Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1107–1128 | Cite as

Spelling errors respect morphology: a corpus study of Hebrew orthography

  • Amalia Bar-OnEmail author
  • Victor Kuperman
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Spelling Morphology Corpus study Hebrew Orthography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Victor 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.

Supplementary material

11145_2018_9902_MOESM1_ESM.zip (46 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (ZIP 45 kb)

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R. H. (2001). Word frequency distributions (Vol. 18). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Badecker, W., Rapp, B., & Caramazza, A. (1996). Lexical morphology and the two orthographic routes. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13(2), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berg, K. (2016). Graphemic analysis of the spoken language bias. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00388.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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).Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. Fox, J. (2015). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(5), 263–279.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Linzen, T. (2009). Corpus of blog postings collected from the Israblog website. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Linear mixed effects models. Mixed effects models in S and S-Plus. New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Ravid, D. (2012). Spelling morphology: The psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ravid, D., & Kubi, E. (2003). What is a spelling error? The discrepancy between perception and reality. Faits de Langue, 22, 87–98.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sandra, D. (2011). Spelling strategies in alphabetic scripts: Insights gained and challenges ahead. The Mental Lexicon, 6(1), 110–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2014). How children learn to write words. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication Disorders, School of Health Sciences, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics and LanguagesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations