Masters Thesis - Common Spelling Errors of Spanish Heritage Language Writers

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 Difficult
c# of
Students
b
# Scored
Correctly
a
a
# Scored Correctly = out of 12 possible features
b
# of Students = How many students correctly scored each number of features
c
Categorized 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

Masters Thesis - Common Spelling Errors of Spanish Heritage Language Writers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Masters Thesis - Common Spelling Errors of Spanish Heritage Language Writers

Similar to Masters Thesis - Common Spelling Errors of Spanish Heritage Language Writers (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Masters Thesis - Common Spelling Errors of Spanish Heritage Language Writers