Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 179–191 | Cite as

Does the study of Latin affect spelling proficiency?

  • Joanne F. Carlisle
  • Isabelle Y. Liberman
Article

Abstract

This investigation explores Latin study as a possible route to superior spelling proficiency. The spelling ability of two groups of academically able eleventh graders — students of Latin and students of other second languages — is compared. It was found that the Latin students were superior in general spelling ability and were particularly proficient at spelling words of Latin origin. In addition, analysis of the spelling of derivatives for which knowledge of Latin could either facilitate or mislead the speller shows that Latin students were differentially affected by the two types of derivatives. In contrast, students of other second languages, lacking the knowledge of Latinate derivatives, simply made more errors on both types of words. Thus, it appears that Latin study does have an effect on spelling performance. Whether it can fully account for the superior spelling proficiency of the Latin students, however, remains a question to be answered by a prospective longitudinal investigation. Implications for instruction drawn from the present study are discussed.

Keywords

Latin study spelling proficiency second language learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Comprehensive Testing Program. 1976. Princeton, NJ: Educational Records Bureau.Google Scholar
  2. Dallam M. F. 1917. Is the study of Latin advantageous to the study of English? Educational Review, 54, 500–503.Google Scholar
  3. Douglass H. R. and Kittelson C. 1935. The transfer of training in high school Latin to English grammar, spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Experimental Education, 4, 26–33.Google Scholar
  4. Elbro, C. (in press). Morphological awareness in dyslexia. In Brain and reading: Developmental dyslexia and dysphasia. NY: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  5. Foster E. M. 1917. The results of a recent spelling test at the University of Iowa. School and Society, 5, 506–508.Google Scholar
  6. Gray M. D., Carr W. L., and Grinstead W. J. 1928. Research in high school Latin: A summary of the general report of the Classical Investigation. Sixth yearbook of the department of superintendence (pp. 372–383). Washington, DC: Department of Superintendence.Google Scholar
  7. Harris L. H. 1915. A study in the relation of Latin to English composition. School and Society, 2, 251–252.Google Scholar
  8. Henry M. K. 1988. Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 258–275.Google Scholar
  9. Jastak J. F. and Jastak S. 1978. Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Kučera H. and Francis W. N. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Robinson J. W. and Hesse K. D. 1981. A morphemically based spelling program's effect on spelling skills and spelling performance of seventh grade students. Journal of Education Research, 75, 56–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joanne F. Carlisle
    • 1
  • Isabelle Y. Liberman
    • 2
  1. 1.Learning Disabilities Program, Department of Communication Science and DisordersNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations