Learning the sounds of letters is important for learning to decode printed words and is a key component of phonics instruction. Some letter sounds are easier for children than others, and studies of these differences can shed light on the factors that influence children’s learning. The present study examined knowledge of the sounds of lowercase letters among children in England, where a government-mandated curriculum specifies the order in which letter sounds should be taught and where letters’ sounds are taught before the names. The participants were 355 children from Nursery (mean age 4 years, 4 months), Reception (mean age 5 years, 4 months), and Year 1 (6 years, 4 months) classes. When order of teaching was statistically controlled, children did better than expected on the initial letter of their first name and worse on visually confusable letters. Unlike the North American children in previous studies, they did not perform better on letters that had their sounds at the beginning of their names than on other types of letters. The sonority and the age of acquisition of the letter’s sound were also not influential. Implications for letter teaching, particularly for children at risk of literacy problems, are discussed.

Linguists have described the English vocabulary as including Latinate and basic subsystems. In three experiments with a total of 93 participants, we asked whether skilled readers are sensitive to graphotactic differences between these systems. Participants saw pairs of nonwords and were asked to choose the item in each pair that appeared more wordlike. Participants were more likely to select an item with an onset and an ending that suggested the same system than an item with a mismatch. Participants also used the presence of a single versus double medial consonant as a marker of the system to which an item belongs. The results suggest that skilled readers have learned about some of the graphotactic differences between Latinate and basic words and do not treat English as a monolithic system.

Conversations about literacy-related matters with parents can help prepare children for formal literacy instruction. We studied these conversations using data gathered from fifty-six US families as they engaged in daily activities at home. Analyzing conversations when children were aged 1;10, 2;6, 3;6, and 4;2, we found that explicit talk about the elements and processes of reading and writing occurred even when children were less than two years old and became more common as children grew older. The majority of literacy-related conversations included talk about alphabet letters. Literacy-related conversations occurred in a variety of contexts, not only book-reading. There were few differences as a function of family socioeconomic status in the proportion of utterances during the sessions that occurred in literacy-related conversations. At older ages, however, children in families of lower socioeconomic status bore more of the conversational burden than children in families of higher status.

The present study tested the hypothesis (Byrne, 1996) that young children who do not yet understand that the elements of alphabetic writing represent phonemes link writing to language at the level of morphemes. We asked US preschoolers to write words that varied in the number of morphemes and the number of syllables that they contained. We identified a group of 50 children who used letters that represented phonemes in the intended words no more often than expected by chance (mean age = 4 years, 9 months). These prephonological spellers did not produce longer spellings for two-morpheme words such as teacup than for one-morpheme words such as napkin, although the length of their spellings was affected by the number of letters that they used to spell the previously presented word and by the order of the word in the experiment. The results suggest that the length of prephonological spellers’ productions is not influenced by the linguistic length of a message in phonemes, syllables, or morphemes, and they do not support the idea that these children show a special sensitivity to morphemes.

In six analyses using the Child Language Data Exchange System known as CHILDES, we explored whether and how parents and their 1.5- to 5-year-old children talk about writing. Parent speech might include information about the similarity between print and speech and about the difference between writing and drawing. Parents could convey similarity between print and speech by using the words say, name, and word to refer to both spoken and written language. Parents could differentiate writing and drawing by making syntactic and semantic distinctions in their discussion of the two symbol systems. Our results indicate that parent speech includes these types of information. However, young children themselves sometimes confuse writing and drawing in their speech.

Two experiments examined the way in which kindergarteners, first graders, and adults spell syllables like /spa/, /sta/, and /ska/. The second consonants of these syllables are standardly spelled as the voiceless stops P, T, and C/K. From a phonetic standpoint, however, the consonants could be spelled as the voiced stops B, D, and G. The proportion of voiced spellings was found to decrease with reading level: The nonstandard spellings were fairly prevalent among children, but almost nonexistent among adults. Nonetheless, most adults could choose the phonetically plausible voiced spellings over phonetically incorrect spellings.

Three studies were performed to explore the role of letter names in children's learning of correspondences between phonemes and graphemes. Some preschoolers and kindergartners were found to spell initial /w/ as y. They made this error because the name of y, /wai/, begins with /w/. Kindergartners in another study often said that y makes the sound /wdoubt/, even after they had been taught otherwise. Other results suggested that children benefit from letter-name knowledge to spell phonemes such as /b/, which occur at the beginning of a consonant-vowel letter name. Letter-name knowledge is less helpful for phonemes such as /1/, which occur at the end of a vowel-consonant letter name. Our findings suggest that children use their knowledge of letter names and their phonological segmentation skills when they learn the correspondences between phonemes and graphemes. They do not memorize these links in a rote, paired-associate manner.

The spelling skills of grade 3 children who had received whole language instruction since they began to learn to read were compared with those of grade 3 children attending a phonics program. The children were asked to spell a list of words and nonwords. Overall, the phonics group produced more accurate word spellings than the whole language group. In addition, the phonics children's spellings of nonwords included more conventional, phonologically accurate patterns. There were no group differences on measures of orthographic acceptability or on preservation of skeletal structure.

Children in the United States and in other English-speaking countries often learn a good deal about letters before they begin formal reading instruction. We suggest that one important and previously unrecognized type of knowledge about letters is knowledge of the phonological structure of the letters' names. In two experiments, preschoolers with a mean age of 4;8 judged whether various syllables were letters. The children made significantly more false positive responses to syllables such as /fi/, which have a phonological structure shared by a number of letters, than to syllables such as /fa/ and /if/, which sound less like real letters. This was true even for children who could recite the alphabet without error. Learning the alphabet, we conclude, forms the basis for generalizations about the structure of letter names.

Four master–dog dyads were studied to determine whether the language that is used in speaking to dogs (doggerel) resembles the language that is used in speaking to children (motherese). The structural properties of doggerel are strikingly similar to those that have been reported for motherese. Certain differences between motherese and doggerel may arise in functional and social areas. The similarities between the two language registers suggest that motherese is not elicited in response to either the linguistic level or the cognitive/intellectual level of the child. Rather, the social responsiveness of the listener may be sufficient to elicit the motherese register.

Brown & Hanlon (1970) reported that parents' explicit approval or disapproval of their child's utterances was not contingent on the well-formedness of that utterance. Rather, parents seemed attuned to the semantic value of their child's speech. Using 40 mother–child dyads, 10 from each of four age groups, 2–5 years, we replicated these results. We expanded upon this earlier work, however, to suggest that parents are not totally indifferent to the grammatical form of their child's utterances. Focusing on repetitions, we found that mothers are more inclined to repeat ungrammatical than grammatical sentences generated by 2- year-old subjects. This indicates that the language learning environment does present subtle cues that distinguish between well-formed and ill-formed sentences. Whether the child is capable of capitalizing on these cues remains unanswered.

Two studies examined children's use of letter–name spelling strategies when target phoneme sequences match letter names with different degrees of precision. We examined Portuguese-speaking preschoolers' use of h (which is named /a′ga/ but which never represents those sounds) when spelling words beginning with /ga/ or variants of /ga/. We also looked at use of q (named /ke/) when spelling /ke/ and /ge/. Children sometimes used h for stimuli beginning with /ga/ and /ka/, and q when spelling words and nonwords beginning with /ke/ and /ge/ they did not use these letters when stimuli began with other sequences. Thus, their spellings evinced use of letter-name matches primarily when consonant-vowel sequences matched, such that vowels must be exact but consonants could differ in voicing from the target phoneme.

Despite the importance of phonemic awareness in beginning literacy, several studies have demonstrated that adults, including teacher trainees, have surprisingly poor phonemic skills. Three experiments investigated whether adults' responses in phonemic awareness and spelling segmentation tasks are based on units larger than single letters and phonemes. Responses often involved large units, and they were influenced by sonority and syllable structure. Participants who performed a phoneme counting task before a spelling segmentation task produced significantly more phoneme-based responses and fewer onset–rime responses than participants who first counted words in sentences. This training effect highlights the flexibility of adults' strategies. Although adults are capable of phoneme-based processing, they sometimes fail to use it.

To examine the factors that affect the learning of letter names, an important foundation for literacy, we asked 318 US and 369 Brazilian preschoolers to identify each uppercase letter. Similarity of letter shape was the major determinant of confusion errors in both countries, and children were especially likely to interchange letters that were similar in shape as well as name. Errors were also affected by letter frequency, both general frequency and occurrence of letters in children's own names. Differences in letter names and letter frequencies between English and Portuguese led to certain differences in the patterns of performance for children in the two countries. Other differences appeared to reflect US children's greater familiarity with the conventional order of the alphabet. Boys were overrepresented at the low end of the continuum of letter name knowledge, suggesting that some boys begin formal reading instruction lacking important foundational skills.

Research on children's spelling has focused on its phonological bases. In the present study, we examined a type of nonphonological knowledge that even young children may possess—knowledge about the distinction between upper- and lowercase letters. In Study 1, we analyzed the capitalization patterns used by children in kindergarten through second grade on words that did not contain a capital letter in their conventional spellings. The younger children, especially, often wrote with capital letters. They did so in a nonrandom way, being more likely to capitalize word-initial letters than later letters. When children inserted an uppercase letter in a noninitial position of a spelling, it tended to be a letter whose uppercase form was especially familiar to the child, the initial letter of the child's first name. In Study 2, which examined kindergartners' knowledge of the names of upper- and lowercase letters, we found further evidence that children's names influence their knowledge about letters and that some of this knowledge is case specific. Together, the results show that early spelling involves more than phonology.

We analyzed spellings that were produced by children in kindergarten (N = 115), first grade (N = 104), and second grade (N = 77) in order to determine whether children's own names influence their spellings of other words. Kindergartners overused letters from their own first names (or commonly used nicknames) when spelling. Kindergartners with longer names, who had more own-name letters available for intrusions, tended to produce longer spellings than did children with shorter names. Moreover, the spellings of kindergartners with long names tended to contain a lower proportion of phonetically reasonable letters than did the spellings of children with short names. These effects appeared to be confined to children who read below the first grade level. The results support the view that children's own names play a special role in the acquisition of literacy. They further show that children choose letters in a way that reflects their experience with the letters.

Many previous studies of children's spelling have adopted a narrow approach,examining one linguistic structure at a time and paying little attention to differences amongchildren or changes with development. We broadened the focus by examining two different, butpotentially related, patterns (stressed syllabic /r/ and letter-name vowels) and by trackingchanges in performance from fall to spring of first grade. The results show how children movefrom using one letter for each phonological unit (e.g., SR for sir; KON for cone) to appreciating the function of “extra” letters (e.g., the vowel letters i of sir and e of cone). Errors such as SRE for sir may arise during this process, reflecting an overgeneralization of the silent e pattern. The results are generally consistent with the view that spelling becomes more “orthographic” with development. However, the course of development is not always as predicted by existing stage theories.

For adults, written spelling is generally superior to oral spelling. To determine whether thesame holds true for children in kindergarten through second grade, we compared children'sability to spell real words (Experiment 1) and nonsense words (Experiment 2) orally and inwriting. Building on the work of Tangel and Blachman (1992, 1995) and others, we developed areliable system to assess the overall quality of the children's spellings. We also examinedthe phonological and orthographic legality of the spellings. By first and second grade, writtenspellings were superior to oral spellings in both overall quality and representation ofphonological form. This held true for both words and nonwords. The results suggest thatchildren, like adults, more accurately analyze the linguistic structure of a spoken item when theycan represent the results in a lasting, visible form than when they cannot.