Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T20:37:15.551Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How German-speaking first graders read and spell: Doubts on the importance of the logographic stage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Heinz Wimmer  and
Peter Hummer
Heinz Wimmer*
Affiliation:
University of Salzburg
Peter Hummer
Affiliation:
University of Salzburg
*
Heinz Wimmer, Institut für Psychologie, University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020 Salzburg, Austria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The logographic stage assumption in recent models of reading acquisition was examined by studying how German-speaking first graders read and spelled familiar words and matched pseudowords. Reading acquisition by German-speaking children provides an interesting case because the German writing system, in contrast to the English one, is phonologically rather transparent. To further test whether the transition from the logographic to the alphabetic stage poses a major obstacle at the beginning of reading, normally progressing first graders were contrasted with children who experienced serious difficulties at the beginning of reading and writing. In contrast to studies with American and British first graders, it was found that both normally progressing and delayed children relied on alphabetic strategies for both reading and writing, (a) Most children were able to read and - to a lesser extent - to spell completely unfamiliar pseudowords. (b) Reading of pseudowords correlated highly with reading of familiar words, and the same correlation was observed in the case of spelling, (c) Reading errors consisted mainly of nonwords beginning with the first letter(s) of the target, and most spelling errors consisted of spellings that were at least partially phonologically correct, (d) Reading performance was influenced by word exposure time, (e) Both reading performance and spelling performance were strongly predicted by knowledge of grapheme-phoneme correspondences. These findings support the conclusion that a logographic strategy is of limited importance when the writing system is phonologically rather transparent and when the instructional approach does not withhold information about grapheme-phoneme correspondences.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 349 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphemic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1978). Difficulties in auditory organization as a possible cause of reading backwardness. Nature, 271, 746–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1979). The independence of reading and spelling in backward and normal readers. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 21, 504–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, P. E., & Bradley, L. (1980). Why children sometimes write words which they cannot read. In Frith, U. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Bryant, P. E., & Bradley, L. (1985). Children's reading problems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Strategies of information processing. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In Patterson, K. E., Marshall, J. C., & Coltheart, M. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Frith, U. (1986). A developmental framework for developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 61–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, A. M., Fowler, C., & Fischer, F. W. (1977). Phonetic segmentation and recoding in the beginning reader. In Reber, A. S. & Scarborough, D. L. (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading: The proceedings of the CUNY conference. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mann, V. A. (1984). Longitudinal prediction and prevention of early reading difficulty. Annals of Dyslexia, 34, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, P. (1981). A cognitive-developmental theory of reading acquisition. In MacKinnon, G. E. & Waller, T. G. (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice, Vol. 3. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., & Gleitman, L. R. (1977). The structure and acquisition of reading II: The reading process and the acquisition of the alphabetic principle. In Reber, A. S. & Scarborough, D. L. (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading: The proceedings of the CUNY conference. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scheerer-Neumann, G., Kretschmann, R., & Brügelmann, H. (1986). Andrea, Ben und Jana: Selbstgewählte Wege zum Lesen und Schreiben [Andrea, Ben and Jana: Individually chosen ways towards reading and spelling]. In Brügelmann, H. (Ed.), ABC und Schriftsprache: Rätsel für Kinder, Lehrer und Forscher. Konstanz: Faude.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K., & Elder, L. (1986). Beginning reading without phonology. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3(1), 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowling, M., Stackhouse, J., & Rack, J. (1986). Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia – A developmental analysis. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3(3), 309–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence of stages? Cognition, 30, 139–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venezky, R. (1976). Theoretical and experimental base for teaching reading. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R-M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 3, 421–451.Google Scholar
Wimmer, H., Landerl, K., Linortner, R., & Hummer, P. (1990). Phonemic awareness does not emerge spontaneously and is not crucial for learning to read a regular orthography. Unpublished manuscript, University of Salzburg.Google Scholar