What is a morphological spelling error?
|
The paper aims to account for linguistic and processing factors responsible for the incidence of spelling errors in Hebrew. The theoretical goal is to disentangle a complex interaction between morphology, phonology, and orthography in production of written words. We focused on a specific spelling error in Hebrew: an overt representation of the word-internal segment/i/by the letter Y (י). This Y-insertion goes against the prescriptive spelling rules (cf. substandard MYRPST מירפסת vs conventional MRPST מרפסת,/miʁpeset/‘balcony’) and yet in our data it affects 25% of nouns with an appropriate phonological environment. Corpus analyses of unedited texts further revealed that errors proliferated in lower-frequency words, but their occurrence was much less likely if it would disrupt a morphological unit. These results point to morphology and statistical patterns of language use in Hebrew as major mechanisms driving orthographic learning: the paper discusses repercussions of our findings for theories of reading. Show
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly. Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem. Fig. 1  Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Notes
Álvarez, C. J., Cottrell, D., & Afonso, O. (2009). Writing dictated words and picture names: Syllabic boundaries affect execution in Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409090092. Article Google Scholar Andrews, S., & Bond, R. (2009). Lexical expertise and reading skill: Bottom-up and top-down processing of lexical ambiguity. Reading and Writing, 22(6), 687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9137. Article Google Scholar Aronoff, M., Berg, K., & Heyer, V. (2016). Some implications of English spelling for morphological processing. The Mental Lexicon, 11(2), 164–185. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.2.01aro. Article Google Scholar Baayen, R. H. (2001). Word frequency distributions (Vol. 18). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Book Google Scholar Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005. Article Google Scholar Badecker, W., Hillis, A., & Caramazza, A. (1990). Lexical morphology and its role in the writing process: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Cognition, 35(3), 205–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(90)90023-D. Article Google Scholar Badecker, W., Rapp, B., & Caramazza, A. (1996). Lexical morphology and the two orthographic routes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13(2), 161–175. Article Google Scholar Bar-On, A., Dattner, E., & Ravid, D. (2017). Context effects on heterophonic-homography resolution in learning to read Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(3), 463–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9685-1. Article Google Scholar Bar-On, A., & Ravid, D. (2011). Morphological analysis in learning pseudowords in Hebrew. Applied Psycholinguistics, 32(3), 553–581. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641100021X. Article Google Scholar Berg, K. (2013). Graphemic alternations in English as a reflex of morphological structure. Morphology, 23, 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11525-013-9229-1. Article Google Scholar Berg, K. (2016). Graphemic analysis of the spoken language bias. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00388. Google Scholar Berg, K., & Aronoff, M. (2017). Self-organization in the spelling of English suffixes: The emergence of culture out of anarchy. Language, 93(1), 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2017.0000. Article Google Scholar Bertram, R., Tønnessen, F. E., Strömqvist, S., Hyöna, J., & Niemi, P. (2015). Cascaded processing in written compound word production. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00207. Google Scholar Bosman, A. M. T., & Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 173–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar de Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2000). The morphological family size effect and morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(4–5), 329–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960050119625. Article Google Scholar Deacon, H., Conrad, N., & Pacton, S. (2008). A statistical learning perspective on children’s learning about graphotactic and morphological regularities in spelling. Canadian Psychology, 49, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.2.118. Article Google Scholar Deutsch, A., & Malinovitch, T. (2016). The role of the morpho-phonological word-pattern unit in single-word production in Hebrew. Journal of Memory and Language, 87, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.10.005. Article Google Scholar Ernestus, M. T. C. (2000). Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch: A corpus-based study of the phonology-phonetics interface. Ph.D. dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam (LOT Series 36). Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2006). The functionality of incomplete neutralization in Dutch: The case of past-tense formation. Laboratory Phonology, 8(1), 27–49. Google Scholar Falkauskas, K., & Kuperman, V. (2015). When experience meets language statistics: Individual variability in processing English compound words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1607–1627. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000132. Google Scholar Fox, J. (2015). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Google Scholar Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Google Scholar Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000635. Article Google Scholar Gillis, S., & Ravid, D. (2006). Typological effects on spelling development: A crosslinguistic study of Hebrew and Dutch. Journal of Child Language, 33(3), 621–659. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007434. Article Google Scholar Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., Westfall, P., Heiberger, R. M., Schuetzenmeister, A., Scheibe, S., & Hothorn, M. T. (2017). Multcomp: Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. R package version 1-4.8. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/multcomp/multcomp.pdf. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007. Article Google Scholar Kandel, S., Álvarez, C. J., & Vallée, N. (2006). Syllables as processing units in handwriting production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.1.18. Google Scholar Kandel, S., Álvarez, C. J., & Vallée, N. (2008). Morphemes also serve as processing units in handwriting production. In M. Baciu (Ed.), Neuropsychology and cognition of language. Behavioural, neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies of spoken and written language (pp. 87–100). Kerala: Research Signpost. Google Scholar Kandel, S., Spinelli, E., Tremblay, A., Guerassimovitch, H., & Álvarez, C. J. (2012). Processing prefixes and suffixes in handwriting production. Acta Psychologica, 140, 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.04.005. Article Google Scholar Kandel, S., & Valdois, S. (2006). Syllables as functional units in a copying task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400018378. Article Google Scholar Kuperman, V., & Bertram, R. (2013). Moving spaces: Spelling alternation in English noun-noun compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 939–966. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.701757. Article Google Scholar Kuperman, V., & Van Dyke, A. J. (2013). Reassessing word frequency as a determinant of word recognition for skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030859. Google Scholar Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2015). ImerTest: tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-20. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/140635100/lmerTestJStatSoft2017.pdf. Google Scholar Linzen, T. (2009). Corpus of blog postings collected from the Israblog website. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Google Scholar Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostic, A., & Baayen, R. H. (2009). Words and paradigms bit by bit: An information-theoretic approach to the processing of inection and derivation. In J. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 214–252). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter Google Scholar Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730. Article Google Scholar Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Linear mixed effects models. Mixed effects models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer Verlag. Book Google Scholar Protopapas, A., Fakou, A., Drakopoulou, S., Skaloumbakas, C., & Mouzaki, A. (2013). What do spelling errors tell us? Classification and analysis of errors made by Greek schoolchildren with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 26(5), 615–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9378-3. Article Google Scholar R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Google Scholar Rahmanian, S., & Kuperman, V. (2017). Spelling errors impede recognition of correctly spelled word forms. Scientific Studies of Reading. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1359274. Google Scholar Ravid, D. (2012). Spelling morphology: The psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York: Springer. Book Google Scholar Ravid, D., & Kubi, E. (2003). What is a spelling error? The discrepancy between perception and reality. Faits de Langue, 22, 87–98. Google Scholar Ravid, D., & Schiff, R. (2004). Learning to represent vowels in written Hebrew: Different factors across development. First Language, 24, 18–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723704044127. Google Scholar Sahel, S., Nottbusch, G., Grimm, A., & Weingarten, R. (2008). Written production of German compounds. Written Language & Literacy, 11(2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.11.2.06sah. Google Scholar Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2013). A tale of one letter: Morphological processing in early Arabic spelling. Writing Systems Research, 5, 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17586801.2013.857586. Article Google Scholar Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Henkin-Roitfarb, R. (2014). The structure of Arabic language and orthography. In E. Saiegh-Haddad & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Handbook of Arabic literacy (pp. 3–28). New York: Springer. Chapter Google Scholar Saiegh-Haddad, E., & Taha, H. (2017). The role of morphological and phonological awareness in the early development of word spelling and reading in typically developing and disabled Arabic readers. Dyslexia, 23, 345–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1572. Article Google Scholar Sandra, D. (2010). Homophone dominance at the whole-word and sub-word levels: Spelling errors suggest full-form storage of regularly inflected verb forms. Language and speech, 53(3), 405–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371459. Article Google Scholar Sandra, D. (2011). Spelling strategies in alphabetic scripts: Insights gained and challenges ahead. The Mental Lexicon, 6(1), 110–140. Article Google Scholar Sandra, D., Frisson, S., & Daems, F. (1999). Why simple verb forms can be so difficult to spell: The influence of homophone frequency and distance in Dutch. Brain and Language, 68, 277–283. Article Google Scholar Sandra, D., & Van Abbenyen, L. (2009). Frequency and analogical effects in the spelling of fullform and sublexical homophonous patterns by 12 year-old children. Mental Lexicon, 4(2), 239–274. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.4.2.04san. Article Google Scholar Schiff, R., & Ravid, D. (2004). Vowel representation in written Hebrew: Phonological, orthographic and morphological contexts. Reading and Writing, 17, 245–265. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:READ.0000017668.48386.90. Article Google Scholar Seidenberg, M. S. (2011). Reading in different writing systems: One architecture, multiple solutions. In P. McCardle, B. Miller, J. Lee, & O. Tzeng (Eds.), Dyslexia across languages. Orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link (pp. 151–174). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Google Scholar Share, D. L. (2008). On the anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584. Article Google Scholar Shimron, J., & Sivan, T. (1994). Reading proficiency and orthography: Evidence from Hebrew and English. Language Learning, 44, 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1994.tb01447.x. Article Google Scholar Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2014). How children learn to write words. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Book Google Scholar Weingarten, R., Nottbusch, G., & Will, U. (2004). Morphemes, syllables and graphemes in written word production. In T. Pechmann & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 529–572). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar Will, U., Nottbusch, G., & Weingarten, R. (2006). Linguistic units in word typing: Effects of word presentation modes and typing delay. Written Language & Literacy, 9(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.9.1.10wil. Article Google Scholar Download references AcknowledgementsVictor Kuperman’s contribution was partially supported by the Canadian Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant RGPIN/402395-2012 415 (Kuperman, PI), the Ontario Early Researcher award (Kuperman, PI), the Canada Research Chair (Tier 2; Kuperman, PI), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Partnership Training Grant 895-2016-1008 (Libben, PI), the Canada Foundation for Innovation Leaders Opportunity Fund (Kuperman, PI), and the Lady Davis Visiting Professorship at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Author informationAuthors and Affiliations
Authors
Corresponding authorCorrespondence to Amalia Bar-On. Electronic supplementary materialBelow is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 45 kb)Rights and permissionsReprints and Permissions About this articleCite this articleBar-On, A., Kuperman, V. Spelling errors respect morphology: a corpus study of Hebrew orthography. Read Writ 32, 1107–1128 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9902-1 What is a morphological spelling?Morphology is the study of words and their parts. Morphemes, like prefixes, suffixes and base words, are defined as the smallest meaningful units of meaning. Morphemes are important for phonics in both reading and spelling, as well as in vocabulary and comprehension.
What is phonological spelling error?Phonological problems refer to errors in which the misspelled word does not sound like the target word because the whole word, a consonant, a vowel, a syllable, a prefix, a suffix, a grapheme or a grapheme cluster was not heard at all, was misheard, was added, or reversed with another.
What are the different types of spelling error?In the samples below, the spelling errors from a student's writing are assembled into three broad categories: phonological (phonetically inaccurate), orthographic (phonetically plausible but inaccurate), and morphologic/syntactic.
What is the difference between phonological and orthographic errors?Phonological enemies were defined as the number of words with similar spelling but different pronunciation of the rhyme and orthographic enemies were defined as the number of words with similar pronunciation but different spelling of the rime.
|
