Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
LILIANE SPRENGER-CHAROLLES1
ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to provide a survey of the development of word reading
and spelling in alphabetic writing systems. We assume that the processes that
beginning readers rely on partially depend on the specific characteristics of each
language, and not only on general principles common to all languages. In
particular the weight of the indirect phonological route depends on the degree to
which the different writing systems represent the spoken language which they
encode. To illustrate this claim, we will review studies carried out with English-,
French-, German- and Spanish-speaking children. After a presentation of the main
specific linguistic characteristics of these four languages, we shall review the
psycholinguistic literature. Our main arguments will be that (1) at the beginning of
reading acquisition, the orthographic lexicon is not yet operating, therefore,
children rely on their speech knowledge to establish relations between spoken and
written language; (2) these relations are easier to establish when ``spelling-to-
sound'' correspondences are transparent; (3) the units of ``spelling-to-sound''
correspondences depend on the linguistic peculiarities of each specific language; (4)
the constitution of the orthographic lexicon is a consequence of the consolidation
of the associations between ``spelling-to-sound'' correspondences.
INTRODUCTION
Young children might be able to understand a text that is read to them and yet still
be unable to understand the same text when they have to read it by themselves. If
this happens, their reading difficulties cannot be explained by a failure in
comprehension ± the goal of reading ± but are due to an inability to master some
1
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Willy Serniclaes, Danielle BeÂchennec, Jesus Alegria and Sylvia
Defior for their very helpful comments. The help of Sally Gerome in proof reading this chapter is
gratefully acknowledged.
43
The letters of the alphabet are not connected with sounds but with phonemes. A
phoneme is a family of sounds whose function is to signal a difference in meaning
in a language. The fact that ``bat'' and ``pat'' differ in meaning demonstrates that /
p/ and /b/ are English phonemes even if the sounds of [p] in ``paper'', ``spoon'' and
Phonology and Spelling 45
``top'' differ from one another. In Spanish, the fact that ``pero'' (but) and ``perro''
(a dog) differ in meaning indicates that two different phonemes for R exist. This is
not the case in French where the differences between the two Rs may be only a
dialectal difference, and not a phonemic difference related to a difference in
meaning.
Each letter of the alphabet was designed in principle to represent one specific
phoneme. A major problem emerges when there are more phonemes than letters
to represent them. For example, whereas the alphabet has five letters for vowels,
as in oral Spanish, more than 14 simple vowels are found in English, French and
German (Delattre, 1965). To spell English, French and German vowels, it is thus
necessary to use either diacritic markers (i.e. the umlaut in German which
differentiates u /u/ and uÈ /y/), or more than one letter (i.e. ou for /u/ in French as
opposed to u /y/). As a consequence, the graphic unit that corresponds to the
phoneme is not the letter but the grapheme. A grapheme may be simple (a one-
letter grapheme, without diacritic markers) or complex (a letter with a diacritic
marker or a digraph composed of more than one letter).
Most of the differences between the phonological and the graphemic structure of
the English, French, German and Spanish languages are related to their vocalic
system that may include monothongs and diphthongs, nasal vowels and a neutral
vowel (Delattre, 1965; see also for English, Taylor & Serniclaes, 1998 and for
German, Taylor & Serniclaes, 1999).
Length differences, which are similar to differences between open and closed
vowels, allow the 14 main monothongs to be grouped into pairs (/i/I/, /y/Y/, /u/
U/, /e/e/, /ù/ú/, /o/]/, /a/a/). German has all seven pairs of monothongs. In
English, there is no /y/Y/, but there are /i/I/, /L/u/, /e/, /6/f/, /Z/]/ and /ñ/V/. In
French, there is only one /i/, one /y/, one /u/, and the problem of whether the
other series (/e/ù/o/a/ vs /e/ú/]/a/) represent 4 or 8 phonemes is unsolved. In
Spanish, there are only five monothongs (/i/, /u/, /e/, /o/ and /a/). There are also
3-4 nasal vowels in French, nasality being not a distinctive feature in the three
other languages. A neutral vowel /c/, that is a sort of home base to which the
tongue returns frequently in the course of speech, is found in German and
French, but to a smaller extent than in English where almost all vowels can
become a schwa in an unstressed syllable.
