Reading and Writing

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 1055–1069

Developmental stability and changes in the impact of root consistency on children’s spelling



The study reported here examined grade 2–4 children’s sensitivity to the consistency in the spelling of roots in related words. We build on earlier research by attempting to quantify the extent that children’s spellings of both inflected and derived forms accord with this principle. We contrasted children’s accuracy and consistency in spelling the root form (e.g., rock) with that of its spelling in related inflected and derived forms (e.g., rocks and rocky), as well as unrelated control forms (e.g., rocket). Across grades 2–4, children’s spellings accorded with the root consistency principle to the same extent for inflected and derived forms. Nevertheless, it was not until grade 4 that spellings maximally reflected the principle. These results are discussed in terms of how children’s spelling might come to reflect the root consistency principle that guides spelling in English.


Morphology Root consistency Spelling Literacy Inflected Derived 


  1. Bowers, P., Kirby, J. R., & Deacon, S. H. (2009). Effects of instruction in morphology on reading. Paper accepted for presentation at the meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Carlisle, J. F. (1988). Knowledge of derivational morphology and spelling ability in fourth, sixth and eight grades. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlisle, J. F. (1996). An exploratory study of morphological errors in children’s written stories. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deacon, S. H. (2008). The metric matters: Determining the extent of children’s knowledge of morphological spelling regularities. Developmental Science, 11, 396–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2005). What children do and do not know about the spelling of inflections and derivations. Developmental Science, 8, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deacon, S. H., & Bryant, P. (2006). Getting to the root: Young writers’ sensitivity to the role of root morphemes in the spelling of inflected and derived words. Journal of Child Language, 33, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deacon, S. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Derwing, B. L., Smith, M. L., & Wiebe, G. E. (1995). On the role of spelling in morpheme recognition: Experimental studies with children and adults. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 3–27). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  9. Ehri, L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theories, findings and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flavell, J. H., Flavell, E. R., & Green, F. L. (2001). Developmental changes in children’s understanding of the similarity between photographs and their referents. Psychological Science, 12, 430–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. Patterson, M. Coltheart, & J. Marshall (Eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301–330). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Green, L., McCutchen, D., Schwiebert, C., Quinlan, T., Eva-Wood, A., & Juelis, J. (2003). Morphological development in children’s writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 752–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmes, V. M., & Babauta, M. L. (2005). Single or dual representations for reading and spelling? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemp, N. (2006). Children’s spelling of base, inflected, and derived words: Links with morphological awareness. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19, 737–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. (1984). The number of words in printed school English. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nunes, T., Bryant, P., & Bindman, M. (1997). Morphological spelling strategies: Developmental stages and processes. Developmental Psychology, 33, 637–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pacton, S., & Deacon, S. H. (2008). The timing and mechanisms of children’s use of morphological information in spelling: A review of evidence from French and English. Cognitive Development, 23, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pollo, T. C., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2007). Three perspectives on spelling development. In E. J. Grigorenko & A. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Cognitive, behavioral, and biological perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Read, C. (1986). Children’s creative spelling. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  21. Reed, D. K. (2008). A synthesis of morphology interventions and effects on reading outcomes for students in grades K-12. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(3), 6–49.Google Scholar
  22. Rubin, H. (1988). Morphological knowledge and early writing ability. Language and Speech, 31, 337–355.Google Scholar
  23. Sterling, C. M. (1983). Spelling errors in context. British Journal of Psychology, 35, 425–435.Google Scholar
  24. Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1996). Effects of morphology on children’s spelling of final consonant clusters. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 141–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Treiman, R., Cassar, M., & Zukowski, A. (1994). What types of linguistic information do children use in spelling? The case of flaps. Child Development, 65, 1318–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Uttal, D. H., Gentner, D., Liu, L. L., & Lewis, A. R. (2008). Developmental changes in children’s understanding of the similarity between photographs and their referents. Developmental Science, 11, 156–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. New York: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Life Sciences CentreDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations