Using The Known To Chart The Unknown: A Review of First-Language in Uence On The Development of English-As-A-Second-Language Spelling Skill

Reading and Writing (2006) 19:873–905 Ó Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11145-006-9014-1
Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language

influence on the development of English-as-a-second-language
spelling skill
L. FIGUEREDO
Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, P217 Biological Sciences, T6G 2E9,
Edmonton, Canada
Abstract. Currently, there is a practical demand and necessity for research on how
English-as-a-second language (ESL) learners acquire literacy skills, such as spelling. One
important issue of this research agenda is how ESL learners apply first-language
knowledge to learning to spell in English. Twenty-seven studies were reviewed that
investigated the influence of the first language on ESL learners’ development of English
spelling skill. Evidence was found for both positive and negative transfer of first-lan-
guage knowledge and processes to ESL learners’ English spelling. These results are in
agreement with theoretical propositions about the interdependence between first- and
second-language academic skills [e.g., Cummins, J. (1981). In California State
Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment Center,
California State University, Los Angeles]. The findings are discussed in relation to the
ESL learner’s first-language proficiency level and distance between first language and
English. Comparisons are drawn between ESL learners’ and English monolinguals’
spelling development and suggestions for future research are provided.
Key words: Bilingualism, Cross-linguistic transfer, English as a second language,

Literacy development, Spelling
Introduction
Picture an English-as-a-second-language (ESL) classroom: Manuel, Jean-

Pierre, Sandeep, and Chen are all taking a spelling test. The task is the
same: The teacher has asked the students to write down a list of words.
But, the students’ spellings appear quite different; what is causing these
differences? Researchers studying bilingualism have explored this ques-
tion and others concerning the influence of the ESL learner’s first lan-
guage on English spelling development. Other questions posed include: Is
the developmental path towards mastery of English spelling similar for
ESL students from various first-language backgrounds and in what way
does first-language knowledge influence the challenge of learning to spell
in English?
874 L. FIGUEREDO
An investigation of these research questions is timely. Statistics suggest

that learning English as a second language is extremely common. It is
estimated that English is spoken as a second language by 235 million
speakers in the world (Crystal, 1997). For example, children living in their
native countries as well as immigrants to North America frequently enroll
in English classes. In the United States alone, there was a 46% growth in
the population of English language learners from 1990 to 2000 (National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition, 2002). Thus, research
on the development of spelling in ESL learners has important practical
implications.
In addition, researchers who currently study ESL spelling may refer to
a growing body of literature on monolingual English spelling develop-
ment. Although spelling has received less attention than reading (Trei-
man, 1997), there has been an accumulation of knowledge on the
development of spelling skill among English monolingual learners. In
addition, several theoretical frameworks, including stage models (e.g.,
Ehri, 1986; Gentry, 1982; Henderson & Templeton, 1986) and, more re-
cently, process-oriented models (e.g., Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999)
have been posited. Thus, research on monolingual English spelling
development may serve as a source of comparison when investigating the
ESL learner’s acquisition of English spelling skill.
Method
From April to November 2004, electronic searches of the PsycINFO and

ERIC databases were conducted using combinations of different de-
scriptors (e.g., spelling, writing skill, second language, transfer, bilingual-
ism, bilingual education, L1, L2, foreign language learning, English as a
second language, and foreign language education). Further, an ancestral
search procedure was used: articles found through the searches were
examined for references to previously published material that satisfied the
review criteria. A corpus of 27 published studies was found that met the
following criteria: (a) Participants in the study were learning English as a
second language, and (b) the study examined the influence of the first
language on participants’ English spelling.
The 27 studies in the corpus are tabled by methodological design (see
Tables 1–3). Three methodological techniques were used to investigate
first-language influence: (a) descriptive analyses of ESL learners’ English
spelling errors (16 studies, see Table 1), (b) between-group comparisons
of ESL learners’ spelling skill from different first-language backgrounds
(3 studies, see Table 2), and (c) correlational analyses of ESL learners’
Table 1. Error analyses showing L1 influence from ESL studies.
First language Study Sample Examples of the influence of L1 knowledge on English spelling
Arabic Ibrahim (1978) University Phonological influence (e.g., lack of /p/ in L1 results in confusion of /b/
undergraduates and /p/ – bicture (picture))
Cantonese Wang and Geva Grades 1, 2 Compared ESL and monolingual English groups; monolingual English
(2003a, b) performed better on pseudoword spelling, but no group difference on real-
word spelling; ESL group’s errors due to pronunciation of /ò/ and /h/; ESL
group performed better on confrontation pseudoword spelling because of
transfer of visual-orthographic processing skill to English
Dutch Berkel (1987) Secondary school SSC influence (e.g., interference of badkamer results in use of d for th in
students; poor spellers badroom (bathroom))
French Morris (2001) Grades 5, 6 Phonological influence (e.g., errors due to pronunciation of /h/ – ouse
(house))
German Luelsdorff (1986) Case study: 12 year Phonological influence (e.g., errors due to pronunciation of i as /i/ fol-
old male lowed by English letter-name strategy – thes (this)); SSC influence (e.g.,
use of i and ie to represent /i/ – chise(cheese); kiep (keep))
Spanish Bebout (1985) Adults Phonological influence (e.g., errors due to pronunciation of / / – drogstore
e
(drugstore)); SSC influence (e.g., limited knowledge about consonant
doubling – botle (bottle))
USING THE KNOWN TO CHART THE UNKNOWN
Spanish Cronnell (1985) Grades 3, 6 Phonological influence (e.g., errors due to pronunciation of z as /s/ – price
(prize)); SSC influence (e.g., use of a to represent /d / – rack (rock); e to
e
represent /e/ – mekin (making); i to represent /i/ – clin (clean))
Spanish Durgunoğlu et al. Grade 4 SSC influence (e.g., use of i to represent /i/ – rid (read))
(2002)
875
Table 1. Continued 876
First language Study Sample Examples of the influence of L1 knowledge on English spelling
Spanish Edelsky (1982) and Grades 1, 2, 3 Phonological and SSC influence (e.g., chi lismi (she lets me); ba llana umen
Edelsky and Jilbert (bionic woman))
(1985)
Spanish Fashola et al. Grades 2, 3, 4, 5 Phonological and SSC influence (e.g., errors due to pronunciation of b
(1996) results in use of v – cavul (cable))
Spanish Ferroli and Grades 2, 3 Phonological influence (e.g., errors due to pronunciation of s in measure as
Shanahan (1993) /d / (use of j), /ò/ (use of sh), or /tò/ (use of ch)); SSC influence (e.g., use of y
e
to represent /d / -yaw (jaw))
e
Spanish Nathenson-Mejia Grade 1 Phonological and SSC influence (e.g., use of es to represent /s/ – estop
(1989) (stop))
Spanish Rizzo and Villafane College Phonological influence (e.g., pronunciation of i as /i/ – leave (live)); SSC
(1975) students influence (e.g., use of i to represent /i/ – deciving (deceiving))
L. FIGUEREDO
Spanish Terrebone (1973) University Phonological influence (e.g., pronunciation of a as // – lenguage (lan-
students e
guage)); SSC (e.g., use of a to represent / / – fallow (follow))
Spanish Zutell and Allen Grades 2, 3, 4 Phonological influence (e.g., pronunciation of i as // – spen (spin)); SSC
(1988) influence (e.g., use of e to represent /e/ – med (made))
Welsh James et al. (1993) 10, 11 year olds Phonological influence (e.g., pronunciation of ee as /U/ – bur (beer)); SSC
influence (e.g., use of aw to represent /au/ – trawt (trout))
Various Cook (1997) Adult students Phonological and SSC influence (e.g., confusion of /l/ with /r/ and inter-
ference of sarari for Japanese speakers – sarary (salary))
Note: SSC = sound-to-spelling correspondence.

USING THE KNOWN TO CHART THE UNKNOWN 877
Table 2. Evidence for L1 influence from comparisons of ESL groups.
Findings regarding L1
First language Study Sample influence
Chinese, Holm and University Compared Chinese ESL

Vietnamese Dodd (1996) students (one group with pinyin
knowledge from China,
one group without pinyin
knowledge from Hong
Kong), Vietnamese ESL
and monolingual English
groups; L1 PA transfer for
Chinese pinyin group to
English pseudoword spell-
ing
Mandarin, Rickard Liow 9, 10 year olds Compared Mandarin,
Bahasa-Indonesia and Poon (1998) Bahasa-Indonesia, and
English proficient groups;
more L1 PA transfer for
Bahasa-Indonesian group
to English spelling than
other groups
Various Oller and Undergraduates Compared Roman and
Ziahosseiny (1970) non-Roman alphabetic
groups; more English
spelling errors for students
from Roman alphabetic
group
first-language skills and English spelling skills (7 studies, see Table 3). The
remaining study (Durgunoğlu, Mir, & Ariño-Marti, 2002) used descrip-
tive and correlational analyses, so this study is included in both Tables 1
and 3. Additionally, 7 of the 27 studies investigated developmental trends
in first-language influence on ESL spelling (see Table 4).
The majority of studies used qualitative analyses (e.g., describing and
categorizing different types of spelling errors). For reviews containing a
small number of studies with quantitative results, meta-analysis of these
results can be unstable (Rosenthal, 1995); therefore, meta-analytic
procedures were not used. Instead, the studies’ findings have been
conceptually integrated, discussed in relation to relevant theoretical
issues, and compared to literature on monolingual English spelling
878 L. FIGUEREDO
Table 3. Correlational analyses showing L1 influence from ESL studies.
First language Study Sample Findings regarding L1 influence
Arabic Abu-Rabia 9–12 year Several L1 skills, including

and Siegel (2002) olds reading, phonological and
orthographic processing, work-
ing memory, and spelling, cor-
related with English spelling
Cantonese McBride-Chang (1998) College L1 verbal memory, but not L1
students spelling, correlated with English
pseudoword spelling
Japanese Cummins and Grades 2–8 L1 spelling accounted for 13%
Nakajima (1987) of variance in English spelling
Persian Arab-Moghaddam Grades 2, 3 L1 phonological and ortho-
and Sénéchal (2001) graphic processing correlated
with English spelling
Portuguese Da Fontoura 9–12 year L1 reading, pseudoword read-
and Siegel (1995) olds ing, and working memory cor-
related with English spelling
Spanish Carlisle and Grade 1 No correlation between L1 and
Beeman (2000) English spelling
Spanish Durgunoğlu (1998) Grade 1 L1 word recognition and spell-
ing correlated with English
spelling; L1 PA and letter iden-
tification together accounted for
84% of variance in English
spelling
Spanish Durgunoğlu et al. (2002) Grade 4 L1 spelling correlated with Eng-
lish spelling
development. Below, the key points are listed, followed by a general

discussion.
Key points
The two main findings of the review are:

1. The studies provide evidence for both positive and negative transfer of
first-language knowledge to ESL spelling.
2. The studies that investigated the development of ESL spelling found
that as ESL learners acquired knowledge about English spelling
norms, they relied less on first-language knowledge.
Table 4. Developmental findings from ESL studies.
First language Study Sample Findings regarding L1 influence
Cantonese Wang and Geva (2003a, b) Mean = 6 years, 4 months; Developmental trajectory of English spelling
over a 2-year period; compared similar to English monolinguals, and differences
to English monolinguals in trajectory can be explained by L1 influence
Dutch Berkel (1987) Secondary school students tes- Students showed greater use of English knowl-
ted at 2 points over a 1-year edge from time 1 to time 2
period
Spanish Cronnell (1985) Grades 3, 6 Grade 3 group made more L1-influenced errors
than grade 6 group, although result confounded
with different writing tasks for each grade
Spanish Edelsky (1982) and Grades 1, 2, 3 In grade 1, L1 knowledge as temporary resource
Edelsky and Jilbert (1985) for English spelling; in grades 2 and 3, greater
use of English knowledge
Spanish Fashola et al. (1996) Compared ESL learners to ESL learners made more predictable (i.e., L1-
English monolinguals at two influenced) errors than English monolinguals;
group levels: younger (grades 2, younger ESL group made more L1-influenced
3) and older groups (grades 5, 6) errors than older ESL group
Spanish Ferroli and Shanahan (1993) Students in grades 2 and 3 Students who made Spanish pronunciation er-
USING THE KNOWN TO CHART THE UNKNOWN
(collapsed into one group) over rors tended to improve and move to correct
a 20-week period English spellings
Spanish Zutell and Allen (1988) Grades 2, 3, 4 No grade differences in # of L1-influenced
spelling errors; however, # of errors inversely
related to spelling ability
879
880 L. FIGUEREDO
The two main recommendations offered are:

1. Research is needed to investigate the learning process among ESL
spellers and the mechanisms involved in first-language transfer and
ESL spelling development.
2. Researchers need to account for multiple variables relating to the first-
language status of ESL learners; these variables may affect the potential
for first-language transfer to ESL spelling.
First-language transfer
An ESL learner who has not yet reached a proficient level of English
language skills may be said to have a language system called the inter-
language, composed of three parts: (a) parts of the first language (L1), (b)
parts of the second language (L2 = English), and (c) universal aspects of
language (Major, 2001). This paper focuses on the first aspect of inter-
language – the influence of the first language on the development of ESL
learners’ English spelling skill, commonly referred to as first-language
transfer (e.g., Genesee, Paradis, & Crago, 2004; Major, 2001). Transfer as
a problem-solving process has been defined as ‘‘the effect of knowledge
that was learned in a previous situation (task A) on learning or perfor-
mance in a new situation (task B)’’ (Mayer & Wittrock, 1996, p. 48).
Thus, first-language transfer in this review can be described as the effect of
first-language knowledge that was learned during the development of
first-language skills on learning or performance when spelling in English
as a second language.
Transfer may be further characterized in two situations: (a) instances
where commonalities exist between the first language and English, and
(b) instances where English-specific knowledge is required and has yet to
be learned or consistently applied. In the first situation, where com-
monalities exist between languages, transfer of first-language knowledge
may be seen as a springboard to developing proficiency in second-lan-
guage skills (Durgunoğlu, 2002), and thus transfer would be positive.
For example, positive transfer could be evidenced by first-language
knowledge appropriately applied to English spelling (e.g., letter knowl-
edge), by differences between ESL groups on English spelling due to skill
transfer (e.g., transfer of phonological awareness), or by positive rela-
tionships between first-language skills and English spelling skill (e.g.,
positive relationships between first-language reading and English spelling
skills).
In the second situation, the ESL learner may not yet have learned or
shown consistent reliance on English-specific knowledge, and thus
transfer of first-language knowledge may be seen as a strategic, although
inappropriate, attempt to spell English words. In this situation, transfer
would be negative. For example, negative transfer could be evidenced by
first-language knowledge inappropriately applied to English spelling (e.g.,
L1-specific orthographic rules), or by differences between ESL groups on
English spelling due to L1-influenced errors (e.g., errors caused by first-
language pronunciation of phonemes).
The 27 studies in the review found both positive and negative transfer
of first-language knowledge to ESL spelling: 15 studies found instances of
both positive and negative transfer (Bebout, 1985; van Berkel, 1987;
Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Jilbert,
1985; Fashola, Drum, Mayer, & Kang, 1996; Ferroli & Shanahan, 1993;
James, Scholfield, Garrett, & Griffiths, 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986; Morris,
2001; Nathenson-Mejia, 1989; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973;
Wang & Geva, 2003a, b; Zutell & Allen, 1988), eight studies found only
positive transfer (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Arab-Moghaddam &
Sénéchal, 2001; Cummins & Nakajima, 1987; Da Fontoura & Siegel,
1995; Durgunoğlu, 1998; Holm & Dodd, 1996; McBride-Chang, 1998;
Rickard Liow & Poon, 1998), three studies found only negative transfer
(Cook, 1997; Ibrahim, 1978; Oller & Ziahosseiny, 1970), and 1 study did
not find any transfer (Carlisle & Beeman, 2000). To illustrate first-lan-
guage transfer, examples of first-language influence have been selected
from the error analysis studies and are presented in Table 1; main findings
from the between-group and correlational studies are presented in
Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
The studies’ findings are in agreement with Cummins’ (1981) Common
Underlying Proficiency model regarding the general interdependence be-
tween first- and second-language academic skills. Cummins (1981) argued
that academic skills, such as spelling, share an underlying proficiency
across languages, even though the surface features of each language may
be different (e.g., orthographic conventions). Thus, evidence of first-lan-
guage transfer is a better fit with a model of common underlying profi-
ciency between languages rather than a model suggesting separate and
independent proficiencies (Cummins, 1981).
Transfer as a function of first-language proficiency
To explain the relation between first- and second-language proficiencies,

Cummins (1979) proposed the developmental interdependence hypothesis:
882 L. FIGUEREDO
second-language competence of an academic skill is partially related to

first-language competence at the time second-language acquisition begins.
For example, an ESL learner who is a good speller, who has a large
vocabulary, and who has had several years of formal instruction in his/her
first language, may have had many experiences and in turn knowledge of
first-language norms on which to draw upon when beginning to spell in
English. By contrast, an ESL learner who struggles with spelling and has
poor phonological and orthographic processing skills may not profit as
greatly from first-language transfer. To help situate the possibilities for
first-language transfer depending on first-language proficiency level, two
schematic diagrams provide an illustration of the task of making a pho-
neme-grapheme correspondence. Figure 1 shows the possibilities for
transfer for an ESL student who does not possess L1 literacy knowledge
while Figure 2 shows the transfer opportunities for an ESL student with
some level of L1 literacy knowledge. I do not mean to imply that these
figures offer a comprehensive outline of transfer; rather these figures
should be viewed as representative of different positions along a contin-
uum of L1 literacy knowledge.
Each diagram illustrates the steps in making a phoneme-grapheme
correspondence when spelling in English. At the phoneme pronunciation
level, the ESL student’s pronunciation is either consistent or inconsistent
Pronunciation of English phoneme
Consistent Inconsistent
with with English
English
Replace Negative Drop

Positive with L1 Phonological English
Phonological phoneme Transfer phoneme
Transfer
Graphemic Representation of Phoneme
Grapheme is Grapheme is Do not Do not

same in L1 different in L1 choose L1 represent with
and English and English grapheme grapheme
No Transfer (Lack No Transfer (Lack No Transfer (Lack No Transfer

of L1 literacy of L1 literacy of L1 literacy
knowledge) knowledge) knowledge)
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of transfer for ESL student who does not possess L1 lit-
eracy knowledge.
Pronunciation of English phoneme
Consistent Inconsistent
with with English
English
Replace Negative Drop

Positive with L1 Phonological English
Phonological phoneme Transfer phoneme
Transfer
Graphemic Representation of Phoneme
Grapheme is Grapheme is Choose Do not

same in L1 different in L1 corresponding represent with
and English and English L1 grapheme grapheme
Positive PGC Negative Positive PGC Negative No Transfer

Transfer PGC Transfer Transfer PGC Transfer
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of transfer for ESL student who possesses L1 literacy
knowledge.
with English. Positive phonological transfer may occur when the L1

pronunciation of the phoneme is consistent with English (Bebout, 1985;
Berkel, 1987; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Edelsky,
1982; Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996; Ferroli & Shanahan,
1993; James et al., 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986; Morris, 2001; Nathenson-
Mejia, 1989; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973; Zutell & Allen,
1988). For example, Spanish ESL students may transfer the pronuncia-
tion of /i/ in Spanish (e.g., si (yes)) when it is consistent with the English
pronunciation (e.g., clean, deceiving) (Cronnell, 1985; Rizzo & Villafane,
1975). If pronunciation is inconsistent with English, negative phonolog-
ical transfer may occur in two situations. In one situation, the student
may replace the English phoneme with an L1 phoneme (Bebout, 1985;
Berkel, 1987; Cook, 1997; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002;
Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996; Ferroli &
Shanahan, 1993; Ibrahim, 1978; James et al., 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986;
Morris, 2001; Nathenson-Mejia, 1989; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terre-
bone, 1973; Wang & Geva, 2003a, b; Zutell & Allen, 1988). For example,
Arabic ESL students may replace /p/ with /b/ as in bicture (picture)
(Ibrahim, 1978). In the other situation, the student may drop the English
phoneme if it does not exist in their first language or its position is
uncommon in the first language (Cook, 1997; Cronnell, 1985; Morris,
884 L. FIGUEREDO
2001; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973; Wang & Geva, 2003a, b;
Zutell & Allen, 1988). For example, French ESL students may drop /h/ as
in ouse (house) (Morris, 2001) and Spanish ESL students may drop the
last phoneme in final consonant clusters as in mine (mind) (Terrebone,
1973). Thus, depending on consistency, note that there is opportunity for
both positive and negative phonological transfer when pronouncing
phonemes. Further, note that at the pronunciation level, the predictions
for transfer for both students (Figures 1 and 2) are the same because the
student who does not possess L1 literacy knowledge may still possess L1
phonological knowledge in relation to L1 oral language skill.
At the next level of the diagrams, opportunities for transfer may arise
when choosing a graphemic representation for the phoneme. When the
phoneme pronunciation is consistent with English, the grapheme may be
the same or different in L1 and English. For the student who does not
possess L1 literacy knowledge there is no opportunity for transfer at this
level. For the student who does possess L1 literacy knowledge, there is
opportunity for positive transfer of sound-to-spelling correspondence
knowledge if the grapheme is the same in L1 and English (Bebout, 1985;
Berkel, 1987; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Edelsky,
1988). For example, Dutch ESL students may use ou to represent /au/ in
Dutch (e.g., mouw (sleeve)) and in English (e.g., house) (Berkel, 1987).
Alternatively, there may be opportunity for negative transfer if the
grapheme is different in L1 and English (Bebout, 1985; Berkel, 1987;
Cook, 1997; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Edelsky, 1982;
Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996; James et al., 1993; Luel-
sdorff, 1986; Morris, 2001; Nathenson-Mejia, 1989; Rizzo & Villafane,
1975; Terrebone, 1973; Zutell & Allen, 1988). For example, German ESL
students may use ie to represent /i/ as in kiep (keep) (Luelsdorff, 1986).
Note that this specific transfer might only be applicable to students whose
first language relies on the same Roman alphabetic script as English.
Finally, consider opportunities for transfer when representing a pho-
neme that is inconsistent with English. If the student replaces the English
phoneme with an L1 phoneme, again there is no opportunity for further
transfer for the student who does not possess L1 literacy knowledge. For
the student who does possess L1 literacy knowledge, there is opportunity
for positive transfer of sound-to-spelling correspondence knowledge if the
grapheme is the same in L1 and English (James et al., 1993). James et al.
found that although ESL students’ Welsh accent caused them to
pronounce the English phoneme /æ/ incorrectly, by ‘‘happy coincidence’’
(p. 292) the corresponding L1 grapheme was the same for the English
spelling! Alternatively, there may be negative transfer of sound-to-spelling
correspondence knowledge if the corresponding L1 grapheme is chosen
(Bebout, 1985; Berkel, 1987; Cook, 1997; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu
et al., 2002; Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996;
James et al., 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986; Morris, 2001; Nathenson-Mejia,
1989; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973; Zutell & Allen, 1988).
For example, Spanish ESL students may first incorrectly pronounce /b/ as
a voiced bilabial fricative (L1 pronunciation) and in turn use v to repre-
sent it as in cavul (cable) (Fashola et al., 1996). Finally, for both students
(Figures 1 and 2) who drop the English phoneme, this phoneme would
not be represented by a grapheme and therefore no transfer of sound-to-
spelling correspondence knowledge would occur (Cook, 1997; Cronnell,
1985; Morris, 2001; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973; Wang &
Geva, 2003a, b; Zutell & Allen, 1988).
The above outline of the spelling task highlights the possibilities for
transfer for ESL students who may or may not possess literacy knowledge
about the Roman alphabetic writing system. For students who do not
possess this knowledge, opportunities for transfer exist at the pronunci-
ation level but there is no opportunity for transfer of specific knowledge
of sound-to-spelling correspondences. The caveat for this prediction in-
volves ESL students whose first language typically uses a non-Roman-
alphabetic writing system, but who have learned the alphabetic equivalent
(e.g., pinyin for Chinese, Holm & Dodd, 1996; romaji for Japanese,
Cook, 1997). For example, Cook (1997) argued that Japanese speakers’
spelling error sarary (salary) may not only arise from confusion of /l/ with
/r/ at the pronunciation level but also from interference of knowledge
about sound-to-spelling correspondences in the romaji script (sarari). In
addition, first-language transfer of underlying processes and related skills
(word and pseudoword reading, pseudohomophone recognition, spelling,
spelling recognition, verbal memory, visual-orthographic memory,
working memory) that support the spelling task does occur for ESL
students who do not possess Roman alphabetic knowledge (Abu-Rabia &
Siegel, 2002; Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; McBride-Chang, 1998;
Wang & Geva, 2003b). For ESL students who do possess Roman
alphabetic knowledge, transfer opportunities exist at both the pronunci-
ation and sound-to-spelling correspondence levels (Bebout, 1985; Berkel,
1987; Cook, 1997; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Edelsky,
1988) in addition to transfer of underlying processes and related skills
886 L. FIGUEREDO
(pseudoword reading, working memory, phonological awareness) (Da

Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunoğlu, 1998; Holm & Dodd, 1996).
The above discussion is constrained to an analysis of first-language
transfer; a more comprehensive analysis of ESL students’ spelling, be-
yond the scope of the present review, would need to address the potential
interaction between first-language transfer and application of learned
English knowledge. For example, Luelsdorff (1986) reported that a
German ESL student made a negative phonological transfer error by
pronouncing i as /i/ followed by application of an English letter-name
strategy to produce thes (this). Thus, ESL students’ spelling errors may
involve some combination of transfer and application (correct or incor-
rect) of English knowledge.
Transfer as a function of distance between first language and English
To make better sense of the nature of transfer effects, the distance be-
tween the specific first language and English needs to be examined (e.g.,
differences in levels of phonological processing and orthographic depth).
Consider the level of the ESL learner’s phonological knowledge. From
the literature on English monolinguals, we know that children learn that
speech is segmented into phonemes, such as segmenting the word bat into
the phonemes /b/, /æ/, and /t/ (e.g., Adams, 1990; Treiman, 1993). ESL
learners from Roman alphabetic backgrounds may have already attained
this milestone (Bebout, 1985; Berkel, 1987; Cronnell, 1985; Durgunoğlu
et al., 2002; Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996;
Ferroli & Shanahan, 1993; James et al., 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986; Morris,
2001; Nathenson-Mejia, 1989; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973;
Zutell & Allen, 1988). By contrast, ESL learners whose first-language
writing system is at a higher phonographic level (e.g., syllabary, onset and
rime) will still need to overcome the segmentation problem (Treiman &
Kessler, 2005). Children tend to have greater difficulty segmenting speech
at the phonemic level than at higher levels of phonological units (e.g.,
Treiman & Zukowski, 1991). Thus, although phonological processing
may be universal across languages, the level of processing may be con-
strained by the nature of the writing system (Perfetti, Zhang, & Berent,
1992). Consistent with this prediction, Holm and Dodd (1996) argued
that Hong Kong ESL learners had difficulty with a pseudoword spelling
task because they did not have phonological awareness skill at subsyllabic
levels to transfer to English. Similarly, Rickard Liow and Poon (1998)
argued that although Mandarin-speaking ESL learners possessed good
tonal phonological awareness skill, their poor alphabetic phonological
awareness skill resulted in poor performance on English pseudoword

spelling.
Another factor is the relative difference in orthographic depth between
the first language and English (i.e., the difference in the degree to which
sound-to-spelling correspondences are regular and may be predictably
mapped) (Geva, Wade-Woolley, & Shany, 1993; Katz & Frost, 1992).
Differences in orthographic depth may constrain knowledge about sound-
to-spelling correspondences that may be transferred. For example, ESL
learners from more transparent first languages may have greater difficulty
learning English’s opaque characteristics (e.g., one-to-many phoneme-
grapheme correspondences, such as the different representations of /k/ in
cat, kite, sack, and plaque). Use of a ‘‘sounding out’’ strategy in combi-
nation with a simple one-to-one orthographic representation may not be
suitable. This difficulty, along with pronunciation effects, may result in
misspellings. Consistent with this prediction, many studies reported
negative transfer arising from differences between writing systems (see
Table 1).
However, ESL learners from first languages that have shallow writing
systems may have strong phonological processing skills (Katz & Frost,
1992) that may be transferred. In line with this prediction, Rickard Liow
and Poon (1998) found that ESL learners whose language background
was the Bahasa-Indonesia script possessed stronger phonological
awareness skills than students from either English or Mandarin language
backgrounds. They argued that the shallow orthography of the Bahasa-
Indonesia group influenced their development of phonological awareness;
this skill was then transferred to English spelling. Future investigations
could include between-group testing of ESL learners, matched on English
oral proficiency, whose first languages vary in distance relative to English
(Wang & Geva, 2003b).
ESL learners’ English spelling development: parts, path, and rate
What makes the ESL developing speller different from the English
monolingual? One obvious difference is that ESL learners have an addi-
tional resource (i.e., their first language). Seven developmental studies
found that when first learning to spell in English, ESL learners tended to
rely on first-language knowledge (see Table 4). In cross-sectional studies,
younger students tended to make more first-language influenced errors
than older students did (Cronnell, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996), while older
students’ spellings reflected a greater use of English orthographic
knowledge than younger students’ spellings (Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky
888 L. FIGUEREDO
& Jilbert, 1985). In longitudinal studies, as students acquired English

knowledge, they tended to rely less on first-language knowledge and their
spellings became closer to conventional spellings (e.g., Berkel, 1987;
Ferroli & Shanahan, 1993; Wang & Geva, 2003a, b). Taken together, as
there was an increase in knowledge and application of English norms,
ESL learners decreased their reliance on first-language knowledge. Thus,
use of first-language knowledge would need to be incorporated into a
theoretical model of ESL spelling development. One implication is that
first-language knowledge is used as a temporary resource in the acquisi-
tion of spelling skill. For example, Wang and Geva (2003a, b) found that
Chinese ESL learners’ negative transfer when spelling specific phonemes
absent in the first language’s phonology (/ò/, /h/) did not persist over the
period from first to second grade. The idea of transfer as a temporary
occurrence is in agreement with bilingualism researchers’ views of transfer
as a transitional and strategic component of second-language learning
(e.g., Genesee et al., 2004).
Three aspects of ESL learners’ spelling development may be compared
to our knowledge of monolingual English children’s spelling develop-
ment: (a) the componential skills related to spelling development, (b) the
developmental path of learning to spell, and (c) the rate of spelling
development. Correlational studies in the review found that componential
skills, important in monolingual English speakers’ spelling development,
are related to ESL spelling (see Table 3). For example, phonological and
orthographic processing skills (pseudohomophone recognition, pseudo-
word reading, spelling recognition, phonological awareness) in the first
language were correlated with English spelling skill (Abu-Rabia & Siegel,
2002; Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Durgunoğlu, 1998). In
addition, Wang and Geva (2003a) found that both monolingual English
and Cantonese-speaking ESL first-graders showed a bidirectional rela-
tionship between their auditory perception and spelling skills. In a study
outside of this review, Wade-Woolley and Siegel (1997) did not look at
first-language influence, but compared a group of ESL speakers from
various native language backgrounds to a native English-speaking group
on real and pseudoword English spelling. They found the same regression
pattern for both groups; real-word spelling was predicted by pseudoword
decoding and phoneme deletion, while pseudoword spelling was predicted
by pseudoword decoding. Thus, there may be a universal requirement for
certain types of linguistic knowledge germane to English spelling devel-
opment.
However, there may be unique characteristics that differentiate ESL
learners from monolinguals. A fundamental milestone in monolingual
English children’s literacy development is the development of phonological
awareness skill and letter knowledge preceding the emergence of the

alphabetic principle (Adams, 1990; Treiman, 2000). Consistent with this
statement, Durgunoğlu (1998) found that Spanish-speaking ESL first-
graders Spanish letter knowledge and phonological awareness skill to-
gether accounted for 84% of the variance in English spelling. By contrast,
Holm and Dodd (1996) found that although Hong Kong ESL learners did
not differ from other ESL groups on a real-word spelling task, they did
perform worse on a pseudoword spelling task. They argued that the Hong
Kong participants were able to use visual strategies for the real-word task,
but their performance suffered on the pseudoword task because of a lack of
phonological awareness skill. Likewise, Rickard Liow and Poon (1998)
suggested that Mandarin-speaking ESL learners’ reliance on a visual
strategy resulted in better spelling performance on English real words than
on non-words. Thus, frequency of strategy use may differ between ESL
learners and monolinguals.
ESL learners may also tend to follow a similar developmental path in
learning to spell as that of monolinguals (Wang & Geva, 2003a, b). Wang
and Geva (2003a, b) found that the developmental pattern between
Cantonese-speaking ESL and English monolingual groups was quite
similar. Over a 2-year period, Cantonese-speaking children’s English
spelling development generally followed the same trajectory as that of
English monolingual children (Wang & Geva, 2003a). Towards the end of
grade 2, both groups were spelling most words at the same developmental
level (i.e., all phonemes were represented). In addition, aside from transfer
errors, ESL learners tend to make the same kinds of spelling errors as
monolinguals (Fashola et al., 1996) (e.g., difficulty spelling words with
silent letters (Berkel, 1987; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Edelsky & Jilbert,
1985; Ibrahim, 1978; Morris, 2001) and doublets (Cook, 1997; Edelsky &
Jilbert, 1985; Ibrahim, 1978; Rizzo & Villafane, 1975)). These kinds of
developmental errors (Genesee et al., 2004) are common among mono-
lingual children (e.g., Read, 1986; Treiman, 1993) and are a reflection of
the challenging nature of the English writing system (Venezky, 1999).
An unanswered question concerns the effect of transfer on the rate of
ESL spelling development. Positive transfer may hasten development by
allowing the ESL learner to readily apply linguistic knowledge. However,
negative transfer may affect the rate of learning English norms. Further,
the net effect resulting from trade-offs between positive and negative
transfer on rate may be a function of first-language proficiency and dis-
tance between languages (i.e., differential transfer effects on rate of
English spelling development for ESL learners from different first-lan-
guage backgrounds and at different proficiency levels within a first lan-
guage). Research (e.g., longitudinal studies) addressing these issues may
890 L. FIGUEREDO
provide a better picture of the ESL learner’s developmental process of

shifting from transfer to consistent application of English norms.
The learning process and mechanisms of first-language transfer
The learning process
What can be said about the learning process among ESL learners? Most
studies did not specifically look at process; some focused on product
analyses, while others investigated differences in ability or relation be-
tween skills. Further, although developmental studies showed a general
progression from reliance on first-language knowledge to increasing use
of English norms, a better picture of this gradual transition may be ob-
tained by using a more fine-grained analysis of change over time. For
example, one part of the learning process involves strategy use. For
monolinguals, there is a great amount of variability in strategy use at any
age, while the dominant (i.e., most frequently used) strategy changes
across age (e.g., Kwong & Varnhagen, 2005; Rittle-Johnson & Siegler,
1999; Varnhagen, McCallum, & Burstow, 1997). Differences in types or
frequency of strategy use between ESL learners and monolinguals may
point to context-specific variables affecting the learning process. For
example, variability in vocabulary size between populations may affect
the degree to which analogy is applied (e.g., ‘‘louse rhymes with house’’).
In addition, strategies used in the first language may be transferred.
Consider Arab-Moghaddam and Sénéchal’s (2001) finding that Persian-
speaking children’s first-language orthographic skills, but not phonolog-
ical skills, accounted for unique variance in their Persian spelling. They
suggested that this reliance on orthographic skills may result from use of
an analytic strategy when spelling. In turn, perhaps a higher frequency of
this strategy would be found in their English spelling than would be found
among monolinguals or ESL learners from other first-language back-
grounds.
By contrast, similarities in strategy use between ESL learners and
monolingual English learners may point to a universal approach. Spanish
ESL learners in primary grades who were poor at English spelling and
made little progress tended to use letter-name rather than letter-sound
strategies, while ESL learners whose spellings improved tended to rely on
letter-sound strategies (Ferroli & Shanahan, 1993; Zutell & Allen, 1988).
This observation is similar to monolinguals’ improvements in invented
spelling as they shift from letter-name to letter-sound strategies (e.g.,
Treiman, Weatherston, & Berch, 1994). Thus, a research program
investigating strategy use in spelling among ESL learners (e.g., microge-

netic studies) has the potential to refine process-oriented models for dif-
ferent populations.
Another issue concerns how differences in transparency between lan-
guages might affect ESL students’ spelling process. Processing differences
in spelling have been found across languages varying in transparency
(e.g., Caravolas & Bruck, 1993; Juul & Sigurdsson, 2005; Wimmer &
Landerl, 1997). Cross-linguistic studies (Czech vs. English, Caravolas &
Bruck, 1993; Danish vs. Icelandic, Juul & Sigurdsson, 2005) have found
superior performance on non-word spelling involving consonant clusters
by children from the relatively more transparent orthography (Czech,
Icelandic). The authors have argued that these children possess greater
phonemic awareness of consonants within clusters (Caravolas & Bruck,
1993) and better phonemic encoding skills (Juul & Sigurdsson, 2005) as
an advantage of learning to spell in a relatively more transparent
orthography. Wimmer and Landerl (1997) found qualitative differences in
German and English children’s vowel spelling; error analysis revealed that
English children had difficulty with phonemic segmentation and making
phoneme-grapheme correspondences. They argued that German chil-
dren’s advantage in vowel spelling was a result of their practice in pho-
nemic segmentation during reading (i.e., during the recoding process
allowed by high grapheme-phoneme consistency in German). Thus,
becoming literate in a relatively more transparent language may
encourage development of sublexical processes (e.g., phonemic encoding)
important to spelling (Caravolas & Bruck, 1993; Juul & Sigurdsson, 2005;
Wimmer & Landerl, 1997).
One prediction then is that transfer of these skills would aid ESL
students when producing English spellings that are based on phoneme-
grapheme conversions. This prediction could be tested by comparing non-
word spelling performance of ESL students to monolinguals matched on
spelling ability. Studies designed to test for transfer effects on specific
linguistic structures (e.g., consonant clusters, Caravolas & Bruck, 1993;
Juul & Sigurdsson, 2005; vowel spelling, Wimmer & Landerl, 1997) would
be desirable. However, for some spellings, the beneficial aspect of transfer
of phonemic encoding skill might be limited. English spellings that appear
to be inconsistent at the phoneme-grapheme level may be consistent at a
different sublexical level (e.g., intrarime level, Kessler & Treiman, 2001).
Further, experienced spellers rely on large-unit processing (e.g., rime level,
Goswami, 1988; Nation, 1997) in addition to smaller units (e.g., pho-
nemes). Thus, because English is a relatively deep orthography, there may
be limited opportunities for transfer of ESL students’ phonemic encoding
skills.
892 L. FIGUEREDO
Would transfer of small-unit processing skills persist? On the one

hand, reading research suggests that sublexical skills at the grapheme-
phoneme level are automatically activated and persist even among skilled
readers (Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2001; Ziegler, Perry,
Jacobs, & Braun, 2001). On the other hand, use of these skills is con-
sidered the preferred, rather than exclusive route, and readers (and pre-
sumably spellers) possess flexibility in using different grain sizes
(Goswami et al., 2001; Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2003;
Ziegler et al., 2001). Further, ESL students may have a developmental
progression similar to English monolinguals. In terms of monolinguals’
spelling accuracy and fluency, retrieval is more accurate and is a faster
strategy than back-up strategies (e.g., sounding out), and across age there
is an increasing use of retrieval and decreasing use of phonological
strategies (Kwong & Varnhagen, 2005; Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999;
Steffler, Varnhagen, Friesen, & Treiman, 1998). In addition, first-grade
children are faster using analogy (i.e., large-unit processing) than a
phonological strategy (Kwong & Varnhagen, 2005), and by second grade
there is an increase in analogy use (Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999). Thus,
a decreasing reliance on small-unit processing results in an increase in
spelling accuracy and fluency.
Developmental changes in processing are considered to be an adaptive
behaviour in response to the nature of English orthography (Goswami
et al., 2001, 2003; Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999). Although ESL stu-
dents’ activation of phonemic encoding skills may persist, a greater
flexibility in using different units and a greater efficiency in producing
spellings at a higher sublexical level (e.g., using analogy) or lexical level
(i.e., retrieval) might be observed as they acquire English norms. Thus,
differences in spelling accuracy and/or fluency might be found among
ESL students with varying English proficiency levels from the same first-
language background. Note that for ESL students whose first language is
also considered relatively less-transparent, they may have already devel-
oped a reliance on larger units in spelling (e.g., Danish, Juul, 2005).
Mechanisms of first-language transfer
What are the mechanisms of first-language transfer? One way in which

transfer might occur is via an automaticity mechanism (Pascual-Leone &
Irwin, 1994; Salomon & Perkins, 1989). When knowledge is sufficiently
well-practiced in the learning situation, automatic negative transfer may
occur (e.g., North Americans automatically driving on the right side of
the road in England, Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Similarly, ESL students
may transfer L1 knowledge without purposeful intention. Theoretical

explanations are needed to explain how this type of transfer might cease
to occur as English knowledge is acquired. If negative transfer is a tem-
porary strategy, how might this automatic tendency be overcome? This
transition period might involve the appearance of a discrimination
mechanism (Sternberg & Frensch, 1993) (e.g., ESL students would begin
to appreciate instances in which transfer is not appropriate). Further,
positive transfer may also automatically occur. For example, ESL stu-
dents from Roman-alphabetic backgrounds whose letter knowledge is
highly practiced may not require much effort in transferring this knowl-
edge.
Another way transfer might occur is through an abstraction mecha-
nism (Pascual-Leone & Irwin, 1994; Salomon & Perkins, 1989). Corre-
lational and between-group studies provide evidence for a relation
between first-language meta-linguistic skills and ESL spelling skill, sug-
gesting that transfer may be a conscious, strategic approach (Salomon &
Perkins, 1989). For example, the relation between L1 phonological
awareness skill and ESL spelling skill suggests that ESL students may be
strategically applying L1 phonological knowledge (i.e., transfer may oc-
cur through abstraction at the meta-linguistic level). This conception of
transfer fits with the view of phonological awareness as a general, rather
than language-specific process (e.g., Cisero & Royer, 1995; Comeau,
Cormier, Grandmaison, & Lacroix, 1999; Durgunoğlu, Nagy, & Hancin-
Bhatt, 1993; Gottardo, Yan, Siegel, & Wade-Woolley, 2001; Lindsey,
Manis, & Bailey, 2003). However, questions persist about the nature of
transfer. For example, researchers have suggested that cognitive processes
are part of a common underlying proficiency, and thus they are applicable
to academic skills in both languages (e.g., Cummins, 1981). Although
most studies did not include measures of basic cognitive processes, three
studies found that working memory tested in the first language (Arabic,
Portuguese, and Cantonese) was related to ESL spelling (Abu-Rabia &
Siegel, 2002; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; McBride-Chang, 1998). These
findings afford only speculative suggestions about mechanisms and this
limitation points to a need for a better theoretical framework. Deeper
insight into the mechanisms involved in cross-linguistic transfer remains a
challenge for the field.
First-language status
Although some studies did not discuss proficiency of first-language skills

(Bebout, 1985; Cook, 1997; Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985;
894 L. FIGUEREDO
Fashola et al., 1996; Ibrahim, 1978; James et al., 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986;
Oller & Ziahosseiny, 1970; Terrebone, 1973) or stated that information
on proficiency level was unavailable (Cronnell, 1985; Zutell & Allen,
1988), other studies did provide information related to first-language
proficiency (e.g., level of first-language oral or literacy skills and/or
amount of formal first-language literacy instruction) (Abu-Rabia &
Siegel, 2002; Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Berkel, 1987; Carlisle
& Beeman, 2000; Cummins & Nakajima, 1987; Da Fontoura & Siegel,
1995; Durgunoğlu, 1998; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; Ferroli & Shanahan,
1993; Holm & Dodd, 1996; McBride-Chang, 1998; Morris, 2001; Na-
thenson-Mejia, 1989; Rickard Liow & Poon, 1998; Rizzo & Villafane,
1975; Wang & Geva, 2003a, b). Because transfer effects may vary as a
function of first-language proficiency level, this type of information
should be included when possible, and the ESL learner’s first-language
proficiency level needs to be acknowledged in future research. In partic-
ular, three factors relating to first-language status may affect the profi-
ciency level of first-language literacy skills: (a) the type of ability group
(Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Berkel, 1987; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995),
(b) the type of bilingual population (Cummins, 1981; Genesee, 1984), and
(c) the ESL learner’s environmental background (Cummins, 1979).
Different ability groups may exhibit different transfer effects. One
study (Berkel, 1987) found that although Dutch-speaking poor spellers
acquired some English orthographic knowledge, overall they remained
poor spellers, and transfer effects consisted mostly of L1 interference.
Siegel and colleagues argued that both Portuguese and Arabic reading
disabled students performed better on English spelling tasks than
monolingual English reading disabled students because of positive
transfer due to the regular orthographic nature of the first languages
(Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995). Certainly, more
research is needed to investigate opportunities for transfer among poor
spellers or students with learning disabilities. Different variables may ei-
ther compromise potential for positive transfer (e.g., poor level of L1
knowledge) or promote it (e.g., regularity of the first language).
Another factor is the type of bilingual population. Late bilinguals (i.e.,
older ESL learners) may have had more time than early bilinguals to hone
first-language skills, providing a greater likelihood that transfer will
support second-language development (Cummins, 1981; Genesee, 1984).
A wide range of age groups was represented in the review (first-grade to
university students), and both positive and negative transfer was found
for child and adult populations. However, there was a great amount of
variability in terms of factors affecting bilingual classification (e.g., length
of residence in adopted country, number of years of ESL instruction, type
of immersion program). Comparison studies matching early and late

bilinguals on these kinds of factors are needed to better understand the
unique effects of transfer for each population. Late bilinguals may not
necessarily always have a higher level of first-language literacy proficiency
(i.e., age and first-language literacy proficiency are distinct variables). An
interesting question then is whether spelling development of individuals at
similar L1 proficiency levels may be affected by age differences. For
example, consider a 10-year old and 30-year old who possess similar levels
of meta-phonological skill in the first language available for transfer;
would their ages differentially affect their English spelling development?
One potential age effect is the presence of a foreign accent on English
phonology (Bialystok, 2001). On the one hand, if older ESL learners have
a stronger foreign accent, then they may exhibit more negative transfer at
the pronunciation level than younger ESL learners. Further, this type of
negative transfer may persist for older ESL learners compared to younger
ESL learners where this effect may be temporary (Wang & Geva, 2003a).
On the other hand, although research has shown that age of L2 learning
predicts degree of foreign accent (see Piske, MacKay, & Flege, 2001 for a
review), older second-language learners (e.g., past adolescence) can
achieve native-like proficiency in L2 speech (Marinova-Todd, Marshall,
& Snow, 2000). Cross-sectional studies showed that older ESL learners
made fewer negative phonological transfer errors than younger ESL
learners (Cronnell, 1985; Edelsky, 1982; Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Fashola
et al., 1996), although the older participants in these studies (grade 6,
Cronnell, 1985; grades 2 and 3, Edelsky (1982), Edelsky and Jilbert
(1985), grades 5 and 6, Fashola et al., 1996) were not past adolescence. In
addition, all error analysis studies with adult participants reported neg-
ative phonological transfer (Bebout, 1985; Cook, 1997; Ibrahim, 1978;
Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Terrebone, 1973). Thus, although older ESL
learners’ L1-influenced mispronunciations may affect spelling accuracy, it
is not clear whether and for how long these effects would persist.
Another age effect involves differences in cognitive processing as a
result of cognitive maturation. Compare ESL learners beginning to learn
English spelling at 6 years and 14 years of age who have similar levels of
first-language knowledge. We know that working memory resources
among younger monolingual children, especially first graders, imposes
limits on the spelling task (e.g., Stage & Wagner, 1992), but that the
transcription process becomes less taxing in the later elementary grades
(grades four and above, McCutchen, 1996). Further, spelling can be
cognitively demanding when children need to construct spellings online
(McCutchen, 1996, 2000). The 6-year old ESL learner’s relatively limited
working memory might constrain transfer in two ways. First, positive
896 L. FIGUEREDO
transfer that requires management (e.g., meta-phonological knowledge)

might be relatively compromised. Second, negative transfer might persist
because of difficulty making distinctions between first-language and
English norms (i.e., monitoring L1 knowledge and making decisions
about its application might be cognitively demanding).
However, these predictions do not align with studies in the review.
Positive transfer of phonological awareness skills was observed (Dur-
gunoğlu, 1998) and negative transfer did not persist (Edelsky, 1982;
Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Wang & Geva, 2003a) for first-grade ESL
learners. However, independent of first-language proficiency and transfer
effects, cognitive maturational variables may facilitate the rate of learning
for older ESL learners (Genesee, 1984). Predictions about age effects
might be empirically tested in longitudinal studies designed for controlled
between-group comparisons of younger and older ESL learners (e.g., with
immigrants at different ages).
Finally, there is a need to distinguish among ESL learners from dif-
ferent environmental backgrounds. Minority children who have formal
instruction in their first language at a week-end school or through a
cultural heritage program have a special opportunity to develop knowl-
edge about L1 orthographic norms. By contrast, some ESL learners’ first-
language exposure may be primarily oral (e.g., spoken at home). Thus,
level of first-language competence in spelling may be limited by lack of
instructional experiences; in turn, insufficient competence may diminish
potential for transfer (Cummins, 1979). Of the studies that indicated some
amount of first-language formal instruction, all reported positive transfer
(Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Arab-Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001;
Cummins & Nakajima, 1987; Da Fontoura & Siegel, 1995; Durgunoğlu et
al., 2002; Ferroli & Shanahan, 1993; Wang & Geva, 2003a, b). In addi-
tion, note that although transfer effects were reported in most studies with
first-grade Spanish-speaking children (Durgunoğlu, 1998; Edelsky, 1982;
Edelsky & Jilbert, 1985; Nathenson-Mejia, 1989), Carlisle and Beeman
(2000) did not find a correlation between Spanish and English spelling in
two groups of first-grade children, and the authors suggested this
apparent lack of transfer may be due to a limited amount of literacy
experiences. The home environment may also play a critical role. For
example, young monolinguals’ at-home experiences (e.g., parent teaching
about letter knowledge) are related to children’s early literacy skills (e.g.,
Evans, Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). Similarly, these
experiences may be valuable for ESL learners in promoting first-language
knowledge available for transfer. Thus, both at-home experiences and
formal instructional opportunities that nurture L1 skill growth may
indirectly benefit English spelling development.
Strengths and limitations
This review consisted of descriptive, between-group, and correlational

studies; together, these methodologies provide strong converging evidence
for first-language transfer. Thus, a strength of this research area is the
various techniques used to investigate the complexity of transfer. How-
ever, one important methodological concern and potential limitation of
cross-linguistic correlational research is the consistency with which simi-
lar constructs are operationally defined across languages (Caravolas,
2004). On a positive note, researchers have attempted to use tasks that are
consistent across languages by creating, when necessary, other-language
versions of English standardized tasks (Abu-Rabia & Siegel, 2002; Arab-
Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001). Further, researchers have had fluent
speakers of the language in question administer the tasks (e.g., Arab-
Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Carlisle & Beeman, 2000; Durgunoğlu,
1998; Durgunoğlu et al., 2002; McBride-Chang, 1998). These procedures
help to avoid compromising test validity. However, not all studies re-
ported using this procedure; a more consistent application of these pro-
cedures in future studies would be beneficial.
Another potential limitation of the review is the small amount of
representation of first-language backgrounds. In particular, ESL learners
from several first-language backgrounds (Dutch, French, German, Per-
sian, Portuguese, Welsh) were only represented by one study each (Arab-
Moghaddam & Sénéchal, 2001; Berkel, 1987; Da Fontoura & Siegel,
1995; James et al., 1993; Luelsdorff, 1986; Morris, 2001). Lack of infor-
mation about ESL learners from different first-language backgrounds
limits the degree to which we can make generalizations or distinctions
between populations. More studies with ESL learners from various first-
language backgrounds would provide a better account of the relation
between writing systems and transfer as well as universal versus language-
specific characteristics of spelling development.
Educational implications
The introduction of this paper opened with a description of an imaginary

ESL classroom; this fictitious setting is a reflection of reality: around the
world there are ESL students at various ages and levels of first-language
proficiency learning to read and write in English. Further, many post-
secondary institutions offer concentrated teaching programs in ESL
education. What educational implications may be proposed based on the
review? One suggestion is that there is a need for educators to appreciate
differences in ESL learners’ task approach. Although some transfer effects
898 L. FIGUEREDO
may not persist (Wang & Geva, 2003a, b), during the transitional period
when first-language knowledge is implicated, teachers could provide
appropriate feedback. For example, a dichotomous paradigm for mark-
ing spelling tests (i.e., each item marked as right or wrong) may overlook
opportunities to indicate to students how their application of first-lan-
guage knowledge is inappropriate and to emphasize English norms
(Fashola et al., 1996). By contrast, a qualitative analysis of error com-
missions may reinforce orthographic principles and emphasize word-
specific spellings (Bebout, 1985; Fashola et al., 1996; James et al., 1993;
Rizzo & Villafane, 1975; Zutell & Allen, 1988). Further, by acknowl-
edging ESL learners’ strategic attempts to transfer, teachers may alleviate
students’ frustration (Rizzo & Villafane, 1975), while affirming the
importance of their L1 knowledge (Cummins, 2001).
Another important issue in educating ESL learners concerns relying on
transfer as a source of economizing ESL instruction. The foregoing dis-
cussion of transfer naturally raises the question: should we, and if so, how
do we teach for transfer? Teaching for transfer might involve engaging
students in opportunities to practice their first-language knowledge or
emphasizing experiences that purposefully provoke abstraction of lin-
guistic principles (Salomon & Perkins, 1989; Sternberg & Frensch, 1993).
For example, phonics training helps to develop monolinguals’ phono-
logical awareness skills (e.g., in English, Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991;
in Danish, Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; in German, Schneider,
Küspert, Roth, Visé, & Marx, 1997). In addition, Quiroga, Lemos-Brit-
ton, Mostafapour, Abbott, and Berninger (2002) found that phonological
awareness training that was provided in both Spanish and English along
with English reading instruction led to increases in Spanish-speaking first-
graders’ English reading and pseudo-word reading performance. Further,
after reviewing the relevant literature, Stewart (2004) recommended that
phonological awareness training for bilingual preschoolers should be
provided in both languages through an alternate immersion program.
Thus, knowledge gained through first-language instruction would become
a valuable resource for second-language learning (Genesee et al., 2004).
However, in an ESL classroom, teaching for transfer may not be a
feasible approach. It may be difficult to offer opportunities for practice in
each student’s first language and the ESL teacher may not necessarily have
first-language knowledge to draw upon (although efforts have been made
to provide teachers with this knowledge, Minaya-Rowe, 2004). Further,
the idealistic notion of transfer as a time-saving strategy may not be
realized in practice. First, obviously not all transfer is advantageous. As
the studies have shown, negative transfer is a common occurrence. Second,
in order to develop a competent level of English spelling skill, aspects of
English phonology or orthography that are difficult for ESL students to

acquire may be facilitated by explicit instruction. For example, auditory
training on five English confusable vowels for Japanese adult speakers
improved their identification and production of these vowels (Lambacher,
Martens, Kakehi, Marasinghe, & Molholt, 2005); this improvement may
in turn aid in the pronunciation step of spelling. Further, when learning
English in a school context, ESL learners may take a minimum of 5 years
to reach native-like proficiency levels in their literacy skills (Cummins,
2000). In addition, direct phonics training in English can be beneficial for
ESL students’ spelling development (e.g., Stuart, 1999). Thus, transfer as
an economic strategy may not be as effective as the more direct approach
(i.e., ESL training). The question of best instructional practice may be
tested by comparing groups trained in a first-language program aimed at
promoting transfer versus an ESL program.
Conclusion
Studies in this review have provided strong evidence for a relation be-
tween the ESL learner’s first language and English spelling skill devel-
opment. First-language transfer of phonological and sound-to-spelling
correspondence knowledge was strategically relied upon, particularly
when English norms had yet to be learned. In addition, studies found
transfer of cognitive processes, linguistic processes, literacy skills, and
meta-linguistic skill to ESL spelling. These findings are in agreement with
theoretical hypotheses regarding the interdependence between first and
second languages (e.g., Cummins, 1981). The nature of this interdepen-
dence may be affected by differences between the languages’ writing
systems. Where similarities exist, positive transfer may provide the ESL
learner with a knowledge advantage. Where differences exist, negative
transfer may temporarily occur until English norms are learned and
consistently applied. Further, transfer may vary as a function of the ESL
learner’s first-language proficiency level, age of learning, and environ-
mental background. It is hoped that future research uncovering the
learning process and mechanisms involved in first-language transfer
among ESL learners will serve to assist these developing spellers as they
‘‘use the known to chart the unknown’’ (Nagy & Anderson, 1995, p. 6).
Acknowledgements
Preparation of the manuscript was supported by a Social Sciences

and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Doctoral
900 L. FIGUEREDO
Fellowship. I would like to thank Elena Nicoladis, Connie Varnhagen,

and Hongbo Ji for their valuable suggestions on an earlier version of
this paper.
References
Abu-Rabia, S., & Siegel, L. S. (2002). Reading, syntactic, orthographic, and working
memory skills of bilingual Arabic-English speaking Canadian children. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 661–678.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2001). Orthographic and phonological
processing skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 140–147.
Bebout, L. (1985). An error analysis of misspellings made by learners of English as a
first and as a second language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14, 569–593.
van Berkel, A. J. (1987). Serious spelling problems and foreign language learning: A
weak link in the training of teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 10,
195–211.
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic
awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451–455.
Caravolas, M. (2004). Spelling development in alphabetic writing systems: A cross-
linguistic perspective. European Psychologist, 9, 3–14.
Caravolas, M., & Bruck, M. (1993). The effect of oral and written language input on
children’s phonological awareness: A cross-linguistic study. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 55, 1–30.
Carlisle, J. F., & Beeman, M. M. (2000). The effects of language of instruction on the
reading and writing achievement of first-grade Hispanic children. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 4, 331–353.
Cisero, C. A., & Royer, J. M. (1995). The development and cross-language transfer of
phonological awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 275–303.
Comeau, L., Cormier, P., Grandmaison, É., & Lacroix, D. (1999). A longitudinal study
of phonological processing skills in children learning to read in a second language.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 29–43.
Cook, V. J. (1997). L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 18, 474–488.
Cronnell, B. (1985). Language influences in the English writing of third- and sixth-grade
Mexican-American students. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 168–173.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49, 222–251.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting
educational success for language minority students. In California State Department
of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
framework (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination, and Assessment
Center, California State University, Los Angeles.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cummins, J. (2001). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse
society (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: California Association for Bilingual Education.
Cummins, J., & Nakajima, K. (1987). Age of arrival, length of residence, and
interdependence of literacy skills among Japanese immigrant students. In B. Harley,
P. Allen, J. Cummins, & M. Swain (Eds.), The development of bilingual proficiency
(Final Report): Vol. 3. The relevance of social context and age for language learning
(pp. 183–202). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, Modern Language Centre.
Da Fontoura, H. A., & Siegel, L.S. (1995). Reading, syntactic, and working memory
skills of bilingual Portuguese-English Canadian children. Reading and Writing An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 139–153.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1998). Acquiring literacy in English and Spanish in the United
States. In A. Y. Durgunoğlu & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Literacy development in a
multilingual context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 135–145). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and
implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189–204.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Mir, M., & Ariño-Marti, S. (2002). The relationships between
bilingual children’s reading and writing in their two languages. In S. Ransdell &
M.-L. Barbier (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 81–100).
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Durgunoğlu, A. Y., Nagy, W. E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer
of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453–465.
Edelsky, C. (1982). Writing in a bilingual program: The relation of L1 and L2 texts.
TESOL Quarterly, 16, 211–228.
Edelsky, C., & Jilbert, K. (1985). Bilingual children and writing: Lessons for all of us.
Volta Review, 87, 57–72.
Ehri, L. C. (1986). Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and read. Advances in
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 121–195.
Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their influence
on early literacy skills. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 65–75.
Fashola, O. S., Drum, P. A., Mayer, R. E., & Kang, J.-S. (1996). A cognitive theory of
orthographic transitioning: Predictable errors in how Spanish-speaking children
spell English words. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 825–843.
Ferroli, L., & Shanahan, T. (1993). Voicing in Spanish to English spelling knowledge
transfer. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 42, 413–418.
Genesee, F. (1984). On Cummins’ theoretical framework. In C. Rivera (Ed.), Language
proficiency and academic achievement (pp. 20–27). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters, Ltd.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. B. (2004). Dual language development and
disorders: A handbook on bilingualism and second language learning. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Gentry, J. R. (1982). An analysis of developmental spelling in GNYS AT WORK.
Reading Teacher, 36, 192–200.
902 L. FIGUEREDO
Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1993). The concurrent development of
spelling and decoding in two different orthographies. Journal of Reading Behavior,
25, 383–406.
Goswami, U. (1988). Children’s use of analogy in learning to spell. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 6, 21–33.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2001). Pseudohomophone
effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading development in English and
German. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 648–664.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading
across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 24, 235–247.
Gottardo, A., Yan, B., Siegel, L. S., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2001). Factors related to
English reading performance in children with Chinese as a first language: More
evidence of cross-language transfer of phonological processing. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 93, 530–542.
Henderson, E. H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal
spelling instruction through alphabet pattern and meaning. The Elementary School
Journal, 86, 305–316.
Holm, A., & Dodd, B. (1996). The effect of first written language on the acquisition of
English literacy. Cognition, 59, 119–147.
Ibrahim, M. H. (1978). Patterns in spelling errors. English Language Teaching Journal,
32, 207–212.
James, C., Scholfield, P., Garrett, P., & Griffiths, Y. (1993). Welsh bilinguals’ English
spelling: An error analysis. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
14, 287–306.
Juul, H. (2005). Knowledge of context sensitive spellings as a component of spelling
competence: Evidence from Danish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 249–265.
Juul, H., & Sigurdsson, B. (2005). Orthography as a handicap? A direct comparison of
spelling acquisition in Danish and Icelandic. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
46, 263–272.
Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies:
The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography,
phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2001). Relationships between sounds and letters in English
monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 592–617.
Kwong, T. E., & Varnhagen, C. K. (2005). Strategy development and learning to spell
new words: Generalization of a process. Developmental Psychology, 41, 148–159.
Lambacher, S. G., Martens, W. L., Kakehi, K., Marasinghe, C. A., & Molholt, G
(2005). The effects of identification training on the identification and production of
American English vowels by native speakers of Japanese. Applied Psycholinguistics,
26, 227–247.
Lindsey, K. A., Manis, F. R., & Bailey, C. E. (2003). Prediction of first-grade reading
in Spanish-speaking English-language learners. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 482–494.
Luelsdorff, P. A. (1986). Processing strategies in bilingual spellers. Papers and Studies in
Contrastive Linguistics, 21, 129–144.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O.-P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for
stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research
Quarterly, 23, 263–284.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign accent: The ontogeny and phylogeny of second language
phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marinova-Todd, S. H., Marshall, D. B., & Snow, C. E. (2000). Three misconceptions
about age and L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 9–34.
Mayer, R. E., & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem-solving transfer. In D. C. Berliner &
R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 47–62). New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
McBride-Chang, C. (1998). Phonological transfer in Chinese and English. Psychologia,
41, 249–258.
McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition.
Educational Psychology Review, 8, 299–325.
McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for
a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.
Minaya-Rowe, L. (2004). Training teachers of English language learners using their
students’ first language. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3, 3–24.
Morris, L. (2001). Going through a bad spell: What the spelling errors of young ESL
learners reveal about their grammatical knowledge. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 58, 273–286.
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1995). Metalinguistic awareness and literacy
acquisition in different languages (Tech. Rep. No. 618). Champaign, IL: University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Nathenson-Mejia, S. (1989). Writing in a second language: Negotiating meaning
through invented spelling. Language Arts, 66, 516–526.
Nation, K. (1997). Children’s sensitivity to rime unit frequency when spelling words and
nonwords. Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 321–338.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (2002). English language
learners and the U. S. Census, 1990–2000. Retrieved October 12, 2004, from http://
www.ncela.gwu.edu/stats/statespecific/2_multistate.htm.
Oller, J. W., & Ziahosseiny, S. M. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis and
spelling errors. Language Learning, 20, 183–189.
Pascual-Leone, J., & Irwin, R. R. (1994). Noncognitive factors in high-road/low-road
learning: I Modes of abstraction in adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 1,
73–89.
Perfetti, C. A., Zhang, S., & Berent, I. (1992). Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence
for a ‘‘universal’’ phonological principle. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.),
Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 227–248). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Piske, T., MacKay, I. R. A., & Flege, J. E. (2001). Factors affecting degree of foreign
accent in an L2: A review. Journal of Phonetics, 29, 191–215.
Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W.
(2002). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish-speaking ESL first
graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 85–111.
Read, C. (1986). Children’s creative spelling. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Rickard Liow, S. J., & Poon, K. K. L. (1998). Phonological awareness in multilingual
Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 339–362.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Learning to spell: Variability, choice, and
change in children’s strategy use. Child Development, 70, 332–348.
Rizzo, B., & Villafane, S. (1975). Spanish language influences on written English.
Journal of Basic Writing, Spring, 62–71.
904 L. FIGUEREDO
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–

192.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: Rethinking mechanisms
of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24, 113–142.
Schneider, W., Küspert, P., Roth, E., Visé, M., & Marx, H. (1997). Short- and long-
term effects of training phonological awareness in kindergarten: Evidence from two
German studies. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 311–340.
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of
children’s reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73, 445–
460.
Stage, S. A., & Wagner, R. K. (1992). Development of young children’s phonological
and orthographic knowledge as revealed by their spellings. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 28, 287–296.
Steffler, D. J., Varnhagen, C. K., Friesen, C. K., & Treiman, R. (1998). There’s more to
children’s spelling than the errors they make: Strategic and automatic processes for
one-syllable words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 492–505.
Sternberg, R. J., & Frensch, P. A. (1993). Mechanisms of transfer. In D. K. Detterman
& R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction
(pp. 25–38). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Stewart, M. R. (2004). Phonological awareness and bilingual preschoolers: Should we
teach it and, if so, how?. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32, 31–37.
Stuart, M. (1999). Getting ready for reading: Early phoneme awareness and phonics
teaching improves reading and spelling in inner-city second language learners.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 587–605.
Terrebone, N. G. (1973). English spelling problems of native Spanish speakers. In
R. Nash (Ed.), Readings in Spanish-English contrastive linguistics (pp. 136–155).
San Juan, Puerto Rico: Inter American University Press.
Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell. New York: Oxford University Press.
Treiman, R. (1997). Introduction to special issue on spelling. Reading and Writing An
Treiman, R. (2000). The foundations of literacy. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9, 89–92.
Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2005). Writing systems and spelling development. In M.
Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), Science of reading: A handbook Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Treiman, R., Weatherston, S., & Berch, D. (1994). The role of letter names in children’s
learning of phoneme–grapheme relations. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 97–122.
Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. In S. A. Brady
& D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle
Y. Liberman (pp. 67–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Varnhagen, C. K., McCallum, M., & Burstow, M. (1997). Is children’s spelling naturally
stage-like?. Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 451–481.
Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling: The structure and origins of
American English orthography. New York: The Guilford Press.
Wade-Woolley, L., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). The spelling performance of ESL and native
speakers of English as a function of reading skill. Reading and Writing An
Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003a). Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in
Chinese children. Reading and Writing An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 325–348.
Wang, M., & Geva, E. (2003b). Spelling performance of Chinese children using English
as a second language: Lexical and visual-orthographic processes. Applied Psycho-
linguistics, 24, 1–25.
Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1997). How learning to spell German differs from learning
to spell English. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell:
Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 81–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Jacobs, A. M., & Braun, M. (2001). Identical words are read
differently in different languages. Psychological Science, 12, 379–384.
Zutell, J., & Allen, V. (1988). The English spelling strategies of Spanish-speaking
bilingual children. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 333–340.
Address for correspondence: L. Figueredo, Department of Psychology, University of

Alberta, P217 Biological Sciences, T6G 2E9, Edmonton, Canada.
E-Mail: laurenf@ualberta.ca

Using The Known To Chart The Unknown: A Review of First-Language in Uence On The Development of English-As-A-Second-Language Spelling Skill

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Using The Known To Chart The Unknown: A Review of First-Language in Uence On The Development of English-As-A-Second-Language Spelling Skill

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reading and Writing (2006) 19:873–905 Ó Springer 2006

Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of ﬁrst-language

Key words: Bilingualism, Cross-linguistic transfer, English as a second language,

Picture an English-as-a-second-language (ESL) classroom: Manuel, Jean-

An investigation of these research questions is timely. Statistics suggest

From April to November 2004, electronic searches of the PsycINFO and

Note: SSC = sound-to-spelling correspondence.

Chinese, Holm and University Compared Chinese ESL

Table 3. Correlational analyses showing L1 inﬂuence from ESL studies.

First language Study Sample Findings regarding L1 inﬂuence

Arabic Abu-Rabia 9–12 year Several L1 skills, including

development. Below, the key points are listed, followed by a general

The two main ﬁndings of the review are:

First language Study Sample Findings regarding L1 inﬂuence

The two main recommendations oﬀered are:

Transfer as a function of ﬁrst-language proﬁciency

To explain the relation between ﬁrst- and second-language proﬁciencies,

second-language competence of an academic skill is partially related to

Pronunciation of English phoneme

Replace Negative Drop

Graphemic Representation of Phoneme

Grapheme is Grapheme is Do not Do not

No Transfer (Lack No Transfer (Lack No Transfer (Lack No Transfer

Pronunciation of English phoneme

Replace Negative Drop

Graphemic Representation of Phoneme

Grapheme is Grapheme is Choose Do not

Positive PGC Negative Positive PGC Negative No Transfer

with English. Positive phonological transfer may occur when the L1

(pseudoword reading, working memory, phonological awareness) (Da

Transfer as a function of distance between ﬁrst language and English

awareness skill resulted in poor performance on English pseudoword

ESL learners’ English spelling development: parts, path, and rate

& Jilbert, 1985). In longitudinal studies, as students acquired English

awareness skill and letter knowledge preceding the emergence of the

provide a better picture of the ESL learner’s developmental process of

The learning process and mechanisms of ﬁrst-language transfer

The learning process

investigating strategy use in spelling among ESL learners (e.g., microge-

Would transfer of small-unit processing skills persist? On the one

Mechanisms of ﬁrst-language transfer

What are the mechanisms of ﬁrst-language transfer? One way in which

may transfer L1 knowledge without purposeful intention. Theoretical

Although some studies did not discuss proﬁciency of ﬁrst-language skills

of immersion program). Comparison studies matching early and late

transfer that requires management (e.g., meta-phonological knowledge)

Strengths and limitations

This review consisted of descriptive, between-group, and correlational

The introduction of this paper opened with a description of an imaginary

English phonology or orthography that are diﬃcult for ESL students to

Preparation of the manuscript was supported by a Social Sciences

Fellowship. I would like to thank Elena Nicoladis, Connie Varnhagen,

Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–

Address for correspondence: L. Figueredo, Department of Psychology, University of

You might also like