In Spanish, the five letters of the alphabet i, u, e, o and a, represent the five
monothongs. In German, the umlaut differentiates /y/Y/ from /u/U/, /o/]/ from /
ù/ú/, and /a/ from /e/, i.e. uÈ versus u, o versus oÈ and a versus aÈ, but there are also
alternative spellings, i.e. eu for /ù/ (adieu /adjù/), e for /e/ (Antenne /anetnc/) and
y for /y/ (physic /fysi:k/). Vocalic lengthening is mainly achieved by doubling the
vowel (Boot, Aal), by adding a silent h after the vowel (Bohne) or by adding the
vowel e, after i (Biene). In addition, the presence of a double consonant indicates
46 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
that the preceding vowel is short (offen). This system, which has few exceptions, is
simpler for reading than for spelling because long vowels can be spelled in more
than one way.
One of the main characteristics of the spelling of French vowels is the high
number of digraphs (ou for /u/ as opposed to u for /y/, eu for /ù/ú/, and a, i, o, u
+ n or m for nasal vowels), but diacritic markers can also be used (for example, eÂ
and eÁ for /e/e/). Some of the digraphs have no simpler orthographic equivalents
(ou, and the four nasal vowels), others have simpler allographs (au, eau, also
spelled o), and alternative spellings are also found (i.e. an /6/ also spelled am, en
or em. . .; in /§/ also spelled im, en, ein, ain. . .). But with the main exceptions of e,
which can be /e/, /e/, /c/, or even /a/, and of en, which can be /6/ or /§/, French
graphemes representing vowels mainly refer to the same phonemes (Catach, 1986;
VeÂronis, 1986). Therefore, in French, grapheme-phoneme correspondences for
vowels are highly predictable, whereas phoneme-grapheme correspondences are
not so easy to manipulate because it is often necessary to choose between
alternative spellings for a particular vocalic phoneme (see also Peereman &
Content, 1998).
It is not possible to explain the spelling of English monothongs without taking
into account the following consonants, the number of syllables of the word and
the word stress (Deschamps, 1994). First, for short vowels in monosyllabic words,
grapheme-phoneme correspondences exhibit few exceptions. The grapheme i
mainly corresponds to the phoneme /i/ as in pit, the grapheme e to /e/ as in bed,
the grapheme a to /ñ/ as in bag, the grapheme o to /Z/ as in pot; however, the
grapheme u either corresponds to / / as in put (/p t/) or to /6/ as in but (/b6t/).
O O
diphthongs has few exceptions, except for i that can be spelled y at the end of a
word (bailar/fray, boina/doy, beige/ley). In German, alternative spellings can be
found for /ai/ (spelled ai in Laib but ei in Ameise) and /oi/ (spelled aÈu or eu as in
aÈugeln and heute). The spelling of English diphthongs is highly unpredictable.
They can be represented by a single letter grapheme or by a digraph. For
example, i, y, ir, igh(t) but also uy and aiX correspond to /ai/ in fine, try, fire,
light, buy and aisle. In addition, all English vowels are more or less
diphthonguised, i.e. articulated in a constant movement. Thus, the quality of
the starting vowel progressively changes from the beginning to the end. This
phenomenon is not easy to represent graphically. According to Delattre's analysis
(1965), the closest transcription of the English do, know and bee turns out to be
[dddcUUUuuuuw], [nnn]]]]oow] and [bbbIIiiij]. As compared to Spanish,
German and French, in English, grapheme-phoneme as well as phoneme-
grapheme correspondences for vowels are thus clearly more difficult to master.
Twenty letters of the alphabet can be used to spell the consonants. This number is
similar to the number of consonantal phonemes in English (22 + 2 semi-
consonants), French (17 + 3 semi-consonants), German (21 + 1 semi-consonant)
and Spanish (17 + 2 semi-consonants). To explain the consonantal system of these
four languages, we can divide the consonants into 3 main categories, stop, fricative
and resonant (Delattre, 1965).
For stop consonants, the four languages share six oral non-affricates (/p/b/, /t/
d/, /k/g/) and three nasals (/m/n/ plus the palatal /
/ in French and Spanish or the
palato-velar /
/ in English and German). Affricate stops can be found in English
(/t$/d$/), in German (/pf/ts/) and in Spanish (/t$/). These four languages only
share two fricatives /f/ and /s/. The fricatives /v/z/ and /$/¥/ are present in
English, French and German, but not in Spanish. Other fricatives are only found
in one or two languages, two dentals in English and Spanish (/y/#/), one palatal
in German (/cË/), one pharyngeal in German and Spanish (/2/), one glottal in
English and German (/h/), and the three Spanish fricatives (/aÁ/aÊ/OÄ/) that
correspond to the voiced stops /b/d/g/ (/b/d/g/ occur word-initially, while /A/#/q/
occur intervocalically). The resonant L and R are found in the four languages, but
they are not pronounced in the same manner. In addition, in Spanish, two Rs can
be found, one short with one flap and one long with multiple flaps, plus two Ls, a
latero-dental /l/ and a latero-palatal /l/. The system has to be completed by three
semi-consonants, /j/ which can be found in the four languages, /w/ which is not
present in German, and the French /r/ (Delattre, 1965).
The Table in the Appendix summarizes the spellings of the consonants and
semi-consonants in the four target languages. Some of the consonantal phonemes
are represented mainly by the same grapheme whereas for others alternative
spellings can be found. Some of the grapheme-phoneme ambiguities are observed
48 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
in all four languages; for example, the graphemes g, c, s and t usually correspond
to different phonemes. Other ambiguities are present only in one language; for
example, in German, a change between the voice-voiceless consonants /b/p/, /d/t/,
/k/g/, /v/f/, /z/s/ at the end of the words (or of the morphemes) is observed. In
addition, the letter x is not used to represent the pharyngeal /2/ in Spanish and
German, where x is almost always pronounced [ks]. In French and in English, x
keeps the Spanish and the German pronunciation [ks] in sexy, but is also read [gz]
in exact, [z] in xenophobia (in English) and deuxieÁme (in French), and [s] in
soixante in French.
Another reading problem, specific to French and English, is that some written
consonants are silent. In English, at the beginning of a word, kn become /n/ as in
know; ps becomes /s/ as in psychology; wr become /r/ as in write. The grapheme gh
is silent before t as in fight, and at the end of a word as in high (except after ou), t
and k disappear between f or s and n or l as in soften, castle and muscle. In
addition, L and R are not clearly articulated in postvocalic position as in help,
this phenomenon being stronger for R which only lengthens the preceding
monothong as in barn, bird, board, etc. When the preceding vowel is a diphthong,
a weak R appears as in bare or bear /becr/ (Delattre, 1965). In French, the silent
consonants are mainly at the end of the words but are often pronounced with the
following word when it begins by a vowel. For example, petit lit is pronounced /
pctili/ while petit ami is pronounced /pctitami/, not /pctit/ami/ nor /p«tiami/. In
general, the problem of the French final silent consonant is due to the fact that
the morphological markers for the plural, as well as most of the verbal flexions,
either are not pronounced or modify the pronunciation of ``e'' when they follow
this grapheme (i.e., leS pouleS mangeNT/le pulc maĥc /; mangeR /maĥe/).
Another difficulty of the spelling of English and French consonants is related
to the fact that they can be geminated without clear phonological properties,
except in two cases. First, in French and in English ss always corresponds to /s/,
never to /z/. Second, in French, the presence of a double consonant modifies the
pronunciation of the vowel e which corresponds to /e/e/ as in nette and not to /c/
as in petit. Therefore, gemination mostly penalizes word spelling.
Compared to Spanish, grapheme-phoneme and phoneme-grapheme correspon-
dences for consonants in English, and to a lesser extent in French and in German,
appear to be less consistent. English grapheme-phoneme correspondences for
vowels are nevertheless deeper than those for consonants and clearly deeper than
the Spanish, the German and the French systems for vowels. This is shown
indirectly in the appendix in which there seems to be less correspondence between
pronunciation and spelling in English than in Spanish, German and French.
of word stress is highly variable (Delattre, 1965), thus penalizing the reading of
vowels that have to become a schwa in an unstressed position. The variability of
stress location is smaller in German (Delattre, 1965). Spanish shows a definite
tendency for fixed stress position on the penultimate syllable, except for bi-syllabic
words (Delattre, 1965). In French, children cannot make stress errors in word
reading as there is mainly a word-group stress. In addition, there is a
preponderance of open syllables in French and in Spanish, whereas in English
and in German, the majority of syllables have a closed structure (Delattre, 1965).
Therefore in French and in Spanish ± not in English and in German ± the rime unit
mostly corresponds to a vowel. As a consequence, a model of reading that attaches
importance to the role of the rime units in the beginning of reading acquisition (see
Goswami and Bryant, 1990) may be more suitable for English and German than
for French and Spanish.
These descriptive data are partially congruent with the statistical analyses of
Ziegler, Jacobs and Stone (1996; see also Ziegler, 1999 and Ziegler, Stone & Jacob,
1997). The authors have compared the degree of bi-directional consistency of
orthography-to-phonology in monosyllabic words in English, French and German,
not in Spanish. Inconsistency was defined at the orthographic and phonological
rime levels. In regard to orthography-to-phonology (O-P) rime consistency, a word
was considered inconsistent when its orthographic rime can be read in more than
one way. In regard to phonology-to-orthography (P-O) rime consistency, a word
was considered inconsistent when its phonological rime can be written in more than
one way. The degree of O-P inconsistency is higher in English (12.9%) than in
German and French (5.8 and 4.9%). The degree of rime inconsistency is higher for
P-O than for O-P in all three languages, and much higher for P-O in French
(50.3%) than in English (28%) or in German (25.9%). The differences between
English and the two other languages are less than those expected according to our
linguistic description based on grapheme-phoneme and phoneme-grapheme
correspondences (GPC and PGC, see also Table in the Appendix) and to the
fact that the 40 English phonemes can be spelled by 1120 graphemes (Coulmas,
1996) whereas the 35 French phonemes can be spelled by 130 graphemes (Catach,
1986), the 40 German phonemes by 85 graphemes (Valtin, 1989) and the 29-32
Spanish phonemes by 45 graphemes. The differences between observed rime level
and expected phoneme level based results may be due to a strong decrease in
inconsistencies when taking into account rimes in monosyllabic words, particularly
for English vowels.
De facto, at the grapheme-phoneme level, the vowel consistency ratio for GPC
appears very low in English and very high in French (48% vs. 94%, Peereman &
Content, 1998) whereas for PGC it is similar in both languages (67% in English
and 68% in French). However, only monosyllabic words were included in the
50 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
the phonemes /b/, /g/, /d/ in Spanish (see Appendix); fourth by a strong correlation
between pseudoword and word processing. Reliance on the orthographic route is
shown by the fact that frequently seen items are better processed, i.e. high
frequency words better than low frequency words and real words better than
pseudowords.
words and pseudowords presented on different lists (Wimmer, 1993). Even the
younger impaired readers reached a high level in the reading tasks and the
performance of the non-disabled readers was very accurate. These results show
that even first graders rely on well developed phonological processing. The fact
that a lexicality effect emerged in the Wimmer and Hummer (1990) study also
indicates that first graders are able to use their orthographical knowledge.
However, high correlations were observed between pseudoword and word reading
or spelling in the Wimmer and Hummer (1990) study as well as between
pseudowords and high frequency words in the Wimmer (1993) study. This
suggests that German children mostly rely on phonological processing to process
words, even high-frequency words.
In a French longitudinal study, 6;6 to 7 year olds were asked twice (in the
middle and at the end of the first grade) to read and spell high or medium
frequency regular and inconsistent words, and pseudowords matched in
orthographical difficulties to the regular words (Sprenger-Charolles, Siegel and
Bonnet, 1998b). The inconsistent words contained either a low frequency
grapheme or a silent grapheme in a non-terminal position (for example, femme
[fam], woman; sept [set], seven). Two levels of grapheme-phoneme consistency
had been defined for the regular words and the pseudowords. At the first level,
the items included only simple graphemes, each corresponding to one phoneme;
the second-level items included context-independent digraphs. Only two digraphs
have been used (ou /u/ and ch /$/) because they have no simpler equivalents;
therefore, the children were not expected to encounter more difficulties in spelling
than in reading which would have been the case if we had used a frequent digraph
such as au which has a simple and more frequent allograph ``o''.
Words and pseudowords were separately presented. In the middle of the first
grade, high frequency words were not processed any better than medium
frequency words and regular words not any better than pseudowords, neither in
reading nor in spelling. At the end of the first grade, a frequency effect emerged in
reading and in spelling and a lexicality effect was found, but only in reading
(correct responses were 88% vs 80%, for regular word vs pseudoword reading;
78% vs 76%, for regular word vs pseudoword spelling). However, children
processed regular words better than inconsistent words, whatever the test session
(40% vs 7% in the first reading session and 87% vs 38% in the second; for
spelling, 37% vs 5% and 73% vs 13%). The difference between regular and
inconsistent words even increased between sessions as did the mean percentage of
regularization errors. As in the Wimmer and Hummer study (1990), strong
correlations between regular words and pseudowords were observed both in
reading and in spelling. These results indicate that French children mostly rely on
phonological processing in the beginning of reading and spelling acquisition and
that the weight of this processing even increases with time. They also indicate that
the orthographic lexicon is progressively set-up in reading and ± though to a
lesser extent ± in spelling.
In comparisons of pseudoword reading and spelling with items of approxi-
Phonology and Spelling 53
These results were reproduced in the Frith, Wimmer and Landerl study (1998).
In a first experiment with 7-, 8- and 9-year-olds, English and German words
which were similar in spelling, pronunciation, meaning and familiarity were used
(e.g. Summer/Sommer). Pseudowords were derived from the words by exchanging
the onset (Rummer/Rommer). English children performed less well on words (80
vs 95%). Although in scoring the reading of the English pseudowords the criteria
were lenient, the difference was much greater for pseudowords (59 vs 88%),
especially for the younger children (7-year-olds, 45 vs 85%). In a second
experiment, the effects of frequency and lexicality were manipulated. For high
frequency words, 8-year-old English and German children obtained similar results
but English children lagged behind their German peers both with low frequency
words and with pseudowords.
The same children were asked to read trisyllabic pseudowords with simple open
syllables and without consonant clusters (e.g. tarulo, surimo). Accuracy and
reaction times were computed. The scores of the 8-year-old English children still
were lower than those of their German peers, for accuracy (70% vs 99%) and for
time latencies (4.3 sec per stimulus [SD=2.1] vs 1.9 [SD= 0.9]).
In a parallel study French children were required to read similar trisyllabic
pseudowords (i.e. tibulo, butiro) presented in a list including more complex and
phonologically similar bisyllabic pseudowords (i.e. tribul, tirbul; blutir, bultir);
thus, the French task favored errors. In spite of this, the French 8-year-old
average readers obtained high scores for the reading of the trisyllabic pseudo-
words (84% for accuracy and 1.4 sec per stimulus [SD=0.3] for time latencies
(see Sprenger-Charolles & Siegel, 1997 and the results of the 8-year-old average
readers in Sprenger-Charolles, ColeÂ, Lacert & Serniclaes, 2000).1 The Frith et al.
and the Sprenger-Charolles studies did not handle time latencies in the same way.
In the former study, children were instructed to press the mouse button as soon as
they felt able to read the word aloud; reading latencies were measured from onset
of stimulus presentation. The French measure was more direct; the responses were
recorded by the integrated speech sampler of a computer; correct responses time
latencies were computed via the analysis of the speech signal. However, this
methodological difference cannot account for the large differences observed
between French and English children for reaction times. In this very simple
reading task, English 8-year-olds clearly showed a lesser mastery of phonological
processing than their German and French counterparts.
In another comparative study, 7-, 8 and 9-year-old English, Spanish and
French children were required to read monosyllabic and bisyllabic words and
pseudowords which were orthographically and phonologically analog or non-
analog (cake or ticket vs dake or bicket vs foaj, verrpil, Goswami, Gombert &
2
These results were published together with those of another list of pseudowords in Sprenger-Charolles
et al. (2000).
56 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
Barrera, 1998). The principal aim of this study was to assess the degree of reliance
on analogical processing in reading in the three languages. For each age level, the
three groups were matched as closely as possible for reading age and for their
knowledge of the real words from which the pseudowords were derived. Spanish
children relied on efficient phonological processing based on grapheme-phoneme
correspondences as suggested by their high scores for pseudoword reading (89%),
the incidence of the stimuli length on their performance and the non-significant
effect of analogy. An accuracy difference between the French and the English
children (72% vs 52%) suggested the phonological skills of the former to be more
efficient than those of the latter. In both groups, an effect of analogy was found,
indicating that these children relied on reading units larger than grapheme-
phoneme correspondences. However, for French children at least, the effect of
analogy may be explained by confusing factors, such as the presence of very rare
French bigraphs in the non-analog items (i.e., nm, nl, ts, ae or oa in the median
position, see Content & Radeau, 1988). It is worth noting that in other studies no
clear evidence that beginning readers relied on an analogical mechanism based on
rime was found (see for reading and spelling in French, Sprenger-Charolles et al.,
1998b; for reading in English, Bruck & Treiman, 1992; Frith et al., 1998).
Another issue is that in English in word and in pseudoword reading and
spelling, errors involve vowels more often than consonants (Bryson & Werker,
1989; Fischer, Liberman & Shankweiler, 1977; Fowler, Liberman & Shankweiler,
1977; Fowler, Shankweiler & Liberman, 1979; Frith et al., 1998; Siegel & Faux,
1989). This difference was not found in German (Frith et al., 1998; Wimmer,
1993) or in French (Sprenger-Charolles & Siegel, 1997). These results are
congruent with the predictions following from the linguistic description (see
above).
To summarize, studies with young Spanish, German, and French children
indicated strong and early reliance on phonological processing, both in reading
and in spelling. Indicators of reliance on orthographic processing were also found
in reading. Nevertheless, beginning readers and spellers mostly relied on
phonological processing as suggested by the very high correlations observed
between pseudoword and word processing. These studies also clearly showed
dramatic differences in reading and spelling levels to the detriment of English
children compared to Spanish, to German and to French children. These results
might have been due to differences in orthographic consistency, but also to
differences in instructional approach, the two factors being interrelated.
Consistent orthography lends itself to systematic teaching by a phonic method,
whereas inconsistent orthography demands more complex methods. However,
French children taught by a phonic method reach a higher level of phonological
and, surprisingly, of orthographic skills, than children taught by a whole-word
method (Leybaert and Content, 1995) and a systematic phonic approach also
seems to help English children (see for a review Snowling, 1996).
Nevertheless, the strongest influence seems to be that of the language to which
the children are exposed. Learning to read in a consistent orthography leads to
Phonology and Spelling 57
Developmental trajectory
In the studies reviewed so far, Spanish, German and French ± but not English
children ± were observed to rely strongly on phonological processing from the early
stages of reading and spelling acquisition. This raises the question of the role of
phonological processing in the developmental trajectory. Some researchers
postulate that the orthographic lexicon is set-up gradually through the
phonological route (see Ehri, 1998; Perfetti, 1992; Share, 1995). To corroborate
this hypothesis, the most impressive argument is that even in English and French,
the efficiency of early reliance on phonological processing predicts later reading
achievement.
Substantial correlations have been found between pseudoword reading and
exception word reading in English (e.g., Baron, 1979; Freebody & Byrne, 1988;
Gough & Walsh, 1991; Stanovich & West, 1989). In addition, in the early stage of
reading acquisition in English, phonological errors such as regularization were
common for good readers and rare for poor readers (Siegel & Kerr, 1996).
Longitudinal studies also suggested that good ``decoders'' learn to read more
quickly than children with poor phonological skills. For example, in a
longitudinal study, Jorm, Share, MacLean and Matthews (1984) followed two
groups of kindergartners, ``good decoders'' and ``non-decoders''. The results
indicated that the early good decoders improved in reading more than the ``non-
decoders''. At the end of the second grade, they were nine months ahead in a
word reading test. Another example is provided by the Byrne, Freebody and
Gates (1992) study. The authors examined the evolution of two groups of second
grade poor readers, one with adequate phonological skills and below average
word specific knowledge (the ``phoenicians''), and the other with average sight
word recognition ability but poor phonological skills (the ``chinese''). The results
showed that the scores obtained by Phoenician readers improved between sessions
± even for irregular words ± while a deterioration in word reading skills was
observed for the ``Chinese'' readers.
Similar tendencies were observed with French children. For example, second
graders with a low level of phonological reading skills were also found to have a
poor level of orthographic skills whereas children with efficient phonological skills
had well developed orthographic skills (Leybaert & Content, 1995). In two short-
58 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
Tentative explanation
REFERENCES
Adlard, A., & Hazan,V. (1998). Speech perception in children with specific reading difficulties (Dyslexia).
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 153-177.
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1994). On the development of lexical and non-lexical procedures of French-
60 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
speaking normal and disabled children. In G.D.A. Brown, & N.C. Ellis (eds.). Handbook of spelling:
Theory, process and intervention (pp. 213-226). New York, Wiley and Sons.
Alegria, J., & Mousty, P. (1996). The development of spelling procedures in French-speaking, normal
and reading disabled children: Effects of frequency and of lexicality. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 63, 312-338.
Baron J. (1979). Orthographic and word-specific mechanisms in children's reading of words. Child
Development, 50, 60-72.
Berent, I., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A Rose is a REEZ: The two cycles model of phonology assembly in
reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146-184.
Bruck, M., Genesee, F., & Caravolas, M. (1997). A cross linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In
B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention
(pp. 145-162). Mahwah (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bruck, M., & Treiman, R. (1992). Learning to pronounce words: The limitation of analogies. Reading
Research Quarterly, 27, 375-388.
Bryson, S.E., & Werker, J.F. (1989). Toward understanding the problem in severely disabled readers.
Part I: Vowel errors. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 1-12.
Byrne, B., Freebody , P., & Gates, A. (1992). Longitudinal data on the relations of word-reading strategies
to comprehension, reading time and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 141-151.
Catach, N. (1978). L'orthographe. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Catach, N. (1980). L'orthographe francËais: Traite theÂorique et pratique. Paris: Nathan.
Content, A., & Radeau, M. (1988). DonneÂes statistiques sur la structure orthographique du FrancËais.
Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive/European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology.Special issue, 1-87.
Content, A., Mousty, Ph., & Radeau, M. (1990). Brulex: une base de donneÂes lexicales informatiseÂe pour
le FrancËais eÂcrit et parleÂ. AnneÂe Psychologique, 90, 551-66.
Coulmas, F. (1996). The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems. Oxford, UK : Blackwell.
Cuetos, F. (1989). Lectura y escritura de palabras a traves de la ruta phonologica. Infancia y Aprendizaje,
45, 71-84.
Defior, S., Justicia, F., & Martos, F. (1996). The influence of lexical and sublexical variables in normal
and poor Spanish readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 487-497.
Delattre, P. (1966). Studies in French and comparative phonetics. The Hague: Mouton.
Deschamps, A. (1994). De l'eÂcrit aÁ l'oral et de l'oral aÁ l'eÂcrit: PhoneÂtique et orthographe de l'anglais.
Paris: Ophrys.
Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-Phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In
J.L.Metsala & L.Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3-40). Mahwah (NJ):
Erlbaum.
Fischer, F.W., Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1977). Reading reversals and developmental dyslexia:
A further study. Cortex, 14, 496-510.
Fowler, C.A., Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D.(1977). On interpreting the error pattern of beginning
readers. Language and Speech, 20, 162-173.
Fowler, C.A., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I.Y. (1979). Apprehending spelling patterns for vowels: A
longitudinal study. Language and Speech, 22, 243-252.
Freebody, P., & Byrne, B. (1988). Word-reading strategies in elementary school children: Relations to
comprehension, reading time, and phonemic awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 441-453.
Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological recoding in German- and
Spanish-speaking children. Scientific Study of Reading, 2, 31-54.
Godfrey, J.J., Syrdal-Lasky, A.K., Millay K.K., & Knox, C.M. (1981). Performance of dyslexic children
on speech perception tests. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 401-424.
Goswami, U. C. & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Hove (East Sussex):
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates LTD.
Goswami, U., Gombert, J.E., & Fraca de Barrera, L. (1998). Children's orthographic representations
and linguistic transparency: nonsense word reading in English, French and Spanish. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 19, 19-52.
Phonology and Spelling 61
Gough, P. B., & Walsh, M.A. (1991). Chinese, Phoenicians, and the orthographic cipher of English. In
S.A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (eds.). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y.
Liberman (pp. 199-209). Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
Jorm, A.F., Share, D.L., MacLean, R., & Matthews, R.G. (1984). Phonological recoding skill and
learning to read: A longitudinal study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 5, 201-207.
Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children
in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243-255.
Leybaert, J., & Content, A. (1995). Reading and spelling acquisition in two different teaching methods: A
test of the independence hypothesis. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 65-88.
Manis, F.R., McBride-Chang, C., Seidenberg, M.S., Keating, P., Doi, L.M., Munson, B., & Petersen, A.
(1997). Are speech perception deficits associated with developmental dyslexia ? Journal of Child
Experimental Psychology, 66, 211-235.
Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Brady, S. (1997). Speech perception deficits in poor readers:
Auditory processing or phonological coding? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 199-231.
Paulesu, E., Demonet, J.-F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa, S.F., Cossu,
G., Habib, M., Frith, C.D., & Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia, Cultural diversity and Biological unity.
Science, 291, 2165-2167.
Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1998). Quantitative analysis of orthography to phonology mapping in
English and French (on-line). ttp://homepages.vub.ac.be/~acontent/OPMapping.html.
Perfetti, C. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. Gough, L. Ehri & R.
Treiman (Eds). Reading Acquisition (pp. 107-143). Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. E. (1996). Understanding normal and
impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domain. Psychological Review,
103, 56-115.
Robert, P. (1986). Micro-Robert. Dictionnaire du francËais primordial, nouvelle eÂdition revue et mise aÁ
jour. Paris: Dictionnaires le Robert.
Sebastian-GalleÂs, N., & ParranÄo-Vacchiano, A. (1995). The development of analogical reading in
Spanish. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 23-38.
Share, D.L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition.
Cognition, 55, 151-218.
Siegel, L.S., & Faux, D. (1989). Acquisition of certain grapheme-phoneme correspondences in normally
achieving disabled readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 37-52.
Siegel, L.S., & Kerr, A. (1996). An analysis of the reading errors of good and poor beginning readers.
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. New-York, April 1996.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1988). Development of grammatical sensitivity, phonological, and short±term
memory in normally achieving and learning disabled children. Developmental Psychology, 24, 28±37.
Serniclaes, W., Sprenger-Charolles, L., CarreÂ, R., & DeÂmonet, J.F. (2001). Perceptual categorization of
speech sounds in dyslexics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 44, 384-399.
Snowling, M. (1996). Contempory approaches to the teaching of reading. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 37, 139-148.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Casalis, S. (1995). Reading and spelling acquisition in French first graders:
Longitudinal evidence. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 1-25.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., & Siegel, L.S. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of syllabic structure on
the development of reading and spelling skills in French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 485-505.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L.S., & BeÂchennec, D. (1998a). Phonological Mediation and
Orthographic Factors in Silent Reading in French. Scientific Study of Reading, 2, 3-2.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., Siegel, L.S., & Bonnet, P. (1998b). Reading and spelling acquisition in French:
The role of phonological mediation and orthographic factors. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 68, 134-165.
Sprenger-Charolles, L., ColeÂ, P., Lacert, P., & Serniclaes, W. (2000). On Subtypes of Developmental
Dyslexia: Evidence from Processing Time and Accuracy Scores. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology (Special Issue on Early Literacy and Early Numeracy), 54, 87-103.
62 Liliane Sprenger-Charolles
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading
Research Quarterly, 24, 402-433.
Taylor, J., & Serniclaes, W. (1998). Phonetics and Phonology. In Rene Dirven & Marjolijn Verspoor,
(eds.). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (pp. 107-135). London: Benjamins.
Taylor, J., & Serniclaes, W. (1999). Sprachliche Laute: Phonetik und Phonologie. In Ralf PoÈrings & U.
Schmitz (Eds.), Sprache und Sprachwissenshaft. Eine kognitiv orientierte EinfuÈhrung (pp. 107-134).
TuÈbigen: Gunter Narr.
Valle Arroyo, F. (1989). Reading errors in Spanish. In P.G. Aaron & R.M. Joshi (eds.). Reading and
writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 163-175). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Valtin, R. (1989). Dyslexia in the German language. In P.G. Aaron & R. Malatesha Joshi (Eds.), Reading
and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 119-135). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Press.
Veronis, J. (1986). Etude quantitative sur le systeÁme graphique et phono-graphique du francËais. European
Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 6, 501-553.
Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1987). Speech perception in severely disabled and average reading children.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 48-61.
Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular writing system. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 14, 1-33.
Wimmer, H., & Goswami, U. (1994). The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development:
Word recognition in English and German children. Cognition, 51, 91-103.
Wimmer, H. & Hummer, P. (1990). How German speaking first graders read and spell: Doubts on the
importance of the logographic stage. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 349-368.
Ziegler, J. (1999). La perception des mots, une voie aÁ double sens? Annales de la fondation Fyssen, 13, 81-
88.
Ziegler, J., Jacobs, A., & Stone, G. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of
spelling and sound in French. Behavior, Method, Research, Instruments and Computer, 28, 504-515.
Ziegler, J., Stone, G., & Jacobs, A. (1997). What's the pronunciation for ±OUGH and the spelling for /
u/ ? Database for computing feedforward and feedback inconsistency in English. Behavior, Method,
Research, Instruments and Computer, 29, 600-618.
Coulmas, F. (2003). Writing systems. An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics)
This new textbook provides an accessible introduction to the major writing systems of the world.
Phonology and Spelling 63