REVIEW OF COMMON SPELLING ERRORS BY

SPANISH HERITAGE LANGUAGE WRITERS

A MASTER’S THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

OF BETHEL UNIVERSITY

BY

BRIAN W. MURPHY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

OCTOBER 27, 2015

1

Signature Page

BETHEL UNIVERSITY

REVIEW OF COMMON SPELLING ERRORS BY

SPANISH HERITAGE LANGUAGE WRITERS

Brian W. Murphy

October 27, 2015

APPROVED

Advisor’s Name:____________________

Advisor’s Signature:____________________

2

Abstract

This thesis provides a literary review of spelling errors made by individuals born in the United

States to immigrants from Spanish speaking countries (second generation immigrants), otherwise

known as Spanish Heritage Language speakers. These individuals share common misspelling

traits, in both English and Spanish, due to the mixture of the two languages that they are exposed

to from an early age. The focus of this thesis is to identify the most common misspellings in

both languages and their root cause. As discussed in this paper, common errors in Spanish

include the proper use of the silent /h/, accent marks, and substitution of letters such as /b/ and

/v/. English errors are generally the result of the deep orthography of the English language and

include proper vowel selection, especially in the case of diphthongs and the substitution of letters

such as /z/ and /s/. Furthermore, most misspellings are the result of applying known grammar

rules in one language, often the individual’s native language, to a second language. This type of

error is classified as a transfer error (Lightbown & Spada, 2006).

3

Table of Contents

Signature Page ................................................................................................................................ 1

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 10

Theoretical Framework and Search Parameters ........................................................................ 10

Literacy Background ................................................................................................................. 11

Literacy Skills ........................................................................................................................ 11

English-Spanish Comparisons ............................................................................................... 12

Steps to Literacy in L1........................................................................................................... 13

Steps to Literacy in L2........................................................................................................... 14

Correlation between Reading and Writing ............................................................................ 15

Socioeconomic and Home Literacy Environment Factors ........................................................ 17

Background Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................... 18

Common Grammatical and Spelling Errors by SHL Speakers ................................................. 19

Grammatical Errors ............................................................................................................... 19

Spelling Errors – Categorized................................................................................................ 27

Spelling Errors – English ....................................................................................................... 34

Spelling Errors – Spanish ...................................................................................................... 40

CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................. 44

Summary of Research ............................................................................................................... 46

Professional Application ........................................................................................................... 47

Limitations of the Research....................................................................................................... 49

Future Research ......................................................................................................................... 50

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 51

References ..................................................................................................................................... 53

4

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

How would you grade a high school English paper that included the following excerpts?

Would you accept it as is? Or, would you return the paper to the student, with instructions to

correct the spelling and grammatical errors?

There have been times in my life when I felt down or need someone to talk to. And the

person who has always been there is Bill Hammond one of my mom’s friends (names

have been changed). Sometimes that I remember were having her help me with family

issues , school work, and personal issues.…

One of the times i remember is when I was having family issues. Soome of the time me

and my family dont get along. We have our ways and additudes which makes us not get

along. Also we have our differences in most of things we have to agree on.Wtih all of

brings alot of stress. But I know I could go to Bill and have him listen to me and give me

advise I need.…

Another time is having him help me with school work. School adds a lot of stress to me.

Especially when I have a these due dates to remember so many test to study for so much

homework to do. Well Bill would be there to help.…

A final time I remember is when he helps me with my personal issues. … Bill would

show me to be a great person… (H. N. Audelo, personal communication, November 1,

2010).

This paper was written for an English composition class by a tenth grade Spanish

Heritage Language (SHL) student, María. She was born in the United States to Spanish speaking

parents who emigrated from Mexico. María only spoke Spanish until entering kindergarten;

5

however, by the time she entered high school, English was her stronger language. In fact, when

her mother, who had gained some proficiency in English, spoke to her in Spanish she would

often respond in English.

When I read the entire paper, I was amazed by the number of basic spelling and grammar

errors (i.e. missing apostrophes, number agreement, and incomplete sentences). When writing in

English, her mind seemed to be processing in Spanish, resulting in numerous errors. At one

point, I asked María to read her English paper out loud. After reading, her comment to me was

“I wrote this in Spanglish.” She acknowledged that, although she felt more comfortable talking

in English, her mind would switch into Spanish when writing since her native language was

easier to process when under the stress of writing.

Since this exchange, I have had the opportunity to help her, as well as other SHL high

school students, with essays. From my experience, I found that María was more the rule than the

exception in her manner of writing in English.

Guadalupe Valdés, Professor of Linguistics at Stanford University, defines Heritage

Language individuals as those “raised in a home where a non-English language is spoken, who

speak or merely understand the heritage language, and who are to some degree bilingual in

English and the heritage language” (Correa, 2011, p. 128). Eve Zyzik (2014) describes SHL

individuals as those for whom a second language has taken over the role as the prominent or

main language from their home, or first language. This change is the result of “reduced exposure

to the home language” (Zyzik, 2014, p. 3).

The reduced exposure results in what could be described as reversed language

acquisition. Most people maintain their first language as their primary. However, “Heritage

speakers acquire the family language naturalistically since birth, like first language (L1) learners.

6

The majority language (L2) is acquired either simultaneously with the family language

(simultaneous bilingualism) or soon thereafter (sequential bilingualism or child L2 acquisition)”

(Montrul, 2010, p. 294).

I have worked closely with the local Hispanic community in Minneapolis, Minnesota for

over ten years. During this time, I have found a common thread in the English and Spanish

writing abilities of the SHL youth. Many first generation Hispanic-Americans have a very good

oral command of both English and Spanish. But their ability to write fluently in either language

is lacking. The following questions have often come to my mind regarding this phenomenon:

Why do they have difficulty writing? What is the root cause? What can be done to help

overcome their writing struggles? To gain answers to these questions, one first needs an

understanding of the background, history, and current demographics of Hispanics in the United

States.

There has been a continual flow of immigrants to the United States from Latin America

for decades. In 1960, there were 900,000 first generation Hispanic immigrants (those born

outside the United States), accounting for only 9.2% of all immigrants, living in the United

States (Grieco et al., 2012). By contrast, the U.S. Census of 2010 listed 21.2 million first

generation Hispanic immigrants living in the U.S., representing 53.1% of all immigrants, a 577%

increase in 50 years. Along with this growth in immigrants from Latin America, the number of

second generation immigrants (those born in the United States to foreign born parents) has

likewise increased - from 10.6 million in 1980 to 34.1 million in 2012, a 322% increase in 32

years (Krogstad & Lopez, 2014). Of the second generation immigrants, eight-percent are

predominantly Spanish speaking and another 53% are bilingual. Furthermore, over 90% say that

they are fluent in speaking and reading in English, while 82% claim proficiency in speaking

7

Spanish and only 71% say that they are fluent in reading Spanish (Taylor, Lopez, Martínez, &

Velasco, 2012).

Half of Hispanic households living in the United States earn $40,000 or less per year,

with another 20.6% earning between $40-64K. This low income level has several effects on

Hispanic families, as will be discussed later. In addition, 21.1% of adult Hispanics living in the

United States have less than a ninth grade education, compared to 5.7% for the overall adult

population. And, only 13.9% of adult Hispanics are college graduates, compared to 29.2% of the

overall adult population (Brown, & Patten, 2014).

In all, these statistics paint a picture of a population that has grown tremendously over the

last 50 years, but has a low socioeconomic standing. As this population continues to grow, it is

important that they have the academic skills to be strong, positive contributors and leaders in the

United States.

Home educational opportunities are vital launch pads for early academic success. This is

especially true where the language spoken in the home is not the primary language of the general

population. Farver, Lonigan, Xu and Eppe (2013) support this idea with the following research:

Current research indicates that preschool children’s emergent literacy skills, oral

language, phonological awareness, and print knowledge are strong…predictors of how

well they will read.…Low-income children and those whose first language is other than

English face considerable challenges in becoming skilled readers. (p.775)

Problems associated with learning to read in elementary school are often related to the lack of

reading skills learned in the home, prior to kindergarten. Children, whose primary home

language is Spanish, are not only at a high risk of reading difficulties, but also of overall low

academic achievement (Farver, Lonigan, & Eppe, 2009). Many low-income homes have smaller

8

home libraries and fewer opportunities for academic discussions in the home. With less reading,

there are often slower gains in spelling.

When learning to spell, children use their understanding of the relationship between

sounds and letters, along with visual memorization, to form their words. Spelling is the result of

gaining a number of language skills, many of which come from reading (San Francisco, Mo,

Carlo, August, & Snow, 2006). Even though reading benefits spelling, reading in one language

may not benefit spelling in another because of the orthographic differences between languages.

Spanish has a rather shallow orthography which is quite transparent. There is nearly a one-to-

one phoneme-grapheme relationship between each letter and the sound it represents. On the

other hand, English has a deep orthography. A map of English letter to sound relationships is

very complex with many letters having multiple sounds (Estes & Richard, 2002; Defoir,

Jiménez-Fernandéz, & Serrano, 2009). These differences have an effect on spelling by SHL

children who are working with emerging dual languages. Examples of these difficulties include

the ability to distinguish between <s> and <z>, and the proper use of <h> (Estes & Richard,

2002). Vowels also prove to be difficult, as /e/ in <ai> or <ay>, or /i/ in <ee>, <ea>, or <ie>

(Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2008). Examples of difficult Spanish words include hablar (to talk)

which may be incorrectly spelled as ablar, oy instead of hoy (today), and benir instead of venir

(to come). In English, vowels are especially difficult, as in reed and read (present tense), crawl

and all, and straight and stay.

Through my associations within the Hispanic community, I have gained a desire to better

understand the obstacles that SHL youth have in learning to write properly in both English and

Spanish, especially considering the orthographic differences in the two languages and the

9

environment in which they live (i.e. Spanish spoken in the home and English at school, small

home libraries). With that in mind, I will address the following questions:

1. What are common writing errors of Spanish Heritage language learners in both English

and Spanish?

2. Can these errors be categorized in order to address the root cause?

A large body of research has been conducted on various aspects SHL speakers’ writing

and reading fluency. This research includes both reading and writing in English and Spanish.

To answer the questions above, I draw on current research to present the most common

misspellings and grammatical errors made by SHL youth. I also review how the socioeconomic

environment plays a role in the SHL youth’s spelling skills. After the literary review, I discuss

the research that has been published and provide my conclusions.

10

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this chapter, I review current studies relating to Spanish Heritage Language

individuals. First, I present background information regarding literacy including: skills,

comparisons between English and Spanish, and steps to becoming literate in first and second

languages (L1 & L2). This information builds a framework to understanding and comparing the

process of becoming literate in English and Spanish. The next section reviews the

socioeconomic factors that influence SHL individuals and families and explains how these

factors affect the individual’s ability to gain literacy in both L1 and L2. The third section looks

into common spelling errors made by SHL learners; this section also includes a review of a

number of studies involving SHL learners. The final section contains conclusions from the

literature review and an introduction to the study that accompanies this paper.

Theoretical Framework and Search Parameters

Innatist theories of Stephen Krashen were selected as the theoretical framework for this

paper. Krashen argues that “comprehensible input causes acquisition” (Lee & VanPatten, 2003,

p. 16). SHL children, like all children, learn their first language in a natural setting such as the

home. However, SHL children will most likely begin acquiring their L2 in a similar setting

where comprehensible input is the foundation.

Literature for this thesis was initially located using Academic Search Premier and ERIC.

Within those databases, searches were filtered on a number of keywords, including: Spanish

heritage language, second language, misspelling, reading, writing, and acquisition. Once a

sampling of articles, printed between 2000 and 2015, were reviewed, further information was

11

sought using the references from the initial articles. From the collection of articles used in this

paper, the structure for this chapter was developed as described above.

Literacy Background

In treating literacy background, I discuss four specific themes. First, the skills involved

in gaining literacy including phonological awareness, print knowledge, and oral language skills.

This is followed by a discussion on the comparisons of English and Spanish from a literary

standpoint. The next two sections relate to the steps involved in gaining literacy, in both L1 and

L2. Finally, the last section discusses the correlation between reading and writing.

Literacy Skills

Several skills are needed to become literate. The timing and development of each skill

plays a role in one’s long term ability to read. Literacy is not a skill that is obtained in a single

step. Rather, it is a continuum that moves from a starting point of no literacy skills through a

stage of emergent literacy to various levels of mature literacy (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).

There are several skills needed to become literate. Farver et al. (2009) listed these skills as

phonological awareness, print knowledge, and oral language.

Phonological awareness is acquired as an individual learns to recognize and produce

sounds. This is accomplished through listening and mimicking what is heard as well as by

memorizing specific rhymes and songs. Print knowledge is developed as the child learns the

letters of the alphabet, matches them with the appropriate sounds, and then is able to combine

them into words, phrases, and sentences. Oral language skills are developed as the child builds

his vocabulary and gains a functional understanding of key grammar rules. Research has shown

12

that when an individual gains these skills earlier in life, he will learn to read sooner and more

fluently than one who gains these skills later (Farver et al., 2009; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998).

English-Spanish Comparisons

English and Spanish have much in common. Both languages use the Roman alphabet,

follow the same subject-verb-object sentence structure, and share many cognates. However,

their orthographic code, the degree of complexity of an alphabetic spelling system, is quite

different (Defior et al., 2009).

Orthographic systems range from very complex to very transparent. English has a

complex, deep orthography. There are 26 graphemes (letters) in English that are used to

represent 44 phonemes (sounds). Spanish has a very orthographic spelling system with 29

graphemes - all 26 English graphemes plus ch, ll, and ñ, but only 29 phonemes (Howard, Green,

& Arteagoitia, 2012; Defoir et al., 2009; Defior & Serrano, 2005; Sun-Alperin & Wang, 2008).

Examples of English’s complex orthography can be seen in the vowel sound [i] in the

following words, all with different spellings: beat, we, believe, people money, dean. Just as

vowel phonemes can be spelled in several different ways, vowel graphemes have several sounds.

The letter /a/ is pronounced differently in the words ate, bat, wall, caught, and say. Within the

consonants, there are similar complexities. The sound [f] occurs in foot, laugh, philosophy, and

coffee. In contrast, the Spanish [i] is consistent (i.e. igual, ciudad). Likewise, the Spanish [f] is

also consistent, as can be found in words such as fantastico, falso, and científico (Mihalicek &

Wilson, 2011; van Berkel, 2004). Differences in orthographic codes, “mainly its degree of

transparency, affect the development of its acquisition…[Orthographic] features have a major

influence in the time needed to acquire the code” (Defior & Serrano, 2005, p. 82). The

13

orthography of English and Spanish, as well as their implications, will be discussed in the review

of current studies.

Steps to Literacy in L1

Despite these orthographic differences, the steps to gaining literacy in English and

Spanish are the same. In their work on developing Spanish spelling skills, Defior and Serrano

(2005) identified three stages of development. First, a child learning to communicate will

associate the sounds of certain words to visual objects and people, such as connecting the sounds

in the spoken words of mom and dad with the child’s parents. At this point, the child does not

distinguish between individual letters, rather he simply recognizes that certain combinations of

symbols represent a visual object. In the second stage, the learner gains knowledge of the link

between phonemes and graphemes.

During the second stage, the learner will consider the phoneme-grapheme link as a one-

to-one relationship (i.e. the letter /b/ is pronounced [b]). In English, this assumed relationship

can pose a problem. As demonstrated above with the phonemes [i] and [f], the complex

orthography of English makes it more difficult to determine relationships. The SHL learner has

already created the one-to-one relationship in Spanish, which now must be adjusted as needed.

Examples of these adjustments include consonants that change according to location and

neighboring letters. Ciudad (city) uses the soft [s] while cuando (when) uses the hard [k] sound.

In Spanish orthography, these situations follow consistent rules that seldom have exceptions (van

Berkel, 2004; Defoir, Alegría, Titos, & Martos, 2008).

In the third stage, the learner has mastered the phoneme-grapheme rules and now spells

orthographically correct. Spelling is now based on orthographic patterns that are stored in the

14

mental lexicon (Defior & Serrano, 2005). The mental lexicon is a mental dictionary. In this

dictionary are stored the words and their meanings, pronunciation, and grammatical rules. As

words are used more frequently they move up the list in the mental lexicon, which provides for

quicker recognition and usage (Mihalicek & Wilson, 2011).

Van Berkel (2004) goes on to state that when acquiring one’s L2, the lines between the

steps mentioned above can be blurred. For example, an individual may show signs of being in

both the second and third stages at the same time. Van Berkel also introduces a fourth stage in

which visual memory is used to gain proper spelling. As an individual is acquiring a L2 he will

memorize and differentiate words visually such as la papa (potato), el papa (the Pope), and el

papá (the dad). There are slight variations in each of these words. The individual will rely “on a

visual strategy” (p. 242) to recognize and differentiate words. San Francisco et al. (2006) placed

the visual memorization stage alongside the phoneme-grapheme stage.

Steps to Literacy in L2

An individual’s ability to become literate in a L2 is aided by their knowledge of their L1.

Because Spanish has a shallow orthography, SHL individuals have a “richer sense of phonemic

awareness” (Estes & Richards, 2002, p. 296) than English speaking monolinguals. This

phonemic awareness can carry over and improve their ability to become literate in English.

“Thus, Spanish-speaking youngsters who are taught to read and write their native language

before becoming literate in English will probably learn to spell better in both languages” (Estes

& Richards, 2002, p. 296). Indeed, research has found that a SHL student’s understanding of

Spanish is a “reliable predictor of English performance” (August et al., 2006, p. 352). The L1

skills that are most valuable in gaining L2 literacy include “linguistic and cognitive skills such as

15

working memory, L1 short-term memory, L2 oral language, and L2 word reading” (Kim, 2012,

p. 690; Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010).

Correlation between Reading and Writing

There is a strong correlation between reading and writing in both L1 and L2 (San

Francisco et al., 2006; Beaudrie, 2012). An individual’s ability to spell correctly supports both

reading and writing. “Knowing the spelling of a word solidifies its mental representation and

makes it accessible for fluent reading. For writing, fluent spelling enables writers to devote their

attention to higher-level aspects of composition” (Beaudrie, 2012, p. 135). Developing a rich

vocabulary is the product of reading. From a child’s knowledge of the written word he learns to

decipher spoken words into the appropriate symbols, or graphemes (San Francisco et al., 2006).

Because of the correlation between reading and writing, it is important to start the learning

process early (August et al., 2006; Farver et al., 2013); however, many SHL children are behind

their English-speaking peers through the early elementary school years.

To demonstrate this, English speaking and SHL students in grades 1-5 were given

reading fluency tests to compare their fluency and proficiency growth rates (de Ramirez &

Shapiro, 2006). In this study, 165 students were given 15-minute oral reading tests where their

fluency was tracked. The English students were only tested in English. The SHL students were

in a bilingual curriculum program, so their reading ability was tested in both English and

Spanish.

At the beginning of first grade, the SHL students were more fluent in reading Spanish than

were the English-speaking students reading in English. However, the SHL students’ English

reading skills were minimal. By the time they started fifth grade, all groups had made progress.

16

The native English readers and SHL students reading in Spanish made substantial progress

(native English reading students went from 16.2 words per minute (wpm) in first grade to 124.5

wpm in fifth grade; SHL Spanish reading went from 23.2 wpm in first grade to 106.6 wpm in

fifth grade). However, the SHL students’ English reading fluency only increased from 6.8 wpm

to 90.0 wpm during the same time period. Also of significance, during the four-year time period,

from the start of first grade to the start of fifth grade, the native English readers increased their

reading skills by nearly 670%. In comparison, the SHL students increased their Spanish reading

fluency by 360%, just over half that of their English reading counterparts. The SHL children’s

English reading fluency increased significantly, 1,224%. However, this large increase is the

result of a very small baseline reading rate in first grade of 6.8 words per minute, compared to

16.2 and 23.2 words per minute by the English readers and SHL readers in Spanish respectively.

Table 1

Mean Reading Fluency and Percent Increase Year over Year in Words per Minute

Grade English Readers SHL in Spanish SHL in English

1st Grade 16.2 wpm 23.2 wpm 6.8 wpm

2nd

Grade 71.7 wpm 342.6% 71.3 wpm 207.3% 30.5 wpm 348.5%

3rd

Grade 88.1 wpm 22.9% 75.6 wpm 6.0% 61.5 wpm 101.6%

4th

Grade 98.1 wpm 11.4% 84.8 wpm 12.2% 63.2 wpm 2.8%

5th

Grade 124.5 wpm 26.9% 106.6 wpm 25.7% 90.0 wpm 42.4%

Increase 1st

to 5th

Grade

108.3 wpm 668.5% 83.4 wpm 359.5% 83.2 wpm 1,223.5%

Note. Scores are based on beginning of school year.

Note. Adapted from “Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of reading skills of

Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education classrooms,” by R.D. de

Ramirez & E.S. Shapiro, 2006, School Psychology Review, 35(3), p. 362

From this study, several important points were identified. First, this study is “consistent

with the well-established time frame (i.e. 5-7 years) that it typically takes [SHL learners]… to

17

reach levels of fluency in English” (de Ramirez & Shapiro, 2006, p. 365). Another notable point

is the slow growth and therefore potential loss of SHL students’ ability to read in Spanish.

Finally, in conjunction with spelling proficiency, an SHL student entering first grade reading 6.8

words per minute would be far behind their native English speaking peer in both reading and

writing who enters first grade reading 16.2 words per minute.

Socioeconomic and Home Literacy Environment Factors

The foundation that a child builds prior to kindergarten is a strong indicator of how well

he will read once in school (Faver et al., 2013). This foundation includes skills in oral language,

phonological awareness, and print knowledge. “Low-income children and those whose first

language is other than English… face considerable challenges in becoming skilled readers”

(Faver et al., 2013, p775). SHL children are labeled as high-risk for having reading and

academic achievement. In 2005, 56% of Hispanic fourth graders in the United States were

reading “below the ‘basic’ level, indicating… [that they] did not have at least partial mastery of

the skills needed for grade-level work” (Farver et al., 2009, p. 703).

Another indicator of future reading abilities is the home literacy environment (HLE), or

the environment that the family provides to allow for literacy development. This includes books

in the home, individual and family reading, reading aloud to small children, and academic level

discussions (Niklas & Schneider, 2013). In a study of the HLE of 1,046 Head-Start children

between the ages of 14-36 months, “parents’ engagement in literacy activities, quality of mother-

child engagement, and provision of learning materials uniquely predicted children’s language

and cognitive skills… and explained 27% of their language and cognitive skills at 36 months”

(Faver et al., 2013, p. 777).

18

Several studies completed by August et al. (2006) revealed important relationships

between HLE and the child’s literacy in both English and Spanish. Included in their findings

was a link between the language spoken in the home by the parents and their fifth grader’s

literary abilities. If both parents prefer to speak Spanish, the children will be more literate in

Spanish than in English. However, if the father prefers to speak English, the children do better in

English than if the mother prefers English. A father’s preference for English, with the resulting

influence on his children’s English skills include: higher level of education obtained by the

father, employment that requires English skills, and length of time the parents have been living

in the United States. Also, the parents preferred language has a larger impact on the child than

did the language spoken between siblings.

Indeed, there are many factors that help predict a child’s success in school. Two factors

that play a major role in a SHL child’s Spanish literacy and English reading success are the

family socioeconomic status and home literacy environment. In a longitudinal study of Hispanic

families that tracked children from kindergarten to seventh grade, a strong correlation was found

between the family socioeconomic status and both home literacy practices (r value of .43 and p <

.01) and the child’s literacy rate entering kindergarten (r value of .36 and p < .01). This

relationship continued through the end of the study at seventh grade (Reese, Garnier, Gallimore,

& Goldenberg, 2000).

Background Summary and Conclusions

In previous sections of this chapter, a comparison was made between the orthography of

English and Spanish, steps to becoming literate were introduced, and information was provided

regarding the SHL child’s socioeconomic status and home literacy environment – along with the

19

roles that these play in gaining literacy skills. The final section of this chapter will introduce

research performed on SHL speakers and list common grammatical and spelling errors.

Common Grammatical and Spelling Errors by SHL Speakers

A great deal of research has been conducted on SHL speakers regarding their reading and

writing proficiency in both English and Spanish. This section of the literature review will

explore common errors made by SHL speakers. The research and findings will fall into one of

two categories: grammatical errors and misspellings. Within each of these categories, errors can

be caused by L1 knowledge (or lack of knowledge), transfer between the two languages, and

fossilization (Beaudrie, 2012). The vast majority of grammar research has been performed using

adult SHL speakers whereas the vast majority of research on the spelling of SHL speakers has

been performed with children.

Grammatical Errors

The grammar rules of English and Spanish are often similar, such as the sentence

structure of subject-verb-object. However, there are some major differences. In English,

adjectives come before the noun (i.e. red house, tall tree). In Spanish, adjectives usually come

after the noun (i.e. casa roja – house red, arbol grande – tree tall). Unlike English, where nouns

are gender neutral, Spanish nouns are gender specific (casa is feminine, arbol is masculine).

Direct and indirect object pronouns (D/IOPs) also have different placement. In English, D/IOPs

are placed after the verb, as in the sentence, “I gave it to you.” In Spanish, the D/IOP are placed

before a conjugated verb, or after and connected to an infinitive verb, as in Te lo doy – To you it

I give, or Voy a dartelo – I’m going to give to you it. These are just a few examples of the

20

differences in grammatical rules between English and Spanish (Montrul, 2010). To demonstrate

potential difficulties that SHL speakers have in acquiring English, I will only focus on three

types of grammatical differences: direct and indirect object placement, the use of articles, and

verb placement and usage.

A native Spanish-speaking child has a solid grasp of D/IOP usage and placement by the

age of three (Grinstead, 2004). Does the introduction of English affect the retention of D/IOPs in

Spanish for the SHL speaker?

In a very complete and detailed study, Silvina Montrul (2010) looked at the effects of the

dominant language (English) on second language learners (native English speakers learning

Spanish) and on SHL speakers (native Spanish speakers where English has become the dominant

language). This study was approached with the hypothesis that an individual’s L1 (English)

would influence the acquisition of a second language (Spanish) on English speakers learning

Spanish, and that the L2 (English) would influence the retention and usage of the L1 (Spanish) in

SHL speakers.

Montrul (2010) tested 141 students at the University of Illinois. This group consisted of

native English speakers learning Spanish, SHL speakers with English as their dominant

language, and monolingual Spanish speakers. The participants were first shown pictures that

represented a children’s story. They were then asked to tell the story in Spanish. The second test

involved identifying which, of 90 sentences, were grammatically correct.

The results were analyzed by looking at the use of the letter /a/ before a direct object, as in

Juan visita a Marcos. This use of /a/ is called the direct object marker (DOM). The usage and

placement of direct and indirect object pronouns (I/DOP) were also analyzed (Juan lo visita or

Juan va a visitarlo) along with recognition of the grammatical correctness of sentences (subject-

21

verb-object). The results were scored on a scale of one to five, with one showing that the

sentences were identified as incorrect and five showing that the sentences were identified as

correct.

Table 2, listed below, shows the mean accuracy of participants in identifying sentences

with correct grammar. As can be seen in the table, native Spanish speakers far outperformed the

other groups in correctly identifying direct object markers. The study showed that all three

groups were similarly accurate in word order. On I/DOP usage, the native Spanish speakers

again outperformed the other groups. The SHL speakers and the L2 learners had similar results

with conjugated verbs. However, with infinitive verbs, the SHL speakers scored much closer to

native Spanish speakers.

Table 2

Mean Accuracy of Correctly Identifying Sentences that are Grammatically Correct

Test Native Spanish

Speakers

SHL Speakers L2 Learners

Placement of I/DOP

before conjugated verb

4.7 4.1 4.3

Placement of I/DOP after

infinitive verb

4.9 4.7 4.2

Placement of I/DOP with

two verbs

4.9 4.4 4.3

Use of DOM 4.8 4.2 4.3

Word order (SVO) 5.0 4.8 4.8

Note. Adapted from “Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage

speakers,” by S. Montrul, 2010, Second Language Research, 26(3), p. 312.

When comparing the accuracy of both correct and incorrect sentences, the native Spanish

speakers far outperformed both of the other groups. The results of this study were in line with

the overriding hypothesis “that grammatical transfer affects both L2 (English) acquisition and

22

incomplete L1 (Spanish) acquisition in SHL speakers” (Montrul, 2010, p. 320). The dominant

language does affect the less dominant language, resulting in transfer errors.

The subject-verb-object word order in both Spanish and English does not pose a problem

for SHL speakers. However, there are other grammatical features that regularly pose problems.

Just as SHL speakers have difficulty with I/DOP and DOM placement and usage, they have also

demonstrated difficulty with definite articles. In English, when making a generic reference to a

subject or object, the word “the” is not included, as in “children play” or “restaurants serve

food.” Specific references add the word “the”, as in “the children play” or “the restaurants serve

food.” In these two examples, the addition of the article “the” leads the reader to understand that

specific children or restaurants are referenced. In Spanish, both generic and specific references

will include the definite article (i.e. los niños juegan, los restaurantes sirven comida).

Thirty adult SHL speakers attending a university in the midwestern United States were

studied on their use of definite articles in Spanish. The researchers were looking to identify if

transfer from English, the stronger language, would cause incorrect article usage in Spanish, the

native and weaker language. The study also included 30 students learning Spanish as their

second language, and 17 native Spanish speakers as a control group (Montrul & Ionin, 2012).

Four tests were given to each of the groups. The first test was a baseline questionnaire to

determine the participants overall understanding of direct and indirect articles. Next, a written

test was administered where participants identified the correct usage of direct and indirect

articles. The third test involved reading a short story, looking at a picture, and then verifying if a

statement was true or false as it related to the picture and story; the statements truthfulness was

based on the use of the articles. In the final test, the participants were shown two pictures, and

23

then given statements regarding the pictures. For each statement, they had to identify to which

picture (or both) the statement referred.

This study found that native Spanish speakers correctly used the articles with generic

statements 82% of the time, while SHL and L2 speakers were correct only 37% and 47%

respectively (Montrul & Ionin, 2012). The other results (i.e. specific references) were very

similar between the three groups. This finding is to be expected since the sentence structure for

generic statements is different in Spanish and English. However, many specific references are

similar between the two languages (The dog ate, El perro comió).

From this study, the authors concluded that the influence from the more frequent use of

English results in the transfer of errors to Spanish. They also concluded that it is important for

teachers to spend additional time with SHL and L2 students on the proper use of articles in

generic statements (Montrul & Ionin, 2012).

Two years earlier, Montrul and Ionin (2010) performed a very similar study, only with 23

SHL, 19 English, and 17 Spanish speaking students. In that study, the results were nearly

identical.

Although these studies document what is commonly seen in Spanish L2 classrooms, as

well as in natural settings, their sample size was small, with just 30 SHL and L2 participants

combined. The 2010 study was even smaller. Since SHL speakers work with both languages on

a regular basis, it would also have been good to include Spanish statements as part of the testing.

The next study in this section focuses on proper verb usage. Zyzik (2014) looked at the

use of causative verbs in both English and Spanish. This type of sentence structure includes “a

‘causer,’ that is, someone or something that initiates or controls the activity” (Zyzik, 2014, p. 4).

An example in English would be “The principal made the student leave.” In Spanish, to show

24

the same meaning, the sentence would be “El director hizo salir al estudiante.” Note the

difference in these two sentences. In English it reads “The principal made…,” whereas, in

Spanish it reads “El director hizo salir…” (The principal made to leave…).

To provide further background information on this study, it is necessary to recognize the

difference between transitive and intransitive verb structures. Both are action verbs, however

transitive verbs require a direct object to receive the action. A transitive sentence would include

“Pablo da el regalo” (Paul gives the gift). Here, the direct object, the gift, is receiving the action

of giving by Paul. An intransitive sentence does not have an object to receive the actions, as in

“Pablo corre” (Paul runs). Oftentimes a sentence with a transitive verb will have a different

structure in Spanish as compared to English, as can be seen in the examples from the previous

paragraph.

To study the proper use of causative verbs, Zyzik (2014) used a sample of 58 SHL

speakers attending a university in California and 22 native Spanish speakers from several Central

and South American countries as a control group. Participants were given a verb-vocabulary test

to create a baseline understanding of the vocabulary to be used and a sentence acceptability test,

where they ranked the grammatical acceptability of sentences. The acceptability sentences were

ranked on a scale of 1 (totally unacceptable) to 4 (perfectly acceptable).

The SHL participants were less likely to accept sentences with transitive verbs than were

the native Spanish speakers. They rated sentences with transitive verbs at 3.4 out of 4.0, where

the control group rated those sentences at 3.63. By contrast, the SHL participants were more

likely to accept sentences with intransitive verbs. SHL participants accepted those sentences at a

rate of 2.0 while the control group accepted them at a rate of 1.3.

25

A further analysis found that the most common errors made by the SHL group were in

accepting either transitive or intransitive verbs in causative sentences. It also found that “lower

proficiency [SHL] speakers are those who typically exhibit more variation, vulnerability or

indeterminacy in different grammatical areas (Zyzik, 2014, p. 22). The author of the study

further concluded that errors were the result of: 1) transfer errors from English, 2) Spanish

structure of causative verbs, and 3) applying transitive verb structure to intransitive verbs.

Zyzik’s study was well documented and was added to the previous body of knowledge on

this topic. Her research strongly supports the findings of other notable researchers, such as

Silvina Montrul.

A final study in the grammar section examined the subject-verb placement in wh-

questions. Alejandro Cuza (2012), from Purdue University, evaluated the subject-verb

placement in two types of wh-questions: matrix wh-questions, where the interrogative introduces

the question such as ¿Qué compró Maria? (What bought Maria? or What did Maria buy?), and

embedded wh-questions where the interrogative is embedded in the question. Embedded wh-

questions are most often written as statements, as in Me pregunto qué compró Maria (Me wonder

what bought Maria. or I wonder what Maria bought.). Cuza (2012) looked at the difficulties

SHL speakers have with wh-questions and if the difficulties are the result of transfer errors.

Seventeen SHL speakers, along with 10 native Spanish speakers as a control group, were

selected for this study. The participants were all college graduates or graduate students. With

these participants, Cuza (2012) set out to answer questions regarding subject-verb inversion

among SHL speakers. Do SHL speakers have difficulty with subject-verb placement in wh-

questions? If so, are there certain types of wh-questions that are more prone to errors? Finally,

can these errors be influenced from English? To answer these questions, the participants were

26

given 24 questions to analyze: 12 grammatically correct and 12 incorrect. The results are as

shown in table 3.

Table 3

Mean Percentage of Participants who Accepted, Rejected, or were Unsure of Grammatically

Incorrect Questions Categorized by Type of Participant

Group Accepted Unsure Rejected

Heritage speakers

Matrix

Embedded

24%

76%

6%

12%

70%

12%

Control Group

Matrix

Embedded

0%

0%

10%

0%

90%

100%

Note. Adapted from “Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax proper: Interrogative subject-verb

inversion in heritage Spanish,” by A. Cuza, 2012, International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1),

p. 82.

As can be seen in table 3, the SHL speakers had a much more difficult time identifying

grammatically incorrect wh-questions. This was especially true with embedded wh-questions

where 76% of the SHL speakers accepted grammatically incorrect questions compared to the

control group which rejected all incorrect embedded questions. This is significant, not only

because of the results displayed here, but because native Spanish speakers are able to properly

apply wh-questions at a young age (Grinstead, 2004).

Additional testing was performed where the participants were asked to create their own

questions based on information given. The results of that test were similar. From these tests,

Grinstead (2004) concluded that SHL speakers are “vulnerable to crosslinguistic influence” (p.

89). The results show that the influences from their majority language, English, are transferred

to Spanish. This corresponds with Montrul and Ionin’s research (2010).

27

All studies concluded that adult SHL speakers have difficulty producing grammatically

correct statements in Spanish. These difficulties include direct and indirect object placement,

article usage, verb usage, and subject-verb placement in questions. Furthermore, all of these

studies identify the root cause as transfer errors from English, their L2 and the majority

language.

Each of the grammatical research studies provides evidence that, although Spanish is

their L1, SHL speakers are less fluent in Spanish than native Spanish speakers. SHL speakers

demonstrate errors that are influenced by their use of English, which has become their primary

language. Because SHL speakers are more prone to errors in Spanish, it is important that they

receive instruction to gain communicative skills in Spanish (Mikulski & Elola, 2011).

Literature on misspellings by SHL speakers is next reviewed. The studies included in

this section center on children, mostly between kindergarten and fifth grade. The studies are

divided into three sections: studies that categorized spelling errors, studies that focused on

spelling errors made in English by SHL children, and studies of SHL children’s spelling errors in

Spanish.

Spelling Errors – Categorized

Researches have looked into the possibility that spelling errors can be categorized by type

and ranked according to difficulty or complexity of the feature being spelled. If an individual

makes mistakes at a certain level, he can be expected to make mistakes with more difficult

features; however, he will not make mistakes with easier features. This theory has been studied

and validated in English, but has not been studied to the same extent in Spanish (Estes, &

Richards, 2002).

28

Estes and Richards (2002) tested 200 SHL children in first through fifth grades at an urban

Los Angeles elementary school. The children were given a list of 50 Spanish words to spell.

Each word had specific features that were identified for the study. The words were placed into

one of 12 features, with some words being included in more than one feature. One hundred and

fifty five of those students were given the same test using English words. The categories were:

A. Single ending vowel

B. Vowel inclusion in accented syllable

C. Representation of syllable units

D. Single ending consonant

E. Simple suffixes

F. Root constancy

G. Beginning two consonant clusters

H. Vowel diphthongs

I. S/z distinction

J. R/rr distinction in Spanish, f/ff distinction in English

K. Marked accents

L. Proper use of H (silent H in Spanish)

After completing the study, the researchers ranked the 12 features according to how often

the feature was misspelled. As expected, there was a strong linear pattern. If a child missed only

one or two features, it was the more difficult, and more frequently misspelled, features. As

children had more errors, they followed the pattern of misspelling words with more difficult

(commonly misspelled) features as well as misspelled the words with features that other

29

participants spelled correctly. However, the pattern was not 100% true. There were times when

a child would miss a feature that he would have been expected to spell correctly.

Table 4

Count of Items Passed and Ranked According to Level of Difficulty

J L I K E G F C H D B A

12 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

11 27 7 23 27 24 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27

10 30 4 13 21 24 29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30

9 36 2 2 12 23 35 35 36 35 36 36 36 36

8 45 2 5 7 41 43 45 41 42 45 45 44

7 8 6 7 6 7 7 7 8 8

6 7 1 5 5 3 6 5 4 5 6

5 6 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 4 5 6

4 2 1 1 2 2 2

3 5 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3

2 5 1 5 4

1 3 1 2

0 16

More Difficult - - - - - - Scored Correctly - - - - - - Less Difficultc# of

Studentsb

# Scored

Correctlya

a# Scored Correctly = out of 12 possible features

b# of Students = How many students correctly scored each number of features

cCategorized from the most difficult feature to least difficult feature. The number in each cell

represents the number of students who scored correctly.

Note. Reprinted from Knowledge of Orthographic Features in Spanish Among Bilingual

Children,” by T. H. Estes & H. C. Richards, 2002, Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), p. 302.

When spelling in Spanish, the most difficult categories for SHL children are as follows:

recognizing the distinction between /rr/ and /r/ (21 participants spelling those words correctly),

correctly using the letter /h/ (47 participants correct), and distinguishing between the letters /s/

and /z/ (73 participants correct). The least difficult categories were words ending in a single

30

vowel (175 participants correct), proper placement of vowels (174 participants correct), and

words ending in a single consonant (175 participants correct).

Those participants who were most successful demonstrated a greater understanding of

grapheme/phoneme relationships, as well as an ability to identify cognates (Estes & Richards,

2002; Jimenez, Garcia, & Pearson, 1996). The authors also noted that, although not as tight a

relationship as in English, this study supported the hypothesis that errors in Spanish can be

ranked according to difficulty. However, there was not enough research on English features to

back up that statement.

A similar study was performed by Defior, Jimenez-Fernandez, and Serrano (2009). In their

study, they explored the usage of the silent /h/, various contextual rules (i.e. if C is followed by

/a/, /o/, /u/ then it has the [k] sound and if followed by /e/, /i/ it has the [s] sound), and the proper

usage of the stress or accent mark. Unlike the Estes and Richards’ (2002) study, this study

explored not only accuracy of spelling, but also the increased accuracy as students progressed

from first through fourth grades.

In this study, 208 children in the first through fourth grades (51, 52, 52, 53 participants

respectively) were orally provided 60 words and another 60 pseudowords (invented words,

similar to regular words and used to eliminate the effect of prior word memorization) to spell.

The authors created the following six categories to track spelling:

1. Digraph – The phoneme represented by a grapheme of two letters, for example ch, gu, ll,

qu, and rr (i.e. chiste, queso).

2. Contextual Effect – The grapheme used for specific phonemes depends on the sound of

the accompanying vowel (i.e. [k] followed by /a/, /o/, /u/ is written with a C. [k] followed

by /e/, /i/ is written with a QU).

31

3. Position Effect – The grapheme used for a given phoneme depends on its position in the

word (i.e. the rolled R sound [r] is written with an R in the initial position and RR later in

a word – rosa and perro).

4. Inconsistency – Phonemes that can be represented by two or more graphemes without

any specific rules (i.e. Y and LL).

5. Letter H + vowel – The use of the silent H in writing (i.e. hola-hello and ola-wave).

6. Stress mark – The stress mark is governed by rules. One is to distinguish between two

words with different meanings (el and él – the and he). A stress mark is also used when

the stress is on a syllable other than the second to last syllable (pájaro – bird).

The results of the study show that the areas of greatest difficulty for these young students

were the silent H, the inconsistent rules (i.e. spelling with a Y or LL), and when to use the stress

(accent) mark. The mean percentage correct is listed below by category, grade, and

word/pseudoword.

Table 5

Mean Percentage of Correct Responses in Word/Pseudoword Spelling by Grade and Complexity

Grade/Type 1-DG 2-CE 3-PE 4-IN 5-LH 6-SM

Grade 1

Word

Pseudoword

62.74%

63.14%

67.64%

64.11%

72.87%

65.76%

32.57%

77.64%

12.15%

79.80%

6.27%

1.76%

Grade 2

Word

Pseudoword

82.50%

80.77%

87.88%

80.96%

87.02%

82.69%

54.58%

84.77%

36.54%

86.73%

20.00%

12.31%

Grade 3

Word

Pseudoword

87.11%

84.04%

88.07%

84.23%

91.03%

84.02%

65.16%

91.38%

50.00%

94.23%

30.38%

17.50%

Grade 4

Word

Pseudoword

89.43%

86..23%

92.07%

84.53%

94.97%

86.65%

75.25%

94.64%

63.02%

95.66%

49.62%

33.58% DG=Digraph, CE=Contextual Effect, PE=Position Effect, IN=Inconsistency, LH=Letter H, SM=Stress Mark.

32

Note. Adapted from “Complexity and lexicality effects on the acquisition of Spanish spelling,”

by S. Defior, G. Jiménez-Fernández, & F. Serrano, 2009, Learning and Instruction, 19(1), p. 61.

In all categories, improvement was made from year to year. The greatest improvements

were made in the earlier grades, with fewer improvements between third and fourth grade. The

study by Estes and Richards’ (2002) showed similar trends of difficultly within its categories. In

both studies, the proper use of the letter /h/ was identified as problematic. Stress/accent marks

also had high error rates in both studies. Likewise, the digraph, contextual effect, and position

effect categories scored the highest, as did similar categories in the previous study,

demonstrating that these categories were the least difficult.

These two studies complement each other nicely with similar results, however, the Defoir

et al. (2009) study does have some drawbacks. First, the pseudowords often scored higher than

real words. Yet, there was no explanation and one is left to wonder what words and

pseudowords were being used that would result in this discrepancy. Also, this study did not

distinguish between English only speaking children and those who came from homes where

Spanish was the main language spoken.

Ans van Berkel (2004) conducted an interesting study on learning to spell in English as a

second language. Unlike the other studies discussed in this paper, van Berkel’s participants were

native Dutch speakers. Dutch is similar to Spanish in that it has a much more shallow

orthography than English. van Berkel (2004) set out to see how Dutch speakers would handle

the wide variety of English spelling for similar sounds, such as the [i] sound in theme, team,

seen, he, key and field.

This was a large study with 1,400 participants throughout the Netherlands. The

participants were students in their later years of primary school (approximately sixth grade), or in

33

secondary school. The students were placed into four groups based on their current English

proficiency, with group number 4 being the most advanced. The participants were given spelling

tests where the words were divided into three categories for analysis. The first category was

specific to spelling (i.e. cat, dog). The second category required an understanding of English

orthographic rules (i.e. I before E except after C). And, the final category consisted of words

that didn’t follow the typical grammatical rules.

The results of the spelling tests demonstrated a similar linear pattern to that of the

previous studies. The results are listed below per spelling category, showing the average percent

correct for each group.

Table 6

Mean Percentage Correct by Participant Ability.

Group Spelling Orthographic

Rules

Exceptions

to Rule

1 – Primary age 60% 53% 36%

2 – Secondary, low achievers 53% 44% 34%

3 – Secondary, medium 71% 64% 57%

4 – Secondary, high achievers 79% 79% 69%

Note. Adapted from “Learning to spell in English as a second language,” by A. van Berkel,

2004, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42(3), p. 254.

In all studies based on categorizing spelling errors, a common theme was that participants

showed an ability to correctly spell words in simple categories, but as the words became more

difficult, there was an order as to the type of errors that were more often misspelled. From the

earlier studies in Spanish, the most common errors centered around accent marks, the misuse of

the letter /h/, and such misspellings as /r/ or /rr/, and /s/ or /z/. To correct these common errors

requires a deeper understanding of Spanish rules. In English, one could create a similar

34

categorization. The most difficult words are those where the writer needs to have an

understanding of the rule and if it applies.

As shown in the introductory quote from Hilda Hernandez, SHL learners will apply

Spanish grammatical rules to English writing, creating spelling and grammatical errors. Another

example of a SHL learner’s English writing can be seen in a text written by Iliana Celis, a 40

year-old immigrant from Mexico who has lived in a metropolitan area in the midwestern part of

the United States for approximately 12 years. Celis is attending a major university where she is

taking an English composition class. A recent essay included many transfer errors, such as:

“…free sugar products” – adjective placement, “There is not many health benefits to table

sugar…” – verb conjugation, “… because you need only a…” – adverb placement, and “What

kind of sugar we need to consume?” – missing ‘do’ between sugar and we (I. Celis, personal

communication, June 13, 2015).

Categorizing spelling errors has been shown to follow specific trends where one can

identify the more difficult features to spell. The next section provides more specific information

on spelling errors as specific letters, phonemes, and words are addressed, first in English and

then in Spanish.

Spelling Errors – English

A problem area that SHL speakers face in learning English consists of vowel selection.

Both languages use the same five single vowels. However, each English vowel grapheme has a

number of phonemes (i.e. /a/ has different pronunciations in apple, apron, car, and alive). By

contrast, in Spanish, each of the five single vowel graphemes corresponds to only one sound

(Sun-Alprin & Wang, 2008). Vowels are a good indicator of the shallow versus deep

35

orthography between Spanish and English. The spelling errors caused by the orthographic

differences of the two languages “suggests that Spanish influence in the English spelling of

Spanish-English bilinguals is not related to spelling ability in Spanish, but rather to knowledge of

English spelling in particular” (Howard et al., 2012, p. 166).

Early spelling intervention of SHL children is important for their academic success. A

study of spelling errors by second and third grade children was conducted by Sun-Alperin &

Wang (2008), where they evaluated the spelling of English vowel sounds by SHL students with

regard to Spanish orthographic rules. The researchers set forward two hypotheses for evaluation.

First, SHL children would perform more poorly with vowel sounds that are spelled differently in

the two languages as compared to the performance of native English speaking children. Second,

errors made by SHL children would be consistent with Spanish orthographic rules.

In this study, 26 native Spanish speaking and 53 English speaking second and third graders

were selected from five suburban elementary schools in a lower socioeconomic area with a 50%

Hispanic population. Questionnaires were sent to parents for authorization and to gain

background demographic information. To begin the research, the students were shown sets of

two English words and were asked to read them. They did the same with Spanish words.

Finally, pseudowords were shown and the students were asked to read those words as well. In

the next part of the testing, the students heard a word in Spanish and circled one of two pictures

that corresponded to the word. This provided a baseline of the students’ vocabulary. Students

were read a word, and then the word was used in a sentence, followed by the word being read

again, after which, the students wrote the word to the best of their ability. Psuedowords were

also read twice, but not put into a sentence. All testing was done individually, rather than in

groups. After completing the testing, teachers ranked the lists of words from the easiest to spell

36

to the most difficult. The spelling was then analyzed by the researchers and the words were

placed into one of five categories:

1. Phonologically inappropriate and orthographically illegitimate in both English and

Spanish (i.e. meat spelled maat).

2. Either phonologically inappropriate or orthographically illegitimate in either English or

Spanish (meat spelled mat or meate).

3. Phonologically appropriate and orthographically legitimate in English (i.e. meat spelled

meet).

4. Phonologically appropriate in Spanish (i.e. meat spelled mit).

5. Word spelled correctly.

The researchers found that the SHL students spelled 46% of the words correctly, compared

to 65% by the English-speaking students. The most frequent errors for SHL students fell into the

second category – phonologically inappropriate or orthographically illegitimate in either English

or Spanish – (33%), with the first category – phonologically inappropriate and orthographically

illegitimate in both English and Spanish – close behind (26%). These two categories are very

similar with the only difference being that in the first category, phonological and orthographical

errors can be found in both English and Spanish, whereas the second category consists of

phonological or orthographical errors. Both of these categories contain errors that would be

consistent with Spanish orthography. Errors by English speaking children fell most frequently

into the fourth category (40%).

This study supported both hypotheses that the research set forward. Spanish-speaking

children made 41% more vowel spelling errors than English-speaking children. As noted above,

their errors were consistent with Spanish orthography. This demonstrates that SHL learners have

37

difficulty learning to spell in English when similar vowel sounds are represented by different

graphemes. This finding links the difference in the orthographic depth of English and Spanish

with the effect that those differences have on L2 learners. The results also demonstrate the

importance of taking a student’s first language into account in second language spelling

acquisition. This study provides very useful information for elementary school teachers in their

spelling instruction to SHL students. Because of the low sample size, especially among the SHL

students, additional research must be performed to validate these results.

A study by San Francisco et al. (2006) supports the work performed by Sun-Alperin &

Wang (2008) which looked at early elementary aged children. Both studies had a focus on the

spelling of vowels, which are understandably one of the main differences between English and

Spanish. Unlike the Sun-Alperin & Wang (2008) study, the study completed by San Francisco et

al. (2006) did not show specific vowel errors. Rather, San Francisco et al. (2006) took a more

general look at the type of errors and what influenced the way the words were spelled.

With the growing number of SHL learners in our public schools, the study by San

Francisco et al. (2006) provided important research findings when they studied the role, if any,

that native language (Spanish) instruction plays in improving students’ English literacy as

compared to quality instruction in English to SHL students. To do so, they hypothesized that

correct spelling in L2 (English) requires overall instruction in that language. To accomplish their

study, the researchers selected 66 first grade students in a low socioeconomic public school. All

parents of participating students returned a questionnaire with demographic information. SHL

students in the study entered school speaking only Spanish or equally Spanish and English (none

were more proficient in English than Spanish). Monolingual students entered school only

speaking English. Students were categorized into the following groups:

38

1. Monolinguals, English language classroom instruction only (16 participants)

2. SHL, English language classroom instruction only (21 participants)

3. SHL, Spanish language classroom instruction only (29 participants)

The participants were read 22 pseudowords, created by changing the first letter of an

English word. Eleven of the words were created for their plausibility to be written using Spanish

orthography and eleven words were created for control purposes. All 66 students were given the

same word lists.

An analysis was completed on the spelling, only taking into consideration the spelling of

the vowel sounds. The results were then divided into three categories: 1. incorrectly spelled, 2.

orthographically plausible spelling in English, and 3. orthographically plausible spelling in

Spanish.

In the second category, the monolingual students correctly spelled 5.1 out of 11 words.

The SHL students who received English instruction scored 3.5. However, the SHL students who

received instruction in Spanish only spelled 0.7 words correctly. For words that could be

orthographically plausible in Spanish, those SHL students who received English instruction

scored zero, while the SHL students with Spanish instruction scored three.

The study confirmed the hypothesis that the students who received their daily class

instruction in Spanish had the highest number of type three errors (orthographically plausible

spelling in Spanish). These students spelled according to their knowledge of Spanish. Both the

SHL and monolingual students who received classroom instruction in English showed mostly

type two errors (orthographically plausible spelling in English).

39

In 2012, Howard et al. investigated transfer errors of SHL children when writing in

English. In doing so, the researchers focused on English vowels and commonly misspelled

consonants and consonant blends, including the following: nt, nd, w, j, z, and sh.

In this study, 124 SHL and 96 native English-speaking second graders were selected from

a Spanish immersion program. The participants were given English spelling tests with 40 real

words and 20 pseudowords. Table 7 shows the focus of this research, namely the correct

spelling of the word and the spelling they observed from the SHL students.

Table 7

Spelling Features, Sample Words, and Observed Spellings

Feature Sample Word Observed Spelling

Long e as i seed sid

Long i as ai, ay alive alaiv

Short o as u drops drups

Interdental dipthong th as t, f, d thanked, faith, weather tanked, fief, weder

h as j hospital jospital

z as s zipped sipt

sh as ch, s ashamed achamed, asamed

Note. Adapted from “Can yu rid guat ay rot? A developmental investigation of cross-linguistic

spelling errors among Spanish-English bilingual students,” by Howard, E.R., Green, J.D., &

Arteagoitia, I., 2012, Bilingual Research Journal, 35(2), p. 170.

The students in this study were tracked through third and fourth grade where similar

spelling tests were given. In second grade, the SHL students averaged 17.4 misspellings,

whereas the English speaking students averaged 10.4 misspellings. There was a major

improvement by both the SHL and English-speaking students in third grade with an average of

8.2 and 3.1 misspellings respectively. The final year of the study again showed improvements.

In fourth grade, the SHL students averaged 3.3 misspellings and the English-speaking students

had an average of 1.1 misspellings.

40

These results indicate that transfer errors were a normal part of SHL students’ learning

and posed little to no problem beyond second grade; transfer errors “do not fossilize over time or

create issues for larger literacy skills” (Howard et al., 2012, p. 176; San Francisco, 2006).

Spelling Errors – Spanish

Most research on SHL speakers’ spelling abilities has focused on English, with less focus

on Spanish spelling (San Francisco et al., 2006; Arteagoitia, Howard, Louguit, Malabonga, &

Kenyon, 2005). However, there is a need to study English spelling skills in conjunction with

Spanish. If a SHL student has strong Spanish skills and weak English skills, the cause may be

limited L2 proficiency. If the student struggles in both his L1 and L2, the cause is more likely an

overall literacy issue. Also, by studying both languages, it is easier to identify transfer errors

(Arteagoitia et al. 2005). An understanding of spelling, both acquisition and errors, in one

language provides benefits to understanding the other.

Both English and Spanish language acquisition follow similar processes as described in

the Literacy Background section (Defior & Serrano, 2005). Spanish spelling errors can be

categorized to include: substitution (ber in place of ver), addition (halgo in place of algo),

omission (aber in place of haber), letter rotation (p in place of b), order change (porfesor in place

of profesor), and fragmentation (al go in place of algo). Similar categorization can be used in

English (Beaudrie, 2012).

In a Spanish spelling study of 100 SHL university students, Beaudrie (2012) set out to

determine the types of misspellings SHL learners make in Spanish, the major types of errors, and

how they can be categorized.

41

Participants wrote two essays. The first essay was a narrative on one of three possible

topics: a memorable experience, a trip, or their high school graduation day. The second essay

was an opinion paper on the right to bear arms (Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

The essays contained a total of 21,322 words with 2,492 misspellings. The misspellings were

then analyzed and categorized.

Beaudrie (2012) found that substitution errors were the most frequent (67.6%), followed

by omission (19.7%) and addition errors (9.8%). She also noted that 20 words made up 36% of

the errors. Not only did substitutions account for the majority of the errors, vowels were

involved in two-thirds of those errors. Of those, replacing /e/ with an /i/ or replacing /e/ with an

/a/ accounted for nearly 80% of the vowel errors. The other large area of misspelling involved

accent marks – the addition, omission, or misplacement. In concluding this study, Beaudrie

(2012) stated that SHL university students are very fluent in Spanish and that the majority of

errors “showed interference from English” (p. 142).

Young SHL children do not have the lengthy history of speaking English as do university

students. The next set of studies look at Spanish spelling errors in SHL children. Arteagoitia et

al. (2005) studied 196 SHL and native English speaking students in the second through fifth

grades of a two-way Spanish-English immersion program. In this immersion program, 107 of

the students received 90% of their instruction in Spanish, while the remaining 89 students

received 50% of their instruction in Spanish with the other half in English. Each of the students

took a spelling test that contained 50 real words and 25 pseudowords. The words were selected

based on age appropriateness and a cross section of words and spelling patterns.

The findings from this study correspond to those found by Defoir et al. (2009) and Estes

and Richards (2002). Errors within the majority of difficult to spell words could be categorized

42

as substitution and omission errors. The most prevalent errors among SHL elementary school

children involve omission of /u/ in /gu/ (llegué – I arrived) and /r/ in /rr/ (carro - car).

Substitution errors were most frequently /b/ instead of /v/ and /g/ instead of /j/ (i.e. vaca - cow,

gimnasio - gym). Words that contain more than one of these elements increase the difficulty,

making those words very difficult to spell. SHL learners have great difficulty spelling words like

guitarra, which contains both the /gu/ and /rr/. Other difficult words include those with the silent

/h/, the /z/, or an accent mark (Arteagoitia et al., 2005; Estes & Richards, 2002).

The use of certain letters is not the only indicator of difficult words to spell. The

frequency that a word is used plays a factor in its difficulty. Commonly used words, such as

hola, árbol, and verdad are seldom misspelled. This is the result of the word being stored in the

individual’s internal lexicon (Defoir et al., 2008; Arteagoitia et al., 2005). Other easy to spell

words are those containing /ñ/, or /m/ before a bilabial stop, as in siempre, ambos, or amplio

(Arteagoitia et al., 2005).

This study, as well as those reviewed earlier, of SHL elementary students follow a pattern

of easy to hard words, with corresponding errors. If a student missed easy words, he would be

expected to also miss difficult words. On the other hand, if a student correctly spelled difficult

words he would be expected to also spell easy words correctly (Estes & Richards, 2002; Defior

et al., 2009; & Arteagoitia et al., 2005).

From these identified letters, one can create a list of the easiest and most difficult Spanish

words for a SHL speaker to spell. This can “give the teacher a unique perspective into the

thinking of children who are struggling to attain mastery of written Spanish” (Estes & Richard,

2002, p. 305).

43

In all, there has been a strong consistency in the findings of common spelling errors by

Spanish Heritage Language speakers in both English and Spanish. These studies also show that

the spelling ability of SHL speakers is lower than native speakers of the same age.

44

CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper is to review current literature pertaining to common spelling

errors of SHL individuals. In doing so, two questions were addressed: 1) what are common

writing errors of Spanish Heritage language learners in both English and Spanish? And 2) can

these errors be categorized to provide better understanding and ability to address the root cause

of the errors?

Dr. Stephen Krashen’s Innatist theories, entitled the Monitor Model, exhibit a foundation

for the research cited in this paper. In his model, Dr. Krashen has five hypotheses. His first

hypothesis, Acquisition-Learning, is especially appropriate when discussing the acquisition of

both L1 and L2 skills within the SHL population. This hypothesis states that language is learned

through building knowledge of rules, form, and structure in the same way that other subjects are

learned. Acquiring a language is the process of internalizing it, so that the individual can

communicate in a natural setting. One acquires a second language through exposure to that

desired language in a similar way that first language is acquired – communicative input in a safe,

natural setting (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). SHL children acquire Spanish in the home as their

first language. English, their second language, is also acquired through interaction with native

English speakers rather than in a classroom setting, where they would learn spelling rules and

grammar.

A second hypothesis of Dr. Krashen is called the Natural Order Hypothesis, founded on

the understanding that the acquisition of L1 is done in predictable steps. In other words, L2

acquisition “unfolds in predictable sequences” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p.37). This is

demonstrated in the research completed by Estes and Richards (2002), where they identified a

pattern of the easiest to the most difficult forms to acquire. For example, Spanish words with

45

single ending vowels are easy to spell whereas Spanish words with the silent /h/ are difficult.

Thus, applying the Natural Order Hypothesis to this example demonstrates that the proper use of

/h/ in Spanish will be developed later in the sequence of acquiring Spanish.

Krashen’s Comprehensible Input Hypothesis states that an individual will acquire a

language when exposed to language that is “just a step” (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 37)

beyond their current comprehension. This is labeled as input plus one, or i+1. For example, if

an English speaking student is striving to acquire Spanish, his Spanish language skills will

increase only when exposed to written and spoken input just beyond his current abilities. If the

input is at his current level, he will not gain additional skills. If the input is far beyond his

current level, he will be unable to make the mental connections needed for additional acquisition.

Chapter One introduced the topic and set forth background information and an example

of a SHL student’s writing. Included in the background information was a writing example by

María, a tenth grade SHL student.

Chapter Two reviewed literature regarding the background of SHL individuals and

common errors that they make in both English and Spanish. In doing so, the background was set

forward regarding the acquisition of literacy skills. This was followed by a discussion of the

home environment and socioeconomic factors. From there, specific articles were reviewed:

first, common grammatical errors made by SHL speakers; next, an examination of articles that

studied categories of spelling errors; finally, articles regarding specific spelling errors in both

English and Spanish were brought forward.

Chapter Three summarizes, by category, the research presented in the previous chapter.

This is followed by identified limitations. The next section of the chapter shows how the

findings from this research can be applied in a professional teaching setting, no matter the

46

content area. After the summary review, a recommendation for future research will be

introduced. The chapter ends with a conclusion based on the literature reviewed here.

Summary of Research

The research presented in this study has a consistent theme – the spelling gap between

native speakers (both English and Spanish) and that of SHL speakers. This can be applied to

both Spanish and English spelling of the SHL speakers. Each study cited showed a deficiency in

SHL grammar and spelling. A high level summary of the findings of the various studies

demonstrates this deficit. Results from each of the studies were converted to a percent correct to

allow for a comparison of “apples to apples.” Table 8 compares the results of native speakers

(either Spanish or English, as applicable) to SHL speakers. It also includes a column to show the

variance between the two categories .

Table 8

Summary Comparison of Native Speakers to SHL Speakers in Grammar and Spelling Studies

Study Native

Speakers

SHL

Speakers

Variance:

Native-SHL

Spanish Grammar

I/DOP

DOM

Word Order

Articles

Wh-Questions

95%

96%

100%

82%

95%

88%

84%

96%

37%

41%

7%

8%

4%

45%

54%

English Spelling 65% 46% 19%

Spanish Spelling Only SHL speakers were tested

As can be seen in this table, the areas of greatest difficulty for SHL speakers were the

proper format for Spanish wh-questions, where they scored much lower than native Spanish

speakers. Another very difficult area was the proper use of articles (el, los, un, una, etc.). As

47

with the wh-questions, the native Spanish speakers were more than twice as likely to have

correct grammar as the SHL speakers.

Within English spelling, there was a large variance once again. The areas of greatest

difficulty for SHL spellers when writing in English were the distinctions between /h/ and /j/, /s/

and /z/, as well as an overall lack of understanding of the deep orthography as it applies to

English vowel sounds.

Although there were no comparisons to native speakers included, the Spanish spelling

studies were also very consistent. In all studies, the most difficult areas were the usage of the

silent /h/, the distinction between /v/ and /b/ and between /s/ and /z/, and the proper use of accent

marks.

Professional Application

The findings of these studies indicate a need to target specific high frequency words and

phonemes as discussed in the previous section (Beaudrie, 2012; Defior et al., 2009; Sun-Alpren

& Wang, 2008). For example, teaching the SHL student the difference between papa (potato)

and papá (dad) is much more valuable than teaching the difference between cabo (cape) and cavo

(I excavate) as papa and papá are much more commonly used words (Beaudrie, 2012). Another

target area on which to focus for SHL students is the selection of proper vowels in English

writing. A teacher who has an understanding of the orthographic differences in English and

Spanish is in a better position to understand and help the SHL student learn which English

phonemes correspond to the various graphemes (Sun-Aplren & Wang, 2008).

While targeting these high frequency words and structures, the teacher must be aware of

the SHL student’s current knowledge of both his L1 and L2 as well as the relationship between

the two languages. This can be accomplished through spelling and writing tests in both English

48

and Spanish. In doing so, a teacher will have a better understanding which rules the SHL student

applies in given situations (i.e. applying an English grammar rule to a specific Spanish writing

feature). Testing also provides information concerning what the SHL student understands

regarding “the relationship between the sounds he or she can speak and hear and the letters that

he or she can write and see” (Estes et al., 2002, p. 304). Furthermore, the teacher must be

mindful to recognize the transfer effects caused by the different orthographies of Spanish and

English and make appropriate adjustments to lessons as necessary. This may include additional

focus on English vowels or the use of apostrophes, or the Spanish use of the letter /h/ or accent

marks (Sun-Alpren & Wang, 2008).

As content instructors, specialists in the teaching of English as second language

(ELL/TESL) and the SHL student work together, opportunities for success grow. For example,

the content instructor and ELL specialist may review the student’s written work. In doing so,

they can identify which type of errors are being made. Once identified, those errors can be

aligned with published misspelling patterns (see table 4, page 29). With this knowledge, the

student’s abilities can be baselined and tracked over time. Further, both the content instructor

and ELL specialist would have a road map to create instruction with comprehensible input (i+1).

While SHL students may initially have a variety of difficulties in their L1 or L2, when

those students enter an English speaking school environment early, the students are prone to

make proper spelling adjustments over the first three to four years. This results in improved

long-term English spelling abilities for the SHL students, even if they may not reach the quality

of native English speakers. However, at the same time their English skills are improving, the

SHL students’ Spanish spelling abilities are at risk (Howard et al., 2012; Defior et al., 2009;

August et al., 2006). In today’s world economy, a second language is a valuable asset.

49

Academic and community leaders do SHL students a service when they provide avenues for

those students to retain strong Spanish skills.

For a Spanish teacher, the implications for instruction are similar to those of a teacher of

any other subject. A SHL student will have similar struggles with Spanish as with English. In

both languages, transfer errors are involved in the student’s spelling. Using such techniques as

comprehensible input allows the SHL student to see, hear, and practice correct grammar and

spelling in a safe environment. The master teacher will strive to differentiate the learning needs

of SHL students, carefully directing those students to improved communication skills.

Limitations of the Research

There are several limitations in the research included in this paper. Some limitations are

general in nature, while others are specific to certain studies. Here, I bring out several prominent

general limitations.

Sample size was a general limitation. Most studies were completed with only 20-30 SHL

participants. Would a larger sampling significantly increase the reliability of the results?

Although the studies came to the same conclusions, it may be possible that statistical difference

may have occurred with a larger sample.

Secondly, the studies of elementary level students were performed in schools with lower

socioeconomic status. These studies “focused on the large and growing population of language

minority learners from low-income homes” (Mancilla-Martinez & Lesaux, 2010, p. 710).

Although the majority of SHL speakers fall into this category, most studies did not distinguish

between the skill level of the SHL youth studied and SHL youth from middle and upper-income

homes who may have performed better based on their home literacy environment.

50

A third limitation is human nature, it is easy to come to a conclusion first, and then search

for supporting evidence. Although I strived to remain open during my search, I may have sought

out supporting evidence. This limitation is one that cannot be totally removed, no matter how

hard a researcher tries and should always be noted.

Another limitation was time. To complete an exhaustive search of all that has been

written on a subject would be impossible. Because of the time limitation, I had to maintain

narrow search parameters. To do so, when searching for acceptable research I filtered on a

number of keywords, including: Spanish heritage language, second language, misspelling,

reading, writing, and acquisition. Once a sampling of articles, printed between 2000 and 2015,

were reviewed, further information was sought using the references from the initial articles.

After reviewing over 50 research papers, I reached a point where I felt that I had obtained a good

sampling of the studies completed on this subject.

Future Research

This literature review forms a basis for additional research into the study of common

spelling errors by SHL children. Most research has been completed on the SHL students’

English proficiency and not their Spanish proficiency (San Francisco et al., 2006; Arteagoitia et

al., 2005). Furthermore, I was able to find very little research where the same study of SHL

students was performed in both English and Spanish, with comparisons to native speakers of

both languages.

Based on the aforementioned need for more research specific to this area, as a follow up

to this paper, I have proposed to complete a research project on third grade SHL students in an

English-speaking public school. The study will include both English and Spanish spelling tests.

51

Native English speaking third graders from the same school as the SHL students will also be

given the English test. Native Spanish-speaking third graders living in a Central American

country will be given the Spanish spelling test. The SHL students’ scores will then be compared

to both native English and Spanish students.

This research project will enhance the body of knowledge on SHL students’ writing

abilities in both English and Spanish as compared to native speaking control groups in both

languages and provide a baseline for longitudinal studies.

Conclusion

In this paper I set forward two questions:

1. What are common writing errors of Spanish Heritage language learners in both English

and Spanish?

2. Can these errors be categorized to provide better understanding and ability to address the

root cause of the errors?

As shown in the studies brought forward in chapter 2 and the Summary of Research, I

have answered the first question. Current literature is in harmony as to the common writing

errors of SHL learners in both English and Spanish. The literature also supports the second

question as categories of common errors and their root causes have been identified.

The topics of research and support of SHL speakers’ literary proficiency are very timely.

With the continual growth of the SHL community, SHL literacy must be kept in the forefront for

both educators and policy makers. Most research to-date is in agreement as to the types of

common errors, the cause of those errors, and the need for differentiated instruction. Within the

52

educational community, we have a responsibility to use this knowledge to address the needs

early in the SHL child’s academic career, thus providing these students a greater opportunity to

maintain their reading and writing skills at the proper age level.

53

References

Arteagoitia, I., Howard, E.R., Louguit, M., Malagonga, V., & Kenyon, D.M. (2005). The

Spanish developmental constrastive spelling test: An instrument for investigating intra-

linguistic and crosslinguistic influences on Spanish-spelling development. Bilingual

Research Journal, 29(3) 541-560. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2005.10162851

August, D., Snow, C., Carlo, M., Proctor, C.P., de San Francisco, A.R., Duursma, E., & Szuber,

A. (2006). Literacy development in elementary school second-language learners. Topics in

Language Disorders, 26(4) 351-364. doi: 10.1097/00011363-200610000-00007

Beaudrie, S.M. (2012). A corpus-based study on the misspellings of Spanish heritage learners

and their implications for teaching. Linguistics and Education, 23(1), 135-144. doi:

10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.001

Brown, A., & Patten, E. (2014). Statistical portrait of Hispanics in the United States, 2012, Pew

Research Center. Abstract retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-

2012/

Cuza, A. (2012). Crosslinguistic influence of the syntax proper: Interrogative subject-verb

inversion in heritage Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 17(1), 71-96. doi:

10.1177/1367006911432619

Correa, M. (2011). Heritage language learners of Spanish: What role does metalinguistic

knowledge play in their acquisition of the subjunctive?. Paper presented at the 13th

Hispanic

Linguistics Symposium, Somerville, FL. Abstract retrieved from

http://www.lingref.com/cpp/hls/13/paper2481.pdf

54

de Ramirez, R.D., & Shapiro, E.S. (2006). Curriculum-based measurement and the evaluation of

reading skills of Spanish-speaking English language learners in bilingual education

classrooms. School Psychology Review, 35(3), 356-369.

Defoir, S., Alegría, J., Titos, R., & Martos, F. (2008). Using morphology when spelling in a

shallow orthographic system: The case of Spanish. Cognitive Development, 23(1) 204-215.

doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.01.003

Defoir, S., Jiménez-Fernandéz, G., & Serrano, F. (2009). Complexity and lexicality effects on

the acquisition of Spanish spelling. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 55-65. doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.01.005

Defoir, S., & Serrano, F. (2005). The initial development of spelling in Spanish: From global to

analytical. Reading and Writing, 18(1), 81-98. doi: 10.1007/s11145-004-5893-1

Estes, T.H., & Richards, H.C. (2002). Knowledge of orthographic features in Spanish among

bilingual children. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 295-307. doi:

10.1080/15235882.2002.10668712

Farver, J.M., Lonigan, C.J., & Eppe, S. (2009). Effective early literacy skill development for

young Spanish-speaking English language learners: An experimental study of two methods.

Child Developmental, 80(3), 703-719. doi: 0009-3920/2009/8003-0008

Farver, J.M., Lonigan, C.J., Xu, Y., & Eppe, S. (2013). The home literacy environment and

Latino Head Start children’s emergent literacy skills. Developmental Psychology, 49(4), 775-

791. doi: 10.1037/a0028766

Grieco, E.M., Trevelyan, E., Larsen, L., Acosta, Y.D., Gambino C., de la Cruz, P., … Walters,

N. (2012). The size, place of birth, and geographic distribution of the foreign-born population

in the United States: 1960-2010. Population Division Working Paper No. 96, U.S. Census

55

Bureau. Abstract retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/population/foreign/files/WorkingPaper96.pdf

Grinstead, J. (2004). Subjects and interface delay in child Spanish and Catalan. Language, 80(1),

40-72. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0024

Howard, E.R., Green, J.D., & Arteagoitia, I. (2012). Can yu rid guat ay rot? A developmental

investigation of cross-linguistic spelling errors among Spanish-English bilingual students.

Bilingual Research Journal, 35(2), 164-178. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2012.703637

Jimez, R.T., Carcia, E.G., & Pearson, P.D. (1996). The Reading strategies of bilingual latino

students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research

Quarterly, 31(1), 90-112. doi: 10.1598/rrq.31.1.5

Kim Y. (2012). The relations among L1 (Spanish) literacy skills, L2 (English) language, L2 text

reading fluency, and L2 reading comprehension for Spanish-speaking ELL first grade

students. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 690-700. doi:

10.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.009

Krogstad, J.M., & Lopez, M.H. (2014). Hispanic nativity shift U.S. births drive population

growth as immigration stalls. Pew Research Center. Abstract retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/hispanic-nativity-shift/

Lee, J.F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen (2nd

ed.).

Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill

Lightbrown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

56

Mancilla-Martinez, J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2010). Predictors of reading comprehension for

struggling readers: The case of Spanish-speaking language minority learners. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 102(3), 701-711. doi: 10.1037/a0019135

Mihalicek, V., & Wilson, C. (2011). Language files: Materials for an introduction to language

and linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press

Mikulski, A., & Elola, I. (2011). Spanish heritage language learners’ allocation of time to writing

processes in English and Spanish. Hispania, 94(4), 715-733.

Montrul, S. (2010). Dominant language transfer in adult second language learners and heritage

speakers. Second Language Research, 26(3), 293-327. doi: 10.1177/0267658310365768

Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2010). Transfer effects in the interpretation of definite articles in

Spanish heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 449-473. doi:

10.1017/s1366728910000040

Montrul, S., & Ionin, T. (2012). Dominant language transfer in Spanish heritage speakers and

second language learners in the interpretation of definite articles. The Modern Language

Journal, 96(1), 70-94. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01278.x

Niklas, F., & Schneider, W. (2013). Home literacy environment and the beginning of reading and

spelling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 40-50. doi:

10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.001

Reese, L., Garnier, H., Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of the

antecedents of emergent Spanish literacy and middle-school English reading achievement of

Spanish-speaking students. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 633-662. doi:

10.3102/00028312037003633

57

San Francisco, A.R., Mo, E., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2006). The influences of

language of literacy instruction and vocabulary on the spelling of Spanish-English bilinguals.

Reading and Writing, 19(6), 627-642. doi: 10.1007/s11145-006-9012-3

Sun-Alperin, M.K., & Wang, M. (2008). Spanish-speaking children’s spelling errors with

English vowel sounds that are represented by different graphemes in English and Spanish

words. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4) 932-948. doi:

10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.12.005

Taylor, P., Lopez, M.H., Martínez, J., & Velasco, G. (2012). Language use among Latinos. Pew

Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/04/iv-language-use-

among-latinos/

van Berkel, A. (2004). Learning to spell in English as a second language. International Review of

Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 42(3), 239-257. doi: 10.1515/iral.2004.012

Whitehurst, G.J., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child

Development, 69(3), 848-874. doi: 10.2307/1132208

Zyzik, E. (2014). Causative verbs in the grammar of Spanish heritage speakers. Linguistic

Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(1), 1-33. doi: 10.1075/lab.4.1.01ziz