DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 222 857 CS 006 845
AUTHOR Ferguson, Charles A. TITLE Cognitive Effects of Literacy: Linguistic Awareness in Adult Non-Readers. Final Report. INSTITUTION Stanford Univ., Calif. Dept. of Linguistics. SPONS AGENCY National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC. PUB DATE Mar 81 GRANT NIE-G-80-0040 NOTE 22p.; For related documents see CS 006 846-847. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143)
EDRS PRICE ME01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Adult Basic Education; Adults; *Bilingual Students; English; Error AnalysisALanguage); Language Research; *Language Skii,14; Language Usage; Linguistic Theory; *L4gracy; *Metacognition; *Monolingualism; Readimg Ability; Reading Research; Reading Skills; Spanish Speaking; *Structural Analysis (Linguistics) IDENTIFIERS *Metalinguistic Awareness; Papandropoulou (I); Segmentation (Verbal); Sinclair (H)
ABSTRACT A project that investigated the metalinguistic awareness of adults (what they know about language asdistinct from their ability to use language) is described and summarized in this final report. Subjects were 60 monolingual English speakers and 26 bilingual (Spanish and English) speakers enrolled in adult education classes. They fell into three groups according to reading level. Awareness of segmentation (sentences, phonemes, words) was found to be significantly related to degree of literacy, not to amountof schooling or general ability, although some components of the segmental awareness measure did not correlate with literacy. Subjects' concept of "word" as shown by elicited definitions also differed significantly by reading levels, but the differences did not fit well into the developmental scales proposed for children by I. Papandropoulou and H. Sinclair. Although the small number of subjects limited the authority of the findings, there appeared to be no significant difference in overall segmental awareness between monollinguals and bilinguals matched for reading level, age, and sex. (JL)
*********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
1 This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization Siginating it. inor changes have been made to improve reprochiction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this docu . mem do not necessarily represent official NIE position or policy.
Cognitive Effects of Literacy:
Lin uistic Awareness inAdult Non-readers
NIE Grant # NIE-G-80-0040 National Institute of Education
Principal Investigator:.Charles A. Ferguson
FINAL REPORT
March 1981
Department of Linguistics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 Abstract
This project investigated certain linguisticand cognitive skills which non-literate adults bring to the task of learning to read and write,focusing specifically on their metalinguisticknowledge, i.e. their accessible knowledge about language.
Sixty monolingual (English) and 26 bilingual(Spanish and English) subjects were interviewed, all of whom werestudents at adult learning centers in San
Francisco. Average age was 28.0 and mean school grade completed10.5. They fell into 3 groups according to reading level. Awareness of segmentation
(sentences phonemes, words) was found to be highly significantlyrelated to degree of literacy(p < .001) not to amount of schooling orgeneral ability, although some components of the segmental awareness measuredid not correlate with literacy. Subjects' concept of word as shown by elicited definitions also differed significantly by reading levels,but the differences did not fit well with developmental scales proposedfor children (Papandropoulou &
Sinclair). There appeared to be no significant difference inoverall segmental awareness between monolinguals andbilinguals matched for reading level, age, and sex. Background
the linguistic andcognitive skills The aim of thisstudy was to investigate read and write, adults bring to thetask of learning to which non-literate awareness, i.e.what they know focusing specifically ontheir metalinguistic ability to use language. Many factors about language, asdistinct from their likely that the of reading skills,but it seems are involvedin the acquisition awareness is animportant one. In extent of thelearner's metalinguistic
Overview
during the periodApril 1 - This report summarizesactivities carried out the grant period was spentmostly December 31, 1980. The first quarter of preparing and pilotingexperimental in preparation: organizing the project; research assistants; materils; designing astructured interview; training The second quarter was and establishing transcriptionand coding systems. locating subjects, carrying outinterviews, spent mainly in datacollection: the computer those transcribing.and codingInterview scripts, enteringinto The-third, final quarter wasspent data coded for quantitativeanalysis. reporting on two aspectsof the in completIng theanalyses and writing papers 1980). project (Barton & Hamilton1980 and Hamilton & Barton
hands of the two Research Day to day responsibilityfor the project was in the Two part-time R'asearch Associates, Dr. DavidBarton and Dr. Mary E.Hamilton. William Arenio and Associates helped withdata collection andcoding: services of staff andstudents at Rebecca Horey. The project drew on the especially the San Francisco six adult education centersin San Francisco, the facilities of theChild Phonology Adult Learning Center,and also made use.of
Project at Stanford University. recent years a considerable and growing amount ofresearch has been devoted to the metalinguistic awareness and related skills whir.h preschoolchildren can bring to the task of learning to read. This research is summarized in the
4 volume The Child's Conception of Language (A. Sinclair et al. 1978) but there is no counterpart volume on the adult's conception of language and in fact very little research is reported on the topic.
Of the many aspects of metalinguistic awareness which can be investigated we chose to look at segmentation i.e. the recognition of such units as sentences, words, syllable, and sounds in the structure of language. Two levels of
segmentation seem of particular imPortance for the reading process,words and
phonetic segments. As noted in Read 1978, linguists have had considerable difficulty in arriving at satisfactory definitions of both these units, yet
they are indicated in many of the world's writing systemsincluding that of
English and must be crucially involvedinthe acquisition of reading. Both
have been investigated in children. In this study of non-literates we chose
to deal primarily with the word, although some ofthe data collected deal with
1 phonetic segments and other units.
The concept of "word" is widely and frequently used byboth linguists and
non-linguists, but it is not a neatly defined notion. Some idea of the range
of meaning of the term word in non-linguistic usage can be gottenfrom the
list of senses given for it in any larie dictionary. Two fairly concrete and
probably basic senses of word for the lay person are something like'the unit
appropriate for entry in a dictionary' and 'the unit in theflow of speech or
written material which is typically set off by spaces.' The first sense
underlies such questions as whether house and houses are two forms of the
same word or two different words or whetherhouse, the noun, is the same word such questions as whether as house, theverb. The second sense underlies Words or one. It is the ice cream is two words or one orwhether won't is two since it seems more second sense that we weretrying to tap in this study, directly relevant in theacquisition of literacy.
of word with technical Linguists have repeatedlytried to define the concept theories of precision either for describinglanguages or for constructing that corresponds to the language. The technical linguistic sense of word the language unit ofwhich second of the two non-technicalsenses is focused on
(Note here that linguists havetypically been concerned sentences arecomprised. written forms of language with possible spokensentences in a language, not reached agreement on ageneral definition as such.) Although they have not of criteria to be usedinothe of word in this sense,they agree on the kinds be said by itself(e.g. the definitions: the extent to which an item can the cran- of cranberry), -es of houses cannotnormally be said by itself nor can side (similar in effect the degree of substitutabilityof elements on either phonological characteristics(e.g. to the precedingcriterion), and various difficulties in reaching a one primary stress perword). Linguists face two language the criteria may not general definition. One is that in any given word stress or an item match, thus a highlyseparable item may have typical single collocation. word-like in other respects maybe limited in occurrence to a works well for onelanguage may The other difficulty isthat a definition that units identified aswords differ not work at all forother languages, and the to another. Some languages greatly in their internalstructure from one language of suffixes and prefixes, have complex derivationaland inflectional morphology word compounding in others have little or none; somelanguages have extensive words, others have which two or more words canbe joined to constitute new the morpheme incomplexity little or none; in somelanguages the word is nearer to
-3-6 and separability, in other languages it is nearer tothe sentence. Recent discussions of the problems involved in defining the wordinclude Matthews
1974, Juilland 1977, Greenberg et al. 1978.
In the many writing systems that have come into use to representlanguage,
the word and the sentence are the two units most oftenindicated, apart from
the more purely phonological units of syllable and segmetn. In those writing
systems which mark word boundaries this isdone either by a word-divider
symbol (as in the Old Persian cuneiform or modern Amharicorthography)
or by leaving 'pace. In the last several centuries the use of.empty space
as word boundary hasbecome increasingly widespread, with thexesult that almostallpresent.dayorthographiesaroundtheworldmakeatleast some use
of this device. In many orthographies there remain disagrgementsand
fluctuations in the marking of word boundaries -- thetwo-words-or-one question --
but the general use of word space has tended tomake this the primary defining
characteristic of the word in the metalinguistic awarenessof literate populations.
Although little experimental evidence is available, it seemslikely that for
most readers and writers of English and manyother languages judgments of word
status or word boundary are madeprimarily in terms of whether word space is
regularly used or seems appropriate. If this is so, part of the task oflearning
to read in any language is becomingfamiliar with the placing of word spaces
and the notion of which strings of symbols canstand alone as words, i.e.
appear with spaces on either side.
To a considerable extent orthographic words willmatch "linguistic" words.
If the words as defined by the linguistreflect, more.or less directly, speaker/
hearer psycholinguistic processing units of somekind, at some level, then the
task of the hearer is to match the orthographicwords with these units. This
-4- from at least five straightforward conceptualizationof the process suffers identifications are uncertainities and cqmplications. First, the linguist's Second, it is not not certain: as noted above,there are indeterminicies. words are psycholinguistic clear in what way and to whatextent the linguistic metalinguistic awareness oflinguistic processing units. Third, the degree of (the object of investigation words is likely to varygreatly among individuals contain a significant of the present study). Fourth, orthographies typically recognition component of arbitraryconventions. Fifth, it may be that full with reading. and awareness of wordstypically depends on experience
includes the assumption The theoretical frameworkwith which this study proceeds metalinguistic awareness is a partof the overall that a gradual growth in in a more language development of thehuman being. This assumption is stated "phonological developmentincludes limited context inFerguson & Farwell(1975), i.e. the child's ability the gradual developmentof phonological awareness: and relations is seen as akind to deal explicitlywith phonological elements (438). Major purposes of of self-discovery of hisphonological organization" of this development research on metalinguistic awarenessare the charting Since factors to be considered and the discovery offactors ehich affect it. knowledge of more than include age, general cognitivedevelopment, literacy, and awareness of adult,non-literate one language,investigation of the metalinguistic of research. subjects, monolingual andbilingual, is an appropriate area
metalinguistic awareness of In this study we examinedvarious aspects of the adult educationciasses, 60 monolingual and 26bilingual subjects enrolled in Here we report on some measuresof segmental by means of structuredinterviews. from the subjects. These results awareness and ondefinitionsof 'word' elicited Hamilton 1980 and Hamilton& Barton 1980 are presented infuller form in Barton &
- 5- .w, respectively: A brief note pn language attitudes of thebilingual subjects
is also included here as a matter of interestalthough it is not directly
related to the metalinguistic awareness data.
Sublects.and Procedures
The 86 subjects were enrolled in adult education coursesat community centers
within a month of the beginning in San Francisco; they were all interviewed -
of the courses.None of the subjects were completelynon-literate: all had
received some schooling. The 60 monolingual subjects fell intothree groups
of 20 on the basis of reading level scores: a basic group of belowfourth-
grade reading level, which served as the non-literate group; ahigher group
of above seventh-grade reading level, which served asthe control literate
group; and an intermediate group.
# of Readinglevel Group Sub'ects Mean Range
Basic 20 2.7 1.0 - 3.9
Intermediate 20 5.8 4.0 - 7.3
-Hlgh 20 9.0 7.5 - 12.0
Overall the average age was 28.0 and the meanschool grade completed was 10.5
The groups did not differ significantly in age orgrade completed. The 26
bilingual subjects were the total number thatcould be found within the time
limit and the selection cr_teria (e.g. those withschooling only in Mexico were
individually with 26 of excluded). The bilingual subjects were then matched
ehe monolingual subjects -- primarily in termsof reading level and where
possible also in terms of age aria sex; the two groupsdid not differ significantly
9 a
in age, gradecompleted, or vocabulary scores. # of Reading Level Mean Range Group Subjects 6.9 2.4 - 12.0 Bilinguals 26 6.7 2.5 - 12.0 Monolingual Mothers 26
The interviewslasted about The subjects wereinterviewed individually. consisted of questions on 40 minutes and were taperecorded. Each interview and words, an oralvocabulary test; the recognition ofsentences, phrases, asking for judgmentsof oral asking for a definitionof words; questions about schooling,langdage and graphic items;and background questions The exact form of experience, and attitudes tolanguage and education.
piloting. the interview hadevolved from extensive
where subjects could In the whole interviewthere were 62 instances make errors insegmentation. exhibit difficultyunder segmentation or scored, and these The difficulties and errorsshown by each subject were of Segmental Awareness. items were.combinedin an overall measure
were put onindex cards Responses to the question"What does word mean?" The cards wereidentified only by and were classifiedand analyzed. level of the subject, sothat number which gave noclue to the reading A coding schemeof 25 features was the analysis couldbe done blind. definitions and thisserved as the devised, based on thecontext of the
basis for the analysis.
asked of the bilinguals were Responses to two languageattitude questions easier or moredifficult for bilinguals to codified: "Do you think it's do you prefer touse?" The learn to read andwrite?" and "Which language experience of thesubjects. responses werecompared to the language Results
A. Segmental Awareness
The Segmental Awareness scores varied with reading level scores, as
follows:
Group Seeental Awareness Score
Basic 13.40
Intermediate 10.35
High 7.40
The difference between the groups is significant at the p < :001level.
The overall Segmental Awareness score was composed oftwelve component
variables; five of thesegave significantdifferences betweenthegroups:
Component Variables Percentage of Errors Significance Basic Intermediate High All (1)No. of Word.s 52.5 41.3 17.5 37.1 p<.001
(2)Word Identification 32.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 p<.001
.005 (3)Segmentation Errors 22.0 19.3 12.0 17.8 p<
(4)Syllabification 30.0 18.0 8.0 18.7 p<.025
(5)Forgetting part of a sentence 10.0 7.5 1.1 6.4 p< .02
Of thesesfour (i.e. all but Syllabification) were measuresof metalinguistic
awareness of words. Variable (1) refers to four questions where subjects
were asked for the number of words in aword or phrase (rock and roll,
more or less, enough, around) and if incorrectthey were asked to give the words.
Subjects in the Basic group were incorrect about half thetime. Variable (2)
refers to six sentences where subjects were asked for specificwords, such as
the first, second, or last word of the sentence. No subjecLs in the High
group made more than one error.Variables (3) and (5) refer to the same
six sentences where Subjects were asked to say the sentence oneword at a time. (3) were of four types: The segmentation errorsscored under component (e.g. always, today), the subject splits onecomponent word into two (e.g. rock and roll), the subject doesn't countthe connective in a phrase be), the subject the subject treats twowords as one (e.g. a lot, to segmentation errors, splits a multisyllabic word(e.g. family). Of the 250 significant 80% were of the first two types. In these types there were differences between the three groupsof subject, with the Basic group
p<2.05). making the most errors(type one p <.001,-type two
material were also Other segmentationphenomena in the interview didn't, he's, and everything's examined. For example the contractions the contracted form appeared in the test sentences,always pronounced in in the waysthey repeated by the experimenter,and the subjects 0-Ffered treated the contractionswhen the sentences andespecially in the ways they contraction as a giving the sentences wordfor word. They could treat the could omit the single word or as two words or,in the case of 's, they Two trends were apparent contracted part altogether(he's, he is, he). High subjects retainedthe in the data for he'sand everything's: more Basic subjects contraction as a single word onboth occasions and more word-by-word question. omitted the 's either onboth occasions or on the
The treatment of he's was asfollows:
's is Other Group Both 's Both is Both 0
6 5 3 Basic 2 2 2
5 4 2 Intermediate 8 1 0
6 1 1 High 12 0 0,
- 9- 12 The bilingual group was compared with the matchedmonolinguals on the overall Segmental Awareness'measure. The bilingual's scores like those of themonolinguals, correlate significantly with reading level group, and there appears to be no difference betweenmonolinguals and bilinguals in metalinguistic awareness as measured by this ccraposite score.
Group Segmental Awareness Correlation (mean no. of errors)
Bilinguals 7.2 .57 (p < .001)
Monolinguals 8.3 .49 (p < .006)
B. Word Definitions
All but the 25 classifying features of thesubjects/word definitions
fall into three main types: Those referring to the functions of words,
those referring to the fact that words have meaning; and those referring
to the notion of units - that words consist ofsmaller units and/or are
themselves units in larger units or system.
In spite of the small numbers involved because of thewide variety of
responses, two trends can be discerned inthe data when the classifications are
compared with reading level groups. First, contrary to what might have
been expected, subjects in the High group are morelikely to refer to
spoken functions while those bathe Basicgroup are more likely to refer to
writing. This difference is significant (p < .05 usingFisher's exact test).
The numbers of subjects who included functionsin their definitions are as
follows:
Group Spoken function only Written function only Both Neither
Basic 4 3 3 1
Intermediate 8 2 2 2 High 11 0 1 2
-10- mention that words Second, subjects in theHigh group are more likely to
including sentences. Subjects are part of thelarger system of language, those in the Basic in the High group mentionedthis as opposed by
group (Chi square =7.2, p <.01). There were other non-significant the same trends which when combined withthese results all point in tend to use a more direction that people of higher reading level
technical vocabulary to express morelinguistically sophisticated ideas. .
also rated In addition to the contentfeature analysis, definitions were number of on the form andlanguageof thedefinition, using a modified further analysis was the levels analys's ofLitowitz (1977), and a Sinclair (1974) done using the levels analysisof Papandropoulou and The modified to include 'contentfeatures not mentioned by them. 1 "semantically empty" to Level 5 Litowitz classification goesfrom Level difficult to "pure Aristotelian definition". The levels are somewhat follows, with our interpret in terms of the databut the scoring is as
revised labels for the levels: Totals Level of definition Group High (Litowitz, adapted Basic Intermediate
No content or unclassi- 2 10 fiable 5 3
Listing or 2 10 attitudes 5 3
2 8 Functionals 4 2 25 Approximations to ideas 6 11 8
6 7 Ideal 0 1 60 Totals 20 20 20 The largest number of responses for each group were at the evel
"Approximation to ideal", and actually a majority of all the subjects were either at this levelor"Ideal". Significantly more High subjects, however, were at these levels than the other groups (chi square 26.4, p<.05).
Papandropoulou and Sinclair's proposed levels of development inchildren's definitions of words go from a Level 1 characterized by a lack of differentiation between words and referents to Level 4 -in which words are autonomous units with meanings, andthey hypothesize an adult Level 5 when there is formal expression of the idea that words areintegrated into a system of relationships between signifiers. The scoringof the subjects , definitions by their levels is as follows:
Level of definition Group Totals (Papandropoulou & Sinclair) Basic Intermediate High
None 1 1 0 2
Level 1 0 0 1 1
Level 2 2 6 0 8
Level 3 5 1 3 9
Level 4 11 10 11 32
Level 5 1 2 5 8
Totals 20 20 20 60
This system does not differentiate clearly between anyof the three groups. The most frequent kind of definition in all groups wasLevel 4.
These results suggest that the Papandropoulou and Sinclairscale is not purely developmental, tha:t the hypothesizedLevel 5 may not be typical of adults, and that other factors than degree ofliteracy may be important in the ability to define the word.
15 -12- 2 we have their As part of the interview datafrom the bilingual subjects judgements on whether itis more difficult or easier for abilingual have their stated to learn to read and writethan for a monolingual, and we preference for using Spanish,English, or both. The question about difficulty much of learning to read and write is so vaguethat the responses cannot bear
interpretation, but it is of interest tonote.that there is no significant variation in terms of reading level. Ten subjects responded that it. was write, 10 that it was more difficult for thebilingual to learn to read and individual, easier, 6 that it made no difference,1 that it depended on the
and from onethere was no response. Those who found it difficult had a of 5.5, median reading level of 6.9, thosewho found it easy had a median
and the no difference subjects6.25.
attitude responses Of somewhat greater interest isthe relation between the
and the language experience of thesubjects. The bilingual subjects fell Those who had been living into three categories of bilingualexperience: Spanish was the in the U.S. and raised bilinguallyfrom birth, those for whom
first language (whether born inthe U.A. or elsewhere) and English was
acquired at school, and those ofSpanish first language who had had some
education in Spanish before coming tothe U.S. Thedata may be summarized
as follows: Judgments of difficulty for bilingual to learn Preference for language use Bilingual Experience to read and write Totals no English both diffeasy diff other Spanish
1 9 Bilingual from birth 4 2 3 1 10
Spanish first, 1 1 12 4 4 4 English at school 5 . 5
Spanish first early education in 2 2 Spanish 1 3 2 0 6 2
15 6 TOTALS 10 10 6 2 28 7
-13- 16 The numbers are too small and the questions too vagueto draw firm conclusions
from these results, but it is of interest that theU.S,-born bilinguals from
birth predominately prefer English and tend to regardlearning to read and
write as more difficult for a bilingual, whereas theother subjects show no
clear trend in language preference and those with someearly education in
Spanish tend to regard the bilingual's task aseasier.
Conclusions
This small research study was frustrating becauseit is next to impossible
to find completely non-literate adults inmodern highly literate societies
such as the U.S.A., and some hypotheses onthe role of literacy in human
language processing are correspondingly difficult to testin a pure form.
We expected these difficulties but the frustrationremained. Unexpectedly,
however, it also tended to be difficult to find as manynon-literate Spanish-
English bilinguals as we needed to match ourmomolingual English subjects.
In spite of these frustrations the studyproduced some highly suggestive
results:
(1) On the basis of data from studentinterviews of 60 adult subjects attending adult education classes, metalinguistic awarenessat the level of
word segmentation i.e. recognition of words asunits and the location of
word boundaries, correlates well with readinglevel as measured by a standard
battery of tests, not with age or amount ofschooling. Thus this aspect of
metalinguistic awareness seems not to be simplymaturational. The problem
remains of the directionality of therelationship: does increased literacy
lead to greaLer awareness or is greater awareness aprerequisite to progress
in literacy? This same problem of the directionality ofthe relationship
between metalinguistic awareness and readingskills appeared in our research A
constituents of consonantclusters on preschoolchildren's awareness of the
(cf. Barton et al. 1980). of die ability to define theword (2) The developmental scales inadequate for analyzing proposed by Litowitz andPapandropoulou & Sinclair are language research, presumed adult definitions. As in other means of child
adult target behavior turns out, oninvestigation, quite different from well as the form and content of expectations. Ability to define words as related to definitions elicited are complexphenomena, only in small part
reading level. number of subjects (26 bilingualsand (3) On the basis of a small sex) there is no significant 26 monolinguals matchedfor reading level, age, and
difference between adult non-literatebilinguals and monolinguals in measured by metalinguiatic awareness at thelevel of word segmentation, as
We had hypothesized thatthe our compositeSegmental Awareness scores. languages would be bilinguals, having experiencein word segmentation in two who look for significantly superior tomonolinguals; other researchers hypothesized the converse. cognitive disadvantagesfor bilingualsmight have importance Neither hypothesis wasconfirmed. This issue is of sufficient under varied conditions that further research onlarger numbers of subjects
of bilingualism shouldbe pursued. data from 28 Spanish-Englishbilinguals (4) On the basis of self-report Spanish first, Englishacquired of three categories(10 bilingual from birth; 12 in Spanish-speakingcountry) the at school; 6 Spanishfirst and early schooling "both" (9 to 1) and bilinguals from birth preferEnglish rather than Spanish or difficult for a bilingual tend to regard learning toread and write as more show no language preferenceand than for a monolingual. The other subjects regard the bilingual's the subjects with earlyschooling in Spanish tend to although very tentativelyconsidering task as easier. This finding suggests,
-43S a
the mall number of subjects and the self-report natureof the data, that
American Spanish-English bilinguals from birth have aself-image of being disadvantaged and that early instruction in the mother tongue mayfacilitate literacy development.
Other data from the interviews unanalyzed at theead of the grant period will be made available for study by graduate students atStanford interested in metalinguistic awareness,_Ifteracy,bilinguals, or bilingual education. Footnotes
studies undertakenunder the 1This study was regarded aspart of a series of relating to different aspects of auspices of theChild Phonology Project study in the series, metalinguistic awareness. For a report on another framework was presenLed cf.Barton et al. 1980. A more general theoretical Stanford is a continuing in Ferguson 1980. The Child Phonology Project at development in children; operation, focusing on variousaspects of phonological Science Foundation, the it has been supportedby grants from the National Education, the National Institute of Health,the National Institute of
William T. Grant Foundation,and Stanford University.
subjects, i.e. 2Attitudinal and other data areavailable from 28 bilingual
two in addition to the26 matched withmonolinguals. References
Barton, D., Miller, R. &Macken, M.A. 1980. Dochildren treat clusters as Languaae Development 18.105-137. one unit or two?Papers and Reports on Child
Ferguson, C.A. & Farwell, C.B. 1975.Words and sounds in early language acquisition. Language 51.419-439.
Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C.A. &Moravscik, E. (eds.) 1978. Universals of human language, Vol. 3 Word Structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford TUniversity Press.
Juilland, A.G. 1977. The decline of the word. Saratoga, AnMa
Litowitz, B. 1977. Learning to make definitions. Journal of Child Language,- 4.289-304.
Matthews, P.H. 1974. Morphology: an introduction to the theory of word structure. London: Cambridge University Press.
Papandropoulou, I. & Sinclair, H. 1974. What is a word? Human Development 17.241-258.
Sinclair, A., Jarvella, R.J. & Levelt, W.J.M.1978. The child's conception of lanauage. New York: Springer Verlag. 4
Papers and Oral PresentationsResulting from the Study
The following papers and oralpresentations resulted directly fromthe research of the project:
Awareness of the segmental 1. Barton, D.& Hamilton