Decisions about consonant doubling among non-native speakers of English: graphotactic and phonological influences


Graphotactic as well as phonological factors influence native English speakers’ decisions about consonant doubling in the spelling of nonwords, e.g., zimen versus zimmen. This study examined the extent to which such influences apply to non-native speakers of English, who presumably have less knowledge of English graphotactics and phonology and less opportunity to be explicitly instructed, and whether such influences vary as a function of first language (L1) background. Eighty-five university students in Beijing who study English as a second language (ESL) with contrasting L1 backgrounds (46 Chinese and 39 Korean, Mage = 20.51 years, SD = 1.95) completed a nonword spelling task and a standardized English spelling ability test. In the nonword spelling task, participants were asked to spell items in which the initial consonant or cluster was followed by a stressed vowel with medial consonant that would generally double in English. Half of the first syllables in the nonwords had short vowels and half of them had long vowels. Similar to native English speakers, ESL learners were more likely to use medial consonant doubling when the preceding vowel was short, spelled with one letter, and ended with spellings associated with higher rate of doubling in the English system. Phonological influence was stronger in more skilled spellers than in less skilled spellers, whereas the strength of graphotactic influence did not differ across the range of spelling ability. No significant difference of L1 background was found in the use of consonant doubling. Findings highlight the generality of statistical learning underlying spelling across different first language backgrounds and varying English spelling abilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.


  1. 1.

    The symbol /ə/ is often used just for the unstressed schwa vowel, but it can be used to represent /ʌ/ as well, which is the stressed vowel of “but”. Here we used the /ə/ symbol for that stressed vowel.


  1. Abu-Rabia, S. (1997). Reading in Arabic orthography: The effect of vowels and context on reading accuracy of poor and skilled native Arabic readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,9, 65–78.

  2. Akamatsu, N. (1999). The effects of first language orthographic features on word recognition processing in English as a second language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,11, 381–403.

  3. Akamatsu, N. (2002). A similarity in word-recognition procedures among second language readers with different first language backgrounds. Applied Psycholinguistics,23, 117–133.

  4. Applegate, A. J., & Applegate, M. D. (2004). The Peter effect: Reading habits and attitudes of teacher candidates. The Reading Teacher,57, 554–563.

  5. Arciuli, J., & Simpson, I. C. (2012). Statistical learning is related to reading ability in children and adults. Cognitive Science,36, 286–304.

  6. Barry, C., & Seymour, P. H. K. (1988). Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40A, 5–40.

  7. Berg, K. (2016). Double consonants in English: Graphemic, morphological, prosodic and etymological determinants. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,29, 453–474.

  8. Carney, E. (1994). Survey of English spelling. London: Routledge.

  9. Carreker, S. (2005). Teaching spelling. In J. R. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed., pp. 257–295). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.

  10. Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology,89, 631–644.

  11. Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (2010). Implicit statistical learning in language processing: Word predictability is the key. Cognition,114, 356–371.

  12. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center, California State University.

  13. Deacon, S. H., Leblanc, D., & Sabourin, C. (2011). When cues collide: Children’s sensitivity to letter- and meaning-patterns in spelling words in English. Journal of Child Language,38, 809–827.

  14. Figueredo, L. (2006). Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language influence on the development of English-as-a-second-language spelling skill. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,19, 873–905.

  15. Fitt, S. (2008). Unisyn lexicon [Computer software]. Available at

  16. Flemming, E., & Johnson, S. (2007). Rosa’s roses: Reduced vowels in American English. Journal of the International Phonetic Association,37, 83–96.

  17. Goldfus, C. (2012). Knowledge foundations for beginning reading teachers in EFL. Annals of Dyslexia,62, 204–221.

  18. Graham, S., & Santangelo, T. (2014). Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A metaanalytic review. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,27, 1703–1743.

  19. Hayes-Harb, R. (2006). Native speakers of Arabic and ESL texts: Evidence for the transfer of written word identification processes. TESOL Quarterly,40, 321–339.

  20. Haynes, M., & Carr, T. H. (1990). Writing system background and second language reading: A component skills analysis of English reading by native speaker-readers of Chinese. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and Its Development: Component Skills Approaches (pp. 375–421). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  21. Hersch, J., & Andrews, S. (2012). Lexical quality and reading skill: Bottom-up and top-down contributions to sentence processing. Scientific Studies of Reading,16, 240–262.

  22. Holmes, V. M., & Ng, E. (1983). Word-specific knowledge, word recognition strategies, and spelling ability. Journal of Memory and Language,32, 230–257.

  23. Houghton, G., & Zorzi, M. (2003). Normal and impaired spelling in a connectionist dual-route architecture. Cognitive Neuropsychology,20, 115–162.

  24. IBM Knowledge Center. (2016). SPSS Statistics V24.0 documentation. Retrieved October 10, 2019, from

  25. Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of orthography and literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  26. Joshi, R. M., Hoien, T., Feng, X., Chengappa, R., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2006). Learning to spell by ear and by eye: A cross-linguistic comparison. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 569–577). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  27. Kessler, B., Pollo, T. C., Treiman, R., & Cardoso-Martins, C. (2013). Frequency analyses of prephonological spellings as predictors of success in conventional spelling. Journal of Learning Disabilities,46, 252–259.

  28. Koda, K. (1999). Development of L2 intraword orthographic sensitivity and decoding skills. The Modern Language Journal,83, 51–64.

  29. Ktori, M., & Pitchford, N. J. (2008). Effect of orthographic transparency on letter position encoding: A comparison of Greek and English monoscriptal and biscriptal readers. Language and Cognitive Processes,23, 258–281.

  30. Lee, Y.-A. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge and perceptions about phonemic awareness and phonics. Primary English Education,20(4), 321–347.

  31. Martin, K. (2017). The impact of L1 writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,30, 279–298.

  32. McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J.-R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A., et al. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,92, 140–160.

  33. Muljani, D., Koda, K., & Moates, D. R. (1998). The development of word recognition in a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics,19, 99–113.

  34. Pacton, S., Sabaco, A., Fayol, M., & Treiman, R. (2013). How does graphotactic knowledge influence children’s learning of new spellings? Frontiers in Psychology,4, 701.

  35. Pittman, R. T., Joshi, R. M., & Carreker, S. (2014). Improving the spelling ability among speakers of African American English through explicit instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction,53, 107–133.

  36. Pollo, T. C., Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2009). Statistical patterns in children’s early writing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,104, 410–426.

  37. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by eight-month-old infants. Science,274, 1926–1928.

  38. Saigh, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Difficulties with vocabulary word form: The case of Arabic ESL learners. System,40, 24–36.

  39. Tong, X., & McBride, C. (2014). Chinese children’s statistical learning of orthographic regularities: Positional constraints and character structure. Scientific Studies of Reading,18, 291–308.

  40. Treiman, R. (2018). Statistical learning and spelling. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,49, 644–652.

  41. Treiman, R., & Boland, K. (2017). Graphotactics and spelling: Evidence from consonant doubling. Journal of Memory and Language,92, 254–264.

  42. Treiman, R., Cardoso-Martins, C., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. (2019). Statistical learning and spelling: Evidence from Brazilian prephonological spellers. Cognition,182, 1–7.

  43. Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2016). Choosing between alternative spellings of sounds: The role of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,42, 1154–1159.

  44. Treiman, R., Kessler, B., Boland, K., Clocksin, H., & Chen, Z. (2018). Statistical Learning and spelling: Older prephonological spellers produce more wordlike spellings than younger prephonological spellers. Child Development,89, e431–e443.

  45. Treiman, R., & Wolter, S. (2018). Phonological and graphotactic influences on spellers’ decisions about consonant doubling. Memory and Cognition,46, 614–624.

  46. Turk-Browne, N. B., Jungé, J., & Scholl, B. J. (2005). The automaticity of visual statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,134, 552–564.

  47. Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,16, 325–348.

  48. Wang, M., & Koda, K. (2005). Commonalities and differences in word identification skills among learners of English as a second language. Language Learning,55, 71–98.

  49. Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: a comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition,87, 129–149.

  50. Yeon, S., Bae, H. S., & Joshi, R. M. (2017). Cross-Language transfer of meta-linguistic skills: Evidence from spelling English words by Korean students in grades 4, 5, and 6. Dyslexia,23, 428–443.

  51. Yin, L., & McBride, C. (2015). Chinese kindergartners learn to read characters analytically. Psychological Science,26, 424–432.

  52. Yin, L., & McBride, C. (2017). Unspoken knowledge: Kindergarteners are sensitive to patterns in Chinese pinyin before formally learning it. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience.,33, 65–76.

  53. Zhang, L., & Treiman, R. (2015). Writing dinosaur large and mosquito small: Prephonological spellers' use of semantic information. Scientific Studies of Reading, 19, 434–445.

  54. Zhao, J., Joshi, R. M., Dixon, L. Q., & Huang, L. (2016a). Chinese EFL teachers’ knowledge of basic language constructs and their self-perceived teaching abilities. Annals of Dyslexia,66, 127–146.

  55. Zhao, J., Quiroz, B., Dixon, L. Q., & Joshi, M. (2016b). Comparing bilingual to monolingual learners on English spelling: A meta-analytic review. Dyslexia,22, 193–213.

Download references


This research was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81371497) and the Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (Grant No. 2016THZWYY07).

Author information

Correspondence to Li Yin.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Experimental items and filler items used by Treiman and Wolter (2018):

Experimental items


Filler items


Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yin, L., Joshi, R.M., Li, D. et al. Decisions about consonant doubling among non-native speakers of English: graphotactic and phonological influences. Read Writ (2020).

Download citation


  • Graphotactics
  • Phonology
  • Second language learning
  • Spelling
  • Statistical learning