was a l s o u s ed. An i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d o r group o f c h i l d r e n would t e l l a s t o r y which t h e t e a c h e r 93 would write i n standard s p e l l i n g on an experience chart. The c h i l d r e n would read the story to check that i t included everything they wanted to say and then the story would be discussed. Occasionally the c h i l d r e n would request that they do "comprehension exercises", using the story as reference m a t e r i a l . In these exercises some c h i l d r e n c l e a r l y showed that they were aware of a d i s t i n c t i o n between the adult s p e l l i n g and t h e i r own. They would write/copy the questions i n t o t h e i r notebooks i n the adult form and supply the answers using t h e i r own s p e l l i n g system. This was i n s p i t e of the f a c t that the standard s p e l l i n g f o r each word they needed i n order to answer the questions could be found i n the experience chart story. Further examples of t h i s type of awareness of two d i s t i n c t systems were shown with respect to the purpose of the w r i t i n g . When the c h i l d r e n were required to write a formal 'thank you' l e t t e r , a formal i n v i t a t i o n to the classroom f o r some s p e c i f i c purpose, or the l i k e , they i n v a r i a b l y used the standard form. I f a c h i l d was unsure o f the standard s p e l l i n g , he would ask the teacher to write i t on the,blackboard. When the c h i l d r e n were w r i t i n g f o r informal purposes, short s t o r i e s , messages to each other, or w r i t i n g i n t h e i r j ournals, t h e i r own systems were most commonly employed. In t h e i r informal w r i t i n g a considerable mixture of invented and standard s p e l l i n g s could be found and there was a wide range amongst the c h i l d r e n in-the extent to which both kinds of s p e l l i n g s were used. Yet another example of the ease with which the c h i l d r e n handled both the t r a n s i t i o n and the co-existence of two systems occurred by accident. The c h i l d r e n saw the author typing one day and asked i f she would type t h e i r s t o r i e s so that they could make t h e i r own reading books. The author agreed, on condition that the c h i l d r e n proof read the s t o r i e s , as she i s not a 94 p r o f i c i e n t t y p i s t and t h i s would save t i m e . The c h i l d r e n a g r e e d t o t h i s c o n d i t i o n and r e a d t h e s t o r i e s w h i l e t h e a u t h o r t y p e d them. T h i s came t o be a d a i l y p r a c t i c e and t h e c h i l d r e n d e l i g h t e d i n s e e i n g t h e i r work t a k i n g shape i n p r i n t . They r e a d t h e i r s t o r i e s f r e q u e n t l y and o f t e n exchanged them w i t h f r i e n d s . I t was o n l y a f t e r s e v e r a l days had p a s s e d t h a t t h e a u t h o r r e a l i s e d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n had w r i t t e n t h e i r s t o r i e s u s i n g a mix-t u r e o f s t a n d a r d and i n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g and t h e s t o r i e s had been t y p e d u s i n g s t a n d a r d s p e l l i n g e x c l u s i v e l y . The use o f two d i s t i n c t s p e l l i n g s gave t h e c h i l d r e n no cause f o r c o n f u s i o n . They n e v e r once q u e s t i o n e d t h e change i n s p e l l i n g and c o u l d r e a d t h e s t a n d a r d v e r s i o n f l u e n t l y . The s t a n d a r d c r i t i c i s m o f i n v e n t e d p e d a g o g i c a l s p e l l i n g systems, such as I.T.A. and Words i n C o l o r , i s t h a t c h i l d r e n do n o t make t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o the t r a d i t i o n a l o r t h o g r a p h y . P r o p o n e n t s o f t h i s t y p e o f i n i t i a l l i t e r a c y program argue t h i s p o i n t . Pitman (1969) c l a i m s t h a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n i s " f o r t h e most p a r t e f f o r t l e s s and a u t o m a t i c " (p. 25a). The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s o b v i o u s l y s u b j e c t t o t h e same c r i t i c i s m . I t a l s o argues t h i s p o i n t . F u r t h e r , i t s u g g e s t s t h a t c h i l d r e n may i n f a c t make th e t r a n s i t i o n from t h e use o f t h e i r own system t o t h e use o f t h e s t a n d a r d system even more e f f o r t l e s s l y t h a n t h e y would from an i n v e n t e d p e d a g o g i c a l system. The b a s i s f o r t h i s c l a i m i s t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e w e l l a c q u a i n t e d w i t h a d o u b l e s t a n d a r d , t h a t i s , t h a t i n a l m o s t a l l t h e e v e n t s o f t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s t h e y a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h one way o f d o i n g t h i n g s — o n e f o r a d u l t s and one f o r c h i l d r e n . In making the t r a n s i t i o n i t appears t o be p e r f e c t l y n a t u r a l f o r t h e c h i l d t o a c c e p t t h a t h i s s p e l l i n g s a r e i n t e r e s t -i n g and a c c e p t a b l e b u t t h a t t h e r e a l s o e x i s t s a s t a n d a r d a d u l t system r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t from h i s own. What i s b e i n g asked o f t h e c h i l d i n t h i s a p p r o a c h t o r e a d i n g , t h a t i s , t o change from h i s system t o t h e a d u l t system, i s v e r y 95 d i f f e r e n t from the type of t r a n s i t i o n required by other reading methods using invented alphabets and orthographies. This l a t t e r type of trans-i t i o n requires that the c h i l d learns to read using one a l i e n adult imposed system and a r b i t r a r i l y change to another. C l e a r l y , t h i s i s not as p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y acceptable to the c h i l d as the demands of the write f i r s t — r e a d l a t e r type approach. Whatever the children's r a t i o n a l e f o r the acceptance of the standard system, the invented systems appear to be a c r e a t i v e thinking process rather than habit forming i n any way. However, j u s t as some c h i l d r e n adapted to the system be t t e r , so some c h i l d r e n made the t r a n s i t i o n f a s t e r and with more ease. In general, there was a d e f i n i t e range i n the a b i l i t y to invent a system, i n the amount of w r i t i n g produced, and i n the a b i l i t y to adapt to the standard system. Seeking an explanation f o r the range i s l i k e seeking an explan-a t i o n f o r the s p e l l i n g i t s e l f . I t d i d not appear to r e l a t e to age, sex or language d i f f e r e n c e s , (although both the I t a l i a n g i r l s were c l e a r l y inventive s p e l l e r s i t i s d i f f i c u l t to make a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n from only two subjects). The question as to how the c h i l d r e n d i d what they d i d remains l a r g e l y an open one. The author t e n t a t i v e l y suggests that the c h i l d r e n who appeared to be most f l u e n t i n t h e i r invented s p e l l i n g s shared c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s . These c h i l d r e n were generally the most secure and s e l f - c o n f i d e n t of the group. They tended to be f a i r l y i n t e l l i g e n t but no more so, and i n some cases l e s s than, other c h i l d r e n who were neither so p r o l i f i c or so quick i n acquiring the invented system. Further, they appeared to be questioning c h i l d r e n with independent, i n q u i r i n g a t t i t u d e s . Above a l l these c h i l d r e n seemed to be able to l i s t e n w ell and to think f o r themselves. These find i n g s are i n t u i t i v e , however. What i s known i s that the 96 b e g i n n i n g s o f t h e s p e l l i n g s , the amount o f s p e l l i n g , and t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e s t a n d a r d form v a r i e d somewhat from c h i l d t o c h i l d . The c h i l d r e n who wrote few words responded t o f o r m a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g w i t h no a p p a r e n t i n f l u e n c e from t h e i r b r i e f e n c o u n t e r w i t h an i n v e n t e d system. Those c h i l d r e n who had l e a r n e d t o r e a d u s i n g t h e i r own system, t e n o f t h e t h i r t e e n c h i l d r e n , had a l l made t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o t h e s t a n d a r d system by May, 1976. C l e a r l y , t h e s e c h i l d r e n s u f f e r e d no i l l - e f f e c t s . They were p e r m i t t e d " t o be a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t e a c h i n g t h e m s e l v e s t o r e a d " (Chomsky 1971). They appeared t o e n j o y t h i s p r o c e s s v e r y much and e n c o u n t e r e d no p r o b l e m when i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e s t a n d a r d form. 97 Footnotes Chapter I "^The segmentation and articulatory feature system employed in this analysis i s largely that elaborated in Noam Chomsky and Morris Halle, The Sound Pattern of English (New York: Harper and Row, 1968). Earlier work in this tradition may be found in Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, Fundamentals of Language (The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1956) and Roman Jakobson, Gunnar Fant, and Morris Halle, Preliminaries to Speech Analysis: The distinctive features and their correlates (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963). A seminal discussion of phonological features in relation to language acquisition i s Roman Jakobson, Child Language, Aphasia and  Phonological Universals (The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1968). 2 Noam Chomsky, Aspects of The Theory of Syntax (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1965). Chapter III 1PCT. refers to the percentage of the total representation of the phone. 98 B i b l i o g r a p h y Ashton-Warner, S. T e a c h e r . New York: Simon and S c h u s t e r , 1963. B e e r s , J . W. F i r s t and second grade c h i l d r e n ' s d e v e l o p i n g o r t h o g r a p h i c c o n c e p t s o f t e n s e and l a x vowels. ( D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r -s i t y o f V i r g i n i a , 1974) C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e , V i r g i n i a : U n i v e r s i t y M i c r o f i l m s , 1975. No. 75-4694. B e l l u g i , U., & Brown, R. The a c q u i s i t i o n o f language. Monographs o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r R e s e a r c h i n C h i l d Development, 1964, 29 (1, S e r i a l No. 9 2 ) . Berko, J . The c h i l d ' s l e a r n i n g o f E n g l i s h morphology. Word, 1958, 14, 150-177. B o i a r s k y , C a r o l y n . C o n s i s t e n c y o f s p e l l i n g and p r o n u n c i a t i o n s o f A p p a l a c h i a n s t u d e n t s . Modern Language J o u r n a l , 1969, 53, 347-350. Brengelman, F r e d . G e n e r a t i v e phonology and t h e t e a c h i n g o f s p e l l i n g . E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 1970, 58, 1113-1118. Brown, D. C a t e g o r i e s o f s p e l l i n g d i f f i c u l t y i n s p e a k e r s o f E n g l i s h as a f i r s t and second language. J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o u r , 1970, 9, 232-236. Chomsky, C. The a c q u i s i t i o n o f s y n t a x i n c h i l d r e n f r o m 5 t o 10. Cam-b r i d g e , Mass.: M.I.T. P r e s s , 1969. Chomsky, C. Reading, w r i t i n g , and p h o n o l o g y . H a r v a r d E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1970, 40, 287-309. Chomsky, C. W r i t e f i r s t , r e a d l a t e r . C h i l d h o o d E d u c a t i o n , 1971, 47, 296-299. Chomsky, N., & H a l l e , M. The sound p a t t e r n o f E n g l i s h . New Y ork: H a r p e r & Row, 1968. Chomsky, N. A s p e c t s o f t h e t h e o r y o f s y n t a x . Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. P r e s s , 1965. C o r d e r , S. P. I d i o s y n c r a t i c D i a l e c t s and E r r o r A n a l y s i s . In John H. Schuman and Nancy S t e n s o n ( E d s . ) , New F r o n t i e r i n Second Language L e a r n i n g . Mass.: Newbury House, 1975. C r o n n e l , B. S p e l l i n g - s o u n d r e l a t i o n s i n E.S.L. Language L e a r n i n g , 1972, 22, 17-27. de V i l l i e r s , J . , and P. de V i l l i e r s . A c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l s t u d y o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f g r a m m a t i c a l morphemes i n c h i l d speech. J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c R e s e a r c h 2, 1973. 99 Dulay, H. C., and M. K. Burt. Goofing: an i n d i c a t o r of children's second language learning s t r a t e g i e s . Language Learning, 1972, 22, 235-252. Dulay, H. C., and M. K. Burt. Errors and Strategies i n c h i l d second language a c q u i s i t i o n . TESOL Quarterly, 1974, 8, 2(a). Dulay, H. C., and M. K. Burt. Natural sequences i n c h i l d second language a c q u i s i t i o n . Language Learning, 1974, 24, 37-53 (b). Fodor, J . , & Garrett, M. Some r e f l e c t i o n s on competence and performance. In J . Lyons & R. J . Wales (Eds.), P s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1966. G e r r i t z , K. E. F i r s t graders' s p e l l i n g of vowels: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. Graham, L. W., & House, A. S. Phonological oppositions i n c h i l d r e n : A perceptual study. Journal of the A c o u s t i c a l Society of America, 1971, 49, 559-566. Graham, Richard, T. & Edwin H. Rudorf. D i a l e c t and s p e l l i n g . Elementary Eng l i s h , 1970, 67, 363-376. Hanna, Paul, R., Jean S. Hanna, Richard E. Hodges, & Edwin H. Rudorf. Phoneme-grapheme Correspondences as Cues to S p e l l i n g Improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1966. House, A. S. On vowel duration i n Eng l i s h . Journal of the A c o u s t i c a l Society of_America, 1961, 33, 1174-11-78. House, A. S., & Fairbanks, G. The influence of consonant environment upon the secondary a c o u s t i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of vowels. Journal of the Ac o u s t i c a l Society of America, 1953, 22, 105-113. Jakobson, R. C h i l d language, aphasia and phonological u n i v e r s a l s . A. P. K e i l e r (Trans.), The Hague: Mouton, 1968. ( O r i g i n a l l y published: Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Weksell, 1941.) Jakobson, R. , Fant, C. G. M., & Hal l e , M. P r e l i m i n a r i e s to speech a n a l y s i s . (2nd ed.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1963. Kamil, M. L., & Rudegeair, R. E. Methodological improvements i n the assessment of phonological d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 1972, 43, 1087-1091. Kenyon, J . S. American pronunciation. (10th ed.) Ann Arbor, Mich.: George Wahr Publishing Co., 1969. Klima, E. S. How alphabets might r e f l e c t language. In J . F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye: The r e l a t i o n -ships between speech and reading. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1972. 100 Lefevre, C a r l . L i n g u i s t i c s and the Teaching of Reading. McGraw-Hill, Toronto, 1972. Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 431-461. Maccoby, E. E., and H. L. Bee. Some speculations concerning the l a g between pe r c e i v i n g and performing. C h i l d Language, 1965, 36, 367-377. Malecot, A. Vowel n a s a l i t y as a d i s t i n c t i v e feature i n American E n g l i s h . Language, 1960, 36, 222-229. Massaro, D. W. Perceptual processes and f o r g e t t i n g i n memory tasks. Psychology Review, 1970, 77, 555-567. (a) Massaro, D. W. Preperceptual auditory images. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, 85, 411-417. (b) Massaro, D. W. E f f e c t of masking tone duration on preperceptual auditory images. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 87, 146-148. Massaro, D. W. Preperceptual images, processing time, and perceptual u n i t s i n auditory perception. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 124-145. (a) Massaro, D. W. Stimulus information versus processing time i n auditory pattern r e c o g n i t i o n . Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 50-56. (b) Menyuk, P. Children's learning and reproduction of grammatical and nongrammatical phonological sequences. C h i l d Development, 1968, 39, 849-859. Menyuk, P. The r o l e of d i s t i n c t i v e features i n children's a c q u i s i t i o n of Phonology. In C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of child-language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Messer, S. I m p l i c i t phonology i n c h i l d r e n . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6, 609-613. M i l l e r , G. A., & Nice l y , P. E. An ana l y s i s of perceptual confusions among some En g l i s h consonants. Journal of the A c o u s t i c a l Society of America, 1955, 27, 338-352. Montessori, M. The Montessori method. New York: Schocken Books, 1964. Morehead, D. Processing of phonological sequences by young c h i l d r e n and adults. C h i l d Development, 1971, 42, 279-289. 101 Moskowitz, B. A. On the status of vowel s h i f t i n E n g l i s h . In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the a c q u i s i t i o n of language. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Moskowitz, B. A. The two year o l d stage i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of English phonology. In C. A. Ferguson and D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies i n C h i l d Language Development. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973, O i l e r , John W., J r . , and Seid M. Ziahosseiny. The contrastive a n a l y s i s hypothesis and s p e l l i n g e r r o r s . Language Learning, 1970, 20, 183-189. Olmsted, D. L. Out of the mouth of babes: E a r l i e s t stages i n language learning. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. Pitman, J . , & St. John, J . Alphabets and reading: The i n i t i a l teaching alphabet. London: S i r Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1969. Read, C. Children's perceptions of the sounds of E n g l i s h : Phonology from three to s i x . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. Read, C. Pre-school children's knowledge of E n g l i s h phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 1971, 41, 1-34. Read, C. Children's judgments of phonetic s i m i l a r i t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to E n g l i s h s p e l l i n g . Language Learning, 1973, 23, 17-38. Read, C. Lessons to be learned from the pre-school orthographer. In E. H., & E. Lennegerg (Eds.), Foundations of language development, New York: Academic Press, 1975. Read, C. Children's c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of speech sounds i n E n g l i s h . National Council of Teachers of English Research Report 17, 1975. Richards, J . Err o r Analysis and Second Language Strategies. In John H„ Schuman and Nancy Stenson (Eds.), New F r o n t i e r i n Second Language Learning. Mass.: Newbury House, 1975. Rystrom, R. Perceptions of vowel letter-sound r e l a t i o n s h i p s by f i r s up-grade c h i l d r e n . Reading Research Quarterly, 1973-1974, 9(2). J.70-184 , Sapir, E. Sound patterns i n language. Language, 1925, 1, 37-51. Savin, H. G., & Bever, T. G. The nonperceptual r e a l i t y of the phoneme, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 295-102, Schane, S. L i n g u i s t i c s , s p e l l i n g and pronunciation. TESOL Quarterly, 19/0, 4, 137-141. Selink e r , L. Interlanguage. In John H. Schuman and Nancy Stenson (E<Js.).. New F r o n t i e r s i n Second Language Learning. Mass.: Newbury Hou.se. 1975. 102 Singh, S. Perceptual s i m i l a r i t i e s and minimal phonemic d i f f e r e n c e s . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1971, 14, 106-112. Singh, S., & Black, J . W. Study of twenty-six i n t e r v o c a l i c consonants as spoken and recognized by four language groups. Journal of the Ac o u s t i c a l Society of America, 1966, 39, 372-387. Singh, S., & Woods, D. R. Perceptual structure of 12 American Eng l i s h vowels. Journal of the A c o u s t i c a l Society of America, 1971, 49, 1861-1866.' Templin, M. Certain language s k i l l s i n c h i l d r e n : Their development and i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press, 1957. Thonis, Eleanor. Teaching Reading to Non-English Speakers. New York: C o l l i e r Macmillan In t e r n a t i o n a l , 1970. Venezky, R. L. The structure of Engl i s h orthography. The Hague: Mouton, 1970. Venezky, R. L. The asymmetry of sound s u b s t i t u t i o n s . ASHA, 1971, 13, 538. (Abstract) Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language (translated from Russian by G. Vakar). Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Press, 1962. Warbey, M. Orthographic r e a l i z a t i o n s of a selected sample of students of Eng l i s h as a second language. Unpublished masters t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , 1976. Wardhaugh, R. The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 1970, 4, 123-130. Weir, R. H., & Venezky, R. L. Spelling-to-sound patterns. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), The p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c nature of the reading process. D e t r o i t : Wayne State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968. Zhurova, L. Ye. The development of ana l y s i s of words in t o t h e i r sounds by preschool c h i l d r e n . In C. A. Ferguson and Dan I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of c h i l d language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. APPENDIX A T a b l e 1 103 Phoneme ta ] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t 0 33 37.8 32 45.7 33 56.9 29 42.6 127 44.6 A 29 32.5 23 32.9 23 39.7 25 37.8 100 35.1 I 12 13.4 0 0 00 0 0 0 12 4.2 E 0 0 2 2.9 2 3.4 2 2.9 6 2.1 (omit) 15 16.3 X3 18.5 0 0 12 17.6 40 14.0 T o t a l 89 100 70 100 58 100 68 100 285 100 T a b l e 2 Phoneme [ b] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . B 62 91.2 78 98. 75 74 100 65 100 279 97.6 P 0 0 1 1. 25 0 0 0 0 1 .3 T 6 7.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2.1 T o t a l 68 100 79 100 74 100 65 100 286 100 T a b l e 3 Phoneme [c] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t CH 7 50.0 7 41.2 0 0 6 42.9 20 40.0 C 4 28.6 5 29.4 8 100 0 0 17 34.0 T 3 21.4 4 23.5 0 0 3 21.4 10 20.0 Tsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 28.6 1 2.0 (omit) 0 0 1 5.9 0 0 1 7.1 2 4.0 T o t a l 14 100 17 100 8 100 14 100 50 100 104 Table 4 Phoneme Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. D 93 92.1 74 96.1 52 86.7 36 85.7 255 91.1 T 6 5.9 2 2.6 0 0 0 0 8 2.9 (omit) 2 2.0 1 1.3 8 13.3 3 7.15 14 5.0 R 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7.15 3 1.0 To t a l 101 100 77 100 60 100 42 100 280 100 Table 5 Phoneme [£ ] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. E 44 41.9 60 56.0 37 62.7 38 76 179 55.8 A 35 33.3 31 30.0 15 25.4 12 24 93 28.9 I 10 9.5 2 1.9 5 8.5 0 0 17 5.3 (omit) 16 15.2 12 11.2 2 3.4 0 0 30 9.3 U 0 0 2 1.9 0 0 0 0 2 .6 To t a l 105 100 107 100 59 100 50 100 321 100 Table 6 Phoneme [£] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. F 46 90.2 26 92.9 20 100.0 18 100.0 110 94.0 V 2 3.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.7 W 3 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2.6 (omit) 0 0 2 7.1 0 0 0 0 2 1.7 T o t a l 51 100 28 100 20 100 18 100 117 100 T a b l e 7 105 Phoneme [a] • C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . G 36 85.7 34 94.4 15 31.9 30 100 115 74.2 K 6 14.3 2 5.6 32 68.1 0 0 40 25.8 T o t a l 42 100 36 100 47 100 30 100 155 100 T a b l e 8 Phoneme \!r\] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . H 30 100 35 97.2 12 52.2 20 54.1 97 77.0 (omit) 0 0 1 2.8 77 47.8 17 45.9 29 23.0 T o t a l 30 100 36 100 23 100 37 100 126 100 T a b l e 9 Phoneme [X\ C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . I 68 70.1 50 56.2 48 47.0 47 61.8 213 60.0 E 12 12.4 20 22.5 38 37.2 18 23.7 88 24.8 (omit) 16 16.5 16 18.0 0 0 1 1.3 33 9.3 A 1 1.0 2 2.2 8 7.8 1 1.3 12 3.4 0 0 0 1 1.1 8 7.8 0 0 9 2.5 T o t a l 97 100 89 100 102 100 76 100 355 100 106 Table 10 Phoneme |j ] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. J 18 90.0 13 68.4 10 90.9 12 92.3 53 84.2 G 2 10.0 2 10.5 1 9.1 0 0 5 7.9 Y 0 0 4 21.1 0 0 1 7.7 5 7.9 To t a l 20 100 19 100 11 100 13 100 63 100 Table 11 Phoneme [kj Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. K 71 50.7 73 57.9 43 39.4 37 75.5 224 52.8 C 62 44.2 51 40.5 57 52.3 11 22.4 181 42.7 G 2 1.4 0 0 8 7.3 0 0 10 2.4 Q 4 2.9 2 1.6 0 0 1 2.1 7 1.7 D 1 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.2 T 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 0 0 1 0.2 T o t a l 140 100 126 100 109 100 49 100 424 100 Table 12 Phoneme [I] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. L 107 82.9 100 95.8 67 88.1 69 83.1 343 87.3 R 8 6.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.03 (omit) 14 10.9 5 4.2 9 11.9 14 16.9 42 10.4 T o t a l 129 100 105 100 76 100 83 100 393 100 107 T a b l e 13 Phoneme [rrf C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . M 91 93.8 88 95.7 76 92.7 59 98.3 314 94.9 (omit) 3 3.1 3 - 3.3 3 3.6 0 0 9 2.7 N 3 3.1 1 1.0 3 3.6 1 1.7 8 2.4 T o t a l 97 100 92 100 82 100 60 100 331 100 T a b l e 14 Phoneme [0] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . N 87 75.7 77 82.8 73 89.0 65 89.0 302 83.2 (omit) 26 22.6 15 16.1 8 9.8 8 11.0 57 15.7 M 2 1.7 1 1.1 0 0 0 0 3 0.8 NN 0 0 0 0 1 1.2 0 0 1 0.3 T o t a l 115 100 93 100 82 100 73 100 363 100 T a b l e 15 Phoneme [01 C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 43 69.3 32 86.5 27 69.2 30 100 132 78.6 (omit) 1 1.6 2 5.4 0 0 0 0 3 1.8 OW 15 24.2 0 0 8 20.5 0 0 23 13.7 OO 3 4.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.8 U 0 0 3 8.1 0 0 0 0 3 1.8 OU 0 0 0 0 2 5.1 0 0 2 1.2 A 0 0 0 0 2 5.1 0 0 2 1.2 T o t a l 62 100 37 100 39 100 30 100 168 100 108 Table 16 Phoneme [p] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. p 69 95.8 63 96.9 57 100 53 100 242 98.0 B 2 2.8 2 3.1 0 0 0 0 4 1.6 (omit) 1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.4 T o t a l 72 100 65 100 57 100 52 100 247 100 Table 17 Phoneme Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. U 28 56.0 40 53.3 15 24.2 12 21.8 95 39.1 A 7 14.0 6 8.0 14 22.6 8 14.5 35 14.4 0 7 14.0 6 8.0 29 46.8 32 52.2 74 30.5 E 4 8.0 4 5.3 2 3.2 3 5.5 13 5.3 (omit) 4 8.0 20 26.7 2 3.2 0 0 26 10.7 T o t a l 50 100 75 100 62 100 55 100 243 100 Table 18 Phoneme [r] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet.. Freq. Pet. R 151 82.1 115 92.0 95 90.5 85 94.4 445 88.5 (omit) 25 13.6 10 8.0 10 9.5 4 4.4 49 9.7 L 8 4.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1.6 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.1 1 0.2 T o t a l 184 100 125 100 105 100 90 100 503 100 109 Table 19 Phoneme fe» ] Chinese Punjabi Italian French/Port. A l l Spelling Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. S 165 85.1 83 78.3 93 79.0 74 72.5 415 78.9 Z 3 1.5 2 1.9 3 2.4 0 0 8 1.5 C 2 1.0 3 2.8 1. 0.8 2 2.0 8 1.5 (omit) 19 9.8 15 14.1 20 16.2 17 16.7 71 13.5 SS 5 2.6 3 2.8 7 5.6 9 8.8 24 4.6 Total 194 100 106 100 124 100 102 100 526 100 Table 20 Phoneme [+ ] Chinese Punjabi Italian French/Port. A l l Spelling Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. T 92 86.8 94 94.9 58 75.3 68 93.1 312 94.5 CH 6 5.7 0 0 3 3.9 0 0 9 2.7 C 0 0 0 0 1 1.3 0 0 1 0.3 D 8 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.4 (omit) 5 4.7 5 5.1 15 19.5 5 6.9 30 9.1 Total 106 100 99 100 77 100 73 100 330 100 . Table 21 Phoneme [U] Chinese Punjabi Italian French/Port. A l l Spelling Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. O 10 33.3 6 30.0 4 18.1 4 18.1 24 25.5 (omit) 4 13.3 2 10.0 0 0 0 0 6 6.4 I 6 20.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6.4 U 4 13.3 10 50.0 12 54.5 4 18.1 30 31.9 OO 6 20.0 2 10.0 6 27.2 10 45.4 24 25.5 ou 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 18.1 4 4.3 Total 30 100 20 100 22 100 22 100 94 100 110 T a b l e 22 Phoneme [V] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . V 35 89.7 39 86.7 29 100 31 88.6 134 90.5 W 0 0 2 4.4 0 0 3 8.6 5 3.4 (omit) 4 10.3 0 0 0 0 1 2.8 5 3.4 B 0 0 4 8.8 0 0 0 0 4 2.7 T o t a l 39 100 45 100 29 100 35 100 148 100 T a b l e 23 Phoneme [W] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . W 39 86.7 31 79.5 25 51.0 45 100 140 78.7 V 2 4.4 4 8.2 20 40.8 0 0 26 14.6 WH 4 8.8 4 8.2 0 0 0 0 8 4.5 (omit) 0 0 0 0 4 8.2 0 0 4 2.2 T o t a l 45 100 39 100 49 100 45 100 178 100 T a b l e 24 Phoneme [v| ] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . Y 8 80.0 12 100 9 47.3 7 87.5 36 73.5 E I 0 0 0 0 7 36.8 0 0 7 14.3 (omit) 2 20.0 0 0 3 15.8 1 12.5 6 12.4 T o t a l 10 100 12 100 19 100 8 100 49 100 I l l Table 25 Phoneme [Z-] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. S 40 66.7 23 43.4 27 61.3 31 77.5 121 61.4 Z 11 18.3 15 28.3 12 27.3 2 5.0 40 20.3 (omit) 9 19.0 15 28.3 5 11.4 7 17.5 36 18.2 T o t a l 60 100 53 100 44 100 40 100 197 100 Table 26 Phoneme [•] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. E 48 41.4 59 44.1 18 24.7 6 12.2 131 36.6 Y 38 32.8 32 26.7 0 0 0 0 70 19.6 (omit) 13 11.2 12 10.0 1 1.4 0 0 26 7.3 I 12 10.3 14 11.7 54 74.0 43 87.8 123 34.4 A 4 3.5 3 2.5 0 0 0 0 7 2.0 EY 1 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.3 T o t a l 116 100 120 100 73 100 49 100 358 100 Table 27 Phoneme [ft] Chinese Punjabi I t a l i a n French/Port. A l l S p e l l i n g Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. A 37 37.0 51 70.8 33 70.2 30 75 151 58.3 EY 17 17.0 6 8.3 0 0 0 0 23 8.9 E 32 32.0 6 8.3 8 36.2 10 25.0 56 21.6 I 10 10.0 2 2.7 2 4.3 0 0 14 5.4 AE 3 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1.2 G — 1 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.4 (omit) 0 0 2 2.7 0 0 0 0 2 0.8 AI 0 0 2 2.7 4 8.6 0 0 6 2.4 AY 0 0 3 4.2 0 0 0 0 3 1.2 T o t a l 100 100 72 100 47 100 40 100 259 100 112 T S b l e 28 Phoneme fe] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . (omit) 40 54.1 36 44.4 20 28.2 17 32.1 97 36.2 I 8 10.8 8 9.9 0 0 0 0 16 6.0 E 20 27.0 25 30.9 22 31.0 14 26.4 81 30.2 0 4 5.4 2 2.5 9 12.7 18 34.0 33 12.3 A 2 2.7 10 12.3 15 21.1 0 0 27 10.1 U 0 0 6 7.4 4 5.6 4 7.5 14 5.2 T o t a l 74 100 81 100 71 100 53 100 268 100 T a b l e 29 Phoneme [3] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 25 67.6 18 85.7 15 60.0 13 92.9 71 73.2 A 8 21.6 0 0 6 24.0 0 0 14 14.4 OW 2 5.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.1 (omit) 1 2.7 1 4.8 0 0 0 0 2 2.1 00 1 2.7 0 0 4 16.0 0 0 5 5.2 U 0 0 2 9.6 0 0 0 0 2 2.1 OU 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7.1 1 1.0 T o t a l 37 100 21 100 25 100 14 100 97 100 113 Table 30 Phoneme [T^ C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 4 28.6 3 27.3 2 18.2 3 37.5 12 27.3 (omit) 1 7.1 0 0 2 18.2 1 12.5 4 9.1 I 1 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.3 U 3 21.3 6 54.4 5 45.4 0 0 14 31.8 00 5 35.5 0 0 2 18.2 3 37.5 10 22.7 E 0 0 2 18.2 0 0 0 0 2 4.6 OU 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12.5 1 2.3 T o t a l 14 100 11 100 11 100 8 100 44 100 T a b l e 31 Phoneme C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . O 7 41.2 12 52.2 10 100 6 75.0 35 62.5 OO 3 17.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5.4 OW 3 17.6 10 43.5 0 0 2 25.0 15 26.8 A 3 17.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5.4 I 1 5.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 E 0 0 1 4.3 0 0 0 0 1 1.8 T o t a l 17 100 23 100 10 100 8 100 56 100 T a b l e 32 Phoneme [©] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . TH 13 40.6 15 46.9 7 41.2 9 75.0 44 47.3 T 9 281. 17 53.1 0 0 0 0 26 28.0 F 3 9.4 0 0 5 29.4 0 0 8 8.6 D 5 15.6 0 0 5 29.4 0 0 10 . 10.8 ( o m i t ) . 2 6.3 0 0 0 0 3 25.0 5 5.4 T o t a l 32 100 32 100 17 100 12 100 93 100 114 Table 33 Phoneme [ i £ ] Chinese Pvin jabi Italian French/Port. A l l Spelling Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet/ T 22 73.3 14 42.4 2 10.0 12 100 50 52.6 TH 4 13.3 12 36.4 0 0 0 0 16 16.8 D 4 13.3 0 0 18 90.0 0 0 22 . 23.2 (omit) 0 0 7 21.2 0 0 0 0 7 7.4 Total 30 100 33 100 20 100 12 100 95 100 Table 34 Phoneme ] Chinese Punjabi Italian French/Port. A l l Spelling Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. Freq. Pet. N 14 25.5 16 39.0 20 100 13 56.5 63 45.3 NG 14 25.5 10 24.4 0 0 0 0 24 17.2 (omit) 17 30.9 12 29.3 0 0 6 26.1 35 25.2 G 10 18.1 0 0 0 0 4 17.4 14 10.1 AN 0 0 3 7.3 0 0 0 0 3 2.2 Total 55 100 41 100 20 100 23 100 139 100 115 T a b l e 35 Phoneme fee, ] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . A 62 59.0 42 61.8 38 51.4 33 94.3 175 62.1 E 15 14. 3 13 19.2 30 40.5 2 5.7 60 21.3 (omit) 6 5.7 5 7.4 4 5.4 0 0 15 5.3 0 8 7.6 8 11.6 2 2.7 0 0 18 6.4 I 10 9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3.5 H 4 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.4 T o t a l 105 100 68 100 74 100 35 100 282 100 T a b l e 36 Phoneme [ a \ | ] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . I 42 53.2 47 73.4 0 0 29 74.4 118 50.6 AI 28 35.4 8 12.5 48 76.2 7 17.9 91 39.1 AY 2 2.5 1 1.6 0 0 0 0 3 1.3 EY 6 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 2.6 (omit) 0 0 0 0 3 4.8 1 2.6 4 1.7 A 1 1.3 0 0 0 0 2 5.1 3 1.3 I E 0 0 8 12.5 0 0 0 0 8 3.4 AE 0 0 0 0 12 19.0 0 0 12 5.2 T o t a l 79 100 64 100 63 100 39 100 233 100 T a b l e 37 Phoneme [ s v j ] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 3 50.0 1 100 0 0 2 100 6 46.2 OE 3 50.0 0 0 4 100 0 0 7 53.8 T o t a l 6 100 1 100 4 100 2 100 13 100 T a b l e 38 116 Phoneme [$] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . S 10 100 8 53.3 10 71.4 4 16.0 32 50.0 SH 0 0 4 26.6 3 21.4 20 80.0 27 42.2 CH 0 0 2 13.3 1 7.2 1 4.0 4 6.25 (omit) 0 0 1 6.7 0 0 0 0 1 1.5 T o t a l 10 100 15 100 14 100 25 100 64 100 T a b l e 39 Phoneme [£] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T a b l e 40 Phoneme [\j VA] C h i n e s e P u n j a b i I t a l i a n F r e n c h / P o r t . A l l S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . a/U 6 75.0 10 83.3 12 66.7 4 100 32 76.2 Y/U 2 25.0 0 0 2 11.1 0 0 4 9.5 Y/OO 0 0 2 16.6 4 22.2 0 0 6 14.3 T o t a l 8 100 12 100 18 100 4 100 42 100 APPENDIX B 117 * Denotes f i r s t language c h i l d r e n ** Denotes s e c o n d language c h i l d r e n T h i s c o n v e n t i o n a p p l i e s t o T a b l e 1-40 i n c l u s i v e T a b l e 1 Phoneme [a ] L I C h i l d r e n * L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 150 58.6 .127 44.6 (omit) 38 14.8 40 14.0 A 30 11.7 100 35.1 I 18 7.0 12 4.2 E 5 2.0 6 2.1 U 6 2.3 0 0 00 5 2.0 0 0 OU 1 0.4 0 0 H 1 0.4 0 0 YO 1 0.4 0 0 AR 1 0.4 0 0 T o t a l 256 100 285 100 T a b l e 2 Phoneme [ b ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . B 276 94.5 279 97. 6 MB 2 0.7 0 0 (omit) 2 0.7 0 0 P 1 0.3 1 0. 3 BC 1 0.3 0 0 D 7 2.4 0 0 BR 1 0.3 0 0 BB 2 0.7 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 T o t a l 292 100 286 100 118 T a b l e 3 Phoneme [c] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . CH 45 60.8 20 40.0 C 7 9.5 17 34.0 TCH 7 9.5 0 0 SH 5 6.8 0 0 (omit) 1 1.4 2 4.0 T 1 1.4 10 20.0 CHE 1 1.4 0 0 ES 1 1.4 0 0 THC 1 1.4 0 0 GE 1 1.4 0 0 CHA 1 1.4 0 0 TTG 1 1.4 0 0 TSH 0 0 1 2.0 T o t a l 74 100 50 100 T a b l e 4 Phoneme L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . D 496 73.3 255 91.1 T 102 15.1 8 2.9 (omit) 19 2.8 14 5.0 TT 17 2.5 0 0 DE 19 2.8 0 0 DD 4 0.6 0 0 W 1 0.1 0 0 N 2 0.3 0 0 J 5 0.7 0 0 B 2 0.3 0 0 G 1 0.1 0 0 DA 1 0.1 0 0 ID 1 0.1 0 0 DT 1 0.1 0 0 LD 1 . 0.1 0 0 ED 5 0.7 0 0 R 0 0 3 1.0 T o t a l 677 100 280 100 119 T a b l e 5 Phoneme [£-] LI C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . A 191 42.4 178 55.8 E 192 42.7 93 28.9 I 25 5.6 17 5.3 (omit) 24 5.3 30 9.3 EE 5 1.1 0 0 AE 1 0.2 0 0 AI 1 0.2 0 0 EU 1 0.2 0 0 0 1 0.2 0 0 u 2 0.4 2 0.6 E I 1 0.2 0 0 EY 2 0.4 0 0 EA 3 0.7 0 0 EAR 1 0.2 0 0 T o t a l 450 100 321 100 T a b l e 6 Phoneme ] LI C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . F 209 92.5 110 94.0 FF 9 4.0 0 0 TTH 1 0.4 0 0 (omit) 1 0.4 2 1.7 PH 4 1.8 0 0 FR 1 0.4 0 0 FA 1 0.4 0 0 V 0 0 2 1.7 W 0 0 3 2.6 T o t a l s 226 100 117 100 120 S p e l l i n g G (omit) W X GG K T o t a l s T a b l e 7 Phoneme [Oj ] L I C h i l d r e n F r e q . P e t . 173 3 1 1 2 0 96.1 1.7 0.6 0.6 1.1 0 180 100 L2 C h i l d r e n F r e q . P e t . 115 0 0 0 0 40 74.2 0 0 0 0 25.8 155 100 T a b l e 8 Phoneme |\r\ ] S p e l l i n g L I C h i l d r e n F r e q . P e t . L2 C h i l d r e n F r e q . P e t . H (omit) WH 189 96.9 4 2.1 2 1.0 97 29 0 77.0 23.0 0 T o t a l s 195 100 126 100 T a b l e 9 Phoneme [ x l L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . I 349 68.6 213 60.0 E 93 18.3 88 24.8 (omit) 29 5.7 33 9.3 A 8 1.6 12 3.4 0 3 0.6 9 2.5 Y 3 0.6 0 0 E I 9 1.8 0 0 IE 2 0.4 0 0 EE 3 0.6 0 0 U 3 0.6 0 0 OH 1 0.2 0 0 I I 3 0.6 0 0 IA 1 0.2 0 0 L I 1 0.2 0 0 T o t a l 509 100 355 100 T a b l e 10 Phoneme |j ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . G 43 49.4 5 7.9 J 31 35.6 53 84.2 GE 5 5.7 0 0 D 1 1.1 0 0 CH 2 2.3 0 0 J J 1 1.1 0 0 DG 2 2.3 0 0 J E 2 2.3 0 0 Y 0 0 5 7.9 T o t a l 87 100 63 100 T a b l e 11 Phoneme [|c] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . C 286 44.3 181 42.7 K 260 40.3 224 52.8 (omit) 18 2.8 0 0 X 9 1.4 0 0 OH 5 0.8 0 0 CH 4 0.6 0 0 G 6 0.9 10 2.4 CG 3 0.5 0 0 CK 20 3.1 0 0 CE 12 1.9 0 0 KC 4 0.6 0 0 Q 6 0.9 0 0 KCE 1 0.2 0 0 KE 4 0.6 0 0 LK 1 0.2 0 0 CKE 2 0.3 0 0 CT 1 0.2 0 0 TC 1 0.2 0 0 L 2 0.3 0 0 P 0 0 1 0.2 T 0 0 1 0.2 T o t a l 645 100 424 100 123 T a b l e 12 Phoneme [\ ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . L 557 82.0 343 87.3 (omit) 34 5.0 42 10.4 LL 44 6.5 0 0 LE 12 1.8 0 0 E 11 1.6 0 0 LA 2 0.3 0 0 0 3 0.4 0 0 Y 1 0.1 0 0 H 1 0.1 0 0 . AL 6 0.9 0 0 LLE 1 0.1 0 0 T 1 0.1 0 0 LER 1 0.1 0 0 OL 4 0.6 0 0 UL 1 0.1 0 0 R 0 0 8 2.03 T o t a l 679 100 679 100 T a b l e 13 Phoneme L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . M 360 885. 314 94.9 (omit) 13 3.2 9 2.7 N 7 1.7 8 2.4 ME 9 2.2 0 0 MM 13 3.2 0 0 L 1 0.2 0 0 MB 1 0.2 0 0 MA 1 0.2 0 0 MN 1 0.2 0 0 MP 1 0.2 0 0 T o t a l 407 100 331 100 124 T a b l e 14 Phoneme [r\] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . N 755 85.2 302 83.2 (omit) 82 9.3 57 15.7 NE 20 2.3 0 ' 0 M 7 0.8 3 0.8 T 2 0.2 0 0 EN 1 0.1 0 0 NA 1 0.1 0 0 DN 2 0.2 0 0 GN 1 0.1 0 0 S 1 0.1 0 0 D 2 0.2 0 0 X 1 0.1 0 0 ND 3 0.3 0 0 NN 4 0.5 1 0.3 KN 1 0.1 0 0 NEAN 1 0.1 0 0 ENE 1 0.1 0 0 NY 1 0.1 0 0 T o t a l 886 100 363 100 125 T a b l e 15 Phoneme [O] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 171 69.5 132 78.6 (omit) 9 3.7 3 1.8 00 6 2.4 3 1.8 OW 29 11.8 23 13.7 OE 7 2.8 0 0 OU 4 1.6 2 1.2 A 3 1.2 2 1.2 U 4 1.6 3 1.8 L 1 0.4 0 0 IOW 1 0.4 0 0 OH 1 0.4 0 0 EW 1 0.4 0 0 E 2 0.8 0 0 OA 3 1.2 0 0 AO 1 0.4 0 0 OWE 2 0.8 0 0 EO 1 0.4 0 0 T o t a l 246 100 168 100 T a b l e 16 Phoneme [ o ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . P 340 93.2 242 98 (omit) 8 2.2 1 0.4 B 5 1.4 4 1.6 PP 4 1.1 0 0 PE 6 1.6 0 0 T 1 0.3 0 0 MP 1 0.3 0 0 T o t a l 365 100 247 100 126 T a b l e 17 Phoneme L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . U 149 33.2 95 39.1 (omit) 73 16.3 26 10.7 0 121 26.9 74 30.5 I 30 6.7 0 0 A 36 8.0 35 14.4 E 22 4.9 13 5.3 W 5 1.1 0 0 R 1 0.2 0 0 Y 1 0.2 0 0 NI 1 0.2 0 0 N 1 0.2 0 0 M 1 0.2 0 0 AE 1 0.2 0 0 I E 1 0.2 0 0 00 1 0.2 0 0 OU 2 0.4 0 0 AA 1 0.2 0 0 UE 1 0.2 0 0 OUI 1 0.2 0 0 T o t a l 449 100 243 100 127 T a b l e 18 Phoneme fj* ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . R 897 89.0 445 88.5 (omit) 64 6.3 49 9.7 L 2 0.2 8 1.6 RR 4 0.4 0 0 ER 3 0.3 0 0 T 2 0.2 0 0 B 1 0.1 0 0 RE 25 2.5 0 0 I 1 0.1 0 0 WR 1 0.1 0 0 RU 1 0.1 0 0 RER 1 0.1 0 0 W 2 0.2 0 0 N 3 0.3 0 0 T o t a l 1008 100 503 100 T a b l e 19 128 Phoneme [S] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . S 614 87.0 415 78.9 C 19 2.7 8 1.5 SE 27 3.8 0 0 (omit) 13 1.8 71 13.5 SS 13 1.8 24 4.6 ES 5 0.7 0 0 E 1 0.1 0 0 M 1 0.1 0 0 X 1 0.1 0 0 SH 1 0.1 0 0 SC 1 0.1 0 0 SU 1 0.1 0 0 0 1 0.1 0 0 CE 1 0.1 0 0 CC 3 0.4 0 0 SL 3 0.4 0 0 SSE 1 0.1 0 0 Z 0 0 8 1.5 T o t a l 706 100 526 100 129 T a b l e 20 Phoneme Ev ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . T 621 83.2 312 94.5 (omit) 41 5.5 30 9.1 TE 33 4.4 0 0 D 19 2.5 8 2.4 TT 10 1.3 0 0 CH 7 0.9 9 2.7 N 1 0.1 0 0 R 1 0.1 0 0 H 1 0.1 0 0 ED 4 0.5 0 0 IT 1 0.1 0 0 T l 1 0.1 0 0 M 1 0.1 0 0 C 1 0.1 1 0.3 TU 1 0.1 0 0 ET 2 0.3 0 0 TED 1 0.1 0 0 T o t a l 746 100 330 100 T a b l e 21 130 Phoneme ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . U 36 25.9 30 31.9 OO 42 30.2 24 25.5 0 23 16.5 24 25.5 (omit) 5 3.6 6 6.4 OW 10 7.2 0 0 W 2 1.4 0 0 OE 2 1.4 0 0 OU 3 2.2 4 4.3 E 1 0.7 0 0 EOW 2 1.4 0 0 UO 2 1.4 0 0 AW 1 0.7 0 0 LLW 1 0.7 0 0 D 3 2.2 0 0 IOW 1 0.7 0 0 AO 1 0.7 . 0 0 OOW 1 0.7 0 0 000 2 1.4 0 0 UOO 0 0 6 6.4 T o t a l 139 100 94 100 • T a b l e 22 Phoneme [V] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . V 147 91.3 134 90.5 (omit) 3 1.9 5 3.4 W 1 0.6 5 3.4 FO 1 0.6 0 0 F 2 1.2 0 0 FF 1 0.6 0 0 VE 6 3.7 0 0 B 0 0 3 2.7 T o t a l 161 100 148 100 T a b l e 23 Phoneme [f//] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . W 307 02.5 140 78.7 WH 9 2.7 8 4.5 (omit) 10 3.0 4 2.2 Y 3 0.9 0 0 E 1 0.3 0 0 U 2 0.6 0 0 V 0 0 26 14.6 T o t a l 332 100 178 100 T a b l e 24 Phoneme [\\] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . (omit) 36 50.0 6 12.4 Y 30 41.7 36 73.5 E 1 1.4 0 0 U 3 4.2 0 0 O 2 2.8 0 0 EI 0 0.8 7 14.3 T o t a l 72 100 49 100 T a b l e 25 Phoneme [z. ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . S 239 80.5 121 61.4 Z 11 3.7 40 203. (omit) 5 1.7 36 18.2 SE 21 7.1 0 0 ES 7 2.4 0 0 C 4 1.3 0 0 IS 1 0.3 0 0 X 1 0.3 0 0 ZS 1 0.3 0 0 SES 1 0.3 0 0 ZCS 1 0.3 0 0 SU 1 0.3 0 0 SS 3 1.0 0 0 ESE 1 0.3 0 0 T o t a l 297 100 197 100 T a b l e 26 Phoneme [ i ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . E 221 44.6 131 36.6 Y 113 22.8 70 19.6 (omit) 29 5.9 26 7.3 I 35 7.1 123 34.4 EY 17 3.4 1 0.3 AY 16 3.2 0 0 EE 26 5.3 0 0 A 6 1.2 0 0 EA 9 1.8 0 0 E I 1 0.2 0 0 IE 9 1.8 0 0 IEE 2 0.4 0 0 EYI 1 0.2 0 0 OY 4 0.8 0 0 IEY 1 0.2 0 0 AS 1 0.2 0 0 UE 1 0.2 0 0 YE 2 0.4 0 0 EAE 1 0.2 0 0 T o t a l 495 100 358 100 134 T a b l e 27 Phoneme [ft] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . A 191 68.2 151 58.3 AY 29 10.4 3 1.2 AE 12 4.3 3 1.2 E 11 3.9 56 21.6 AI 9 3.2 6 2.4 (omit) 7 2.5 2 0.8 EY 4 1.4 28 8.9 Y 7 2.5 0 0 AUY 1 0.4 0 0 OL 1 0.4 0 0 EEA 1 0.4 0 0 EE 2 0.7 0 0 EA 1 0.4 0 0 EAY 1 0.4 0 0 AUE 2 0.7 0 0 AU 1 0.4 0 0 G 0 0 1 0.4 I 0 0 14 5.4 T o t a l 280 100 259 100 T a b l e 28 Phoneme [a] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . (omit) 351 34.7 97 36.2 I 204 20.2 16 6.0 E 189 18.7 81 30.2 0 71 7.0 33 12.3 A 103 10.2 27 10.1 U 66 6.5 14 5.2 L 11 1.1 0 0 R 2 0.2 0 0 OE 2 0.2 0 0 N 2 0.2 0 0 E I 2 0.2 0 0 AI 1 0.1 0 0 RL 1 0.1 0 0 Y 1 0.1 0 0 DE 1 0.1 0 0 EE 2 0.2 0 0 OU 1 0.1 0 0 AP 1 0.1 0 0 EO 1 0.1 0 0 T o t a l 1012 100 268 100 T a b l e 29 136 Phoneme [D ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . 0 86 69.4 71 73.2 A 14 11.3 14 14.4 UO 6 4.8 0 0 E 1 0.8 0 0 U 2 1.6 2 2.1 (omit) 1 0.8 2 2.1 OW 1 0.8 2 2.1 OE 1 0.8 0 0 OO 1 0.8 5 5.2 AL 1 0.8 0 0 OU 2 1.6 2 2.1 AW 1 0.8 0 0 OA 1 0.8 0 0 AL 1 0.8 0 0 OL 1 0.8 0 0 AUE 1 0.8 0 0 AU 1 0.8 0 0 AR 1 0.8 0 0 T o t a l 124 100 97 100 T a b l e 30 Phoneme f\?l L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . U 21 27.6 14 31.8 O 19 25.0 12 27.3 (omit) 4 5.3 4 9.1 OO 21 27.6 10 22.7 E 1 1.3 2 4.6 K 1 1.3 0 0 OY 1 1.3 0 0 OOA 1 1.3 0 0 UO 1 1.3 0 0 OG 2 2.6 0 0 OU 2 2.6 1 2.3 OUL 1 1.3 0 0 T o t a l s 76 100 44 100 T a b l e 31 Phoneme [ a ^ S p e l l i n g L I C h i l d r e n F r e q . P e t . L2 C h i l d r e n F r e q . P e t . AOO 9 10.6 0 0 AW 9 10.6 0 0 0 18 21.2 35 62.5 OU 6 7.1 0 0 AO 3 3.5 0 0 U 2 2.4 0 0 OW 9 10.6 15 26.8 OE 2 2.4 0 0 AOW 5 5.9 0 0 OA 1 1.2 0 0 AWE 1 1.2 0 0 OOW 1 1.2 0 0 OUO 1 1.2 0 0 UOO 1 1.2 0 0 EOEY 1 1.2 0 0 A 7 8.2 3* 5.4 E 1 1.2 1 1.8 OO 1 1.2 3 5.4 OUE 4 4.7 0 0 WW 1 1.2 0 0 OUW 1 1.2 0 0 HOWE 1 1.2 0 0 I 0 0 1 1.8 D t a l 85 100 56 100 T a b l e 32 Phoneme [G] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . TH 57 80.3 44 47.3 T 10 14.1 26 28.0 F 2 2.8 8 8.6 (omit) 1 1.4 5 5.4 H 1 1.4 0 0 D 0 0 10 10.8 T o t a l 71 100 93 100 T a b l e 33 Phoneme [ %\ L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . TH 162 86.2 16 16.8 T 21 11.2 50 52.6 (omit) 2 1.1 7 7.4 V 1 0.5 0 0 D 2 1.1 22 23.2 T o t a l 188 100 95 100 139 T a b l e 34 Phoneme [ Q ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . N 50 25.4 63 45.3 G 35 17.8 14 10.1 (omit) 35 17.8 35 25.2 NG 67 34.0 24 17.2 V 1 0.5 0 0 DE 2 1.0 0 0 NE 1 0.5 0 0 LIN 1 0.5 0 0 GN 3 1.5 0 0 NIN 1 0.5 0 0 NGE 1 0.5 0 0 AN 0 0 3 2.2 T o t a l 197 100 139 100 T a b l e 35 Phoneme L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . A 284 87.7 175 62.1 (omit) 10 3.1 15 5.3 E 21 6.5 60 21.3 0 3 0.9 18 6.4 AE 1 0.3 0 0 AI 2 0.6 0 0 UA 1 0.3 0 0 I 1 0.3 10 3.5 AA 1 0.3 0 0 H 0 0 4 1.4 T o t a l 324 100 282 100 140 T a b l e 36 Phoneme [Svi ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . I 176 77.5 118 50.6 AY 7 3.1 3 1.3 Y 4 1.8 0 0 E I 2 0.9 0 0 IE 15 6.6 8 3.4 IY 4 1.8 0 0 UY 2 0.9 0 0 A 1 0.4 3 1.3 E 1 0.4 0 0 U 2 0.9 0 0 AIY 1 0.4 0 0 OY 1 0.4 0 0 UYE 1 0.4 0 0 (omit) 3 1.3 4 1.7 EY 1 0.4 6 2.6 IS 1 0.4 0 0 AI 2 0.9 91 39.1 IEY 1 0.4 0 0 IYE 1 0.4 0 0 EYE 1 0.4 0 0 AE 0 0 12 5.2 T o t a l 227 100 233 100 T a b l e 37 Phoneme [>^] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . O 1 33.3 6 46.2 OE 2 66.6 7 53.8 T o t a l 3 100 13 100 T a b l e 38 Phoneme [S] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . SH 44 53.0 27 42.2 S 16 19.3 32 50.0 H 4 4.8 0 0 CH 4 4.8 4 6.25 HC 2 2.4 0 0 T l 3 3.6 0 0 (omit) 1 1.2 1 1.5 SC 1 1.2 0 0 ND 1 1.2 0 0 HS 1 1.2 0 0 SHT 1 1.2 0 0 TH 3 3.6 0 0 TT 1 1.2 0 0 SCH 1 1.2 0 0 T o t a l 83 100 64 100 T a b l e 39 Phoneme [2. ] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . P e t . SH 1 100 0 0 T o t a l 1 100 0 0 142 T a b l e 40 Phoneme [VjW] L I C h i l d r e n L2 C h i l d r e n S p e l l i n g F r e q . P e t . F r e q . Pet. /u 25 61.0 32 76.2 Y/OO 4 9.8 6 14.3 Y/U 2 4.9 4 9.5 / 1 2.4 0 0 /E 1 2.4 0 0 /AW 1 2.4 0 0 O/U 1 2.4 0 0 /o 1 2.4 0 0 0/0 1 2.4 0 0 /uoo 2 4.9 0 0 Y/0 1 2.4 0 0 Y/OU 1 2.4 0 0 >tal 41 100 42 100 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078248/manifest

Comment

Related Items