Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wlg5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T22:44:31.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Joanne F. Carlisle
Joanne F. Carlisle*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Joanne F. Carlisle Northwestern University, Learning Disabilities Center, 2299 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60201
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated students' knowledge of derivational morphology and the relationship between this knowledge and their ability to spell derived words. The subjects (fourth, sixth and eighth graders) were given the Wide Range Achievement Test, Spelling subtest, and experimental tests of their ability to generate base and derived forms orally, to spell the same base and derived words, and to apply suffix addition rules. The results indicate strong developmental trends in both the mastery of derivational morphology and the spelling of derived words; however, spelling performances lagged significantly behind the ability to generate the same words. Success generating and spelling derived words depended on the complexity of transformations between base and derived forms. Further, mastery of phonological and orthographic transformations most strongly distinguished the three grades in both spelling and generating derived words. Indications that the older students were using knowledge of morphemic structure in spelling derived words were found in analysis of the spelling of base and derived word pairs and the application of suffix addition rules.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 247 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Barganz, R. A. (1971). The morphophonemic performance of good and poor readers. Technical Report #182. Madison, WI: Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahen, L. S., Craun, M. J., and Johnson, S. K. (1971). Spelling difficulty—A survey of the research. Review of Educational Research, 41, 281–301.Google Scholar
Carlisle, J. F. (1984, 03). Mastery of the conventions of suffixation by good and poor spellers in grades seven through nine. Paper presented at the New York Orton Dyslexia Society Conference, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Carlisle, J. F. (1985). The relationship between morphological knowledge and spelling ability in fourth, sixth, and eighth graders. Status Report on Speech Research, #SR-82–83. New Haven, CT: Haskins Laboratories, 151–174.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., and Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book. New York: American Heritage.Google Scholar
Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing and phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 40, 287–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. L. (1976). Morpheme recognition and the learning of rules for derivational morphology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 21, 38–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, B. L., and Baker, W. J. (1979). Recent research on the acquisition of English morphology. In Fletcher, P. and Carman, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. W., Shankweiler, D., and Liberman, I. Y. (1985). Spelling proficiency and sensitivity to word structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyd, P., and Baron, J. (1982). Individual differences in acquisition of derivational morphology. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Henderson, L. (1982). Orthography and word recognition in reading. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51(3), 639–671.Google Scholar
Jaeger, J. J. (1984). Assessing the psychological status of the vowel shift rule. Journal of Psycho-linguistic Research, 13, 13–36.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J., and Snodgrass, J. G. (1974). Seeing ring in rang and retain in retention: On recognizing stem morphemes in printed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 590–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jastak, J. F., and Jastak, S. (1978). The Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.Google Scholar
Kempley, S. T., and Morton, J. (1982). The effects of priming with regularly and irregularly related words in auditory word recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klima, E. S. (1972). How alphabets might reflect language. In Kavanagh, J. F. and Mattingly, I. G. (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
LaSorte, D. M. (1980). The differential effects of visual and auditory information in determining meaning of derived words at third and fifth grade levels. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the College Reading Association, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. Y., Liberman, A. M., Mattingly, I. G., and Shankweiler, D. P. (1980). Orthography and the beginning reader. In Kavanagh, J. F. and Venezky, R. L. (Eds.), Orthography, Reading and Dyslexia. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Marino, J. L. (1979). Children's use of phonetic, graphemic and morphophonemic cues in a spelling task. Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center, document #ED188235.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, B. (1973). On the status of the vowel shift in English. In Moore, J. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Randall, J. H. (1980). -ity: A study in word formation restrictions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 9(6), 523–534.Google Scholar
Richardson, J. T. E. (1977). Lexical derivation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. W., and Hesse, K. D. (1981). A morphemically based spelling program's effect on spelling skill and spelling performance of seventh grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, H. (1984). An investigation of the development of morphological knowledge and its relationship to early spelling ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
Russell, P. (1972). Morphology and English spelling. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory. ERIC #ED108–228.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S., and Doehring, D. G. (1977). A developmental study of children's ability to acquire knowledge of spelling patterns. Developmental Psychology, 13, 419–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selby, S. (1972). The development of morphological rules in children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 42, 293–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P. T., and Sterling, C. M. (1982). Factors affecting the perceived morphemic structure of written words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 704–721.Google Scholar
Stanners, R. F., Hernon, W. P., and Hall, R. (1979). Memory representation for morphologically related words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 399–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, D. D. (1973). Phonology, reading, and Chomsky's optimal orthography. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 239–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterling, C. M. (1983). Spelling errors in context. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 353–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Templeton, S. (1980). Spelling, phonology and the older student. In Henderson, E. H. and Beers, J. W. (Eds.), Developmental and cognitive aspects of learning to spell: A reflection of word knowledge. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
Templeton, S., and Scarborough-Franks, L. (1985). The spelling's the thing: Knowledge of derivational morphology in orthography and phonology among older students. Applied Psycho-linguistics, 6, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. (1941). The teaching of English suffixes. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E. M., and Grouse, M. A. B. (1973). The use of English morphology by high-risk and learning disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 59–67.Google Scholar
Venezky, R. L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar