Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T22:18:19.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The learnability of the alphabetic principle: Children's initial hypotheses about how print represents spoken language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Brian Byrne
Brian Byrne*
Affiliation:
University of New England
*
Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales 2351, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research examines the hypotheses about how print represents the speech that preliterate children select when they receive input compatible with several such hypotheses. In Experiment 1, preschoolers were taught to read hat and hats and book and books. Then, in generalization tests, they were probed for what they had learned about the letter s. All of the children were able to transfer to other plurals (e.g., to decide that bikes said “bikes” rather than “bike,” and that dog said “dog” and not “dogs”), but only those who knew the sound of the letter s prior to the experiment were able to decide, for example, that bus said “bus” and not “bug.” The failure to detect the phonemic value of s on the part of alphabetically naive children was replicated in Experiments 2, 3, and 4, which instituted a variety of controls. In Experiment 5, it was found that, although preschoolers who had been taught to read pairs of words distinguished by the comparative affix er (such as small/smaller) were able to generalize to other comparatives (e.g., mean/meaner), they could not generalize to pairs where er had no morphemic value (e.g., corn/corner). A similar failure by alphabetically naive children to detect the syllabic, as compared with the morphemic, status of the superlative affix est was found in Experiment 6. Overall, the results indicate that most preliterate children fail to select phonologically based hypotheses, even when these are available in the input. Instead, they focus on morphophonology and/or semantic aspects of words' referents. The research is couched in terms of the Learnability Theory (LT) (Gold, 1967), which provides a convenient framework for considering a series of interrelated questions about the acquisition of literacy. In particular, it is argued that if the data available to the child includes the pronunciation of written words, the alphabetic principle may be unlearnable, given the hypothesis selection procedures identified in these experiments.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 401 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, M. (1992). Children's syntax: An introduction to principles and parameters theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowey, J. A. (1994). Phonological sensitivity in novice readers and nonreaders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 58, 134–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sound and learning to read - A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B. (1992). Studies in the acquisition procedure for reading: Rationale, hypotheses, and data. In Gough, P. B., Ehri, L. C., & Treiman, R. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 1–34). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Byrne, B., & Carroll, M. V. (1989). Learning artificial orthographies: Further evidence of a nonanalytic acquisition procedure. Memory and Cognition, 17, 311–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child's acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1990). Acquiring the alphabetic principle: A case for teaching recognition of phoneme identity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 805–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 488–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, S. (1982). Semantic development: The state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 347–389). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 597–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreiro, E. (1985). Literacy development: A psychogenetic perspective. In Olson, D. R., Torrance, N., & Hildyard, A. (Eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing (pp. 217–228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferreiro, E. (1986). The interplay between information and assimilation in beginning literacy. In Teale, W. H. & Sulzby, E. (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 15–49). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 16, 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, K. S. (1986). What's whole in whole language? A parent–teacher guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1979). Learning to read is natural. In Resnick, L. B. & Weaver, P. A. (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 137–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodman, Y. M. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In Teale, W. H & Sulzby, E. (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 1–14). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Johnston, P. H. (1985). Understanding reading disability. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsmann, L. T., & Levin, I. (1987). Writing in four- to six-year-olds: Representation of semantic and phonetic similarities and differences. Journal of Child Language, 14, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, I., & Korat, O. (1993). Sensitivity to phonological, morphological, and semantic cues in early reading and writing in Hebrew. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 39, 213–232.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. Y., & Liberman, A. M. (1992). Whole language versus code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. In Gough, P. B., Ehri, L. C., & Treiman, R. (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 343–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D. S., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundberg, I., & Tornéus, M. (1978). Nonreaders' awareness of the basic relationship between spoken and written words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25, 404–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, I. G. (1972). Reading, the linguistic process, and linguistic awareness. In Kavanagh, J. F. & Mattingly, I. G. (Eds.), Language by ear and eye: The relationship between speaking and reading (pp. 133–148). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mattingly, I. G. (1985). Did orthographies evolve? Remedial and Special Education, 6, 18–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattingly, I. G. (1992). Linguistic awareness and orthographic form. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 11–26). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1977). Spontaneous apprentices. New York: Seabury.Google Scholar
Osherson, D. N., Stob, M., & Weinstein, S. (1985). Systems that learn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1979). Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1990). Language acquisition. In Osherson, D. N. & Lasnik, H. (Eds.), Language: An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. I, pp. 199–241). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Safir, K. (1987). Comments on Wexler and Manzini. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 77–89). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. (1985). Writing systems:A linguistic introduction. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K., & Elder, L. (1986). Beginning reading without phonology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L., & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Manzini, R. (1987). Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (Eds.), Parameter setting (pp. 41–76). Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., Valdez-Manchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture-book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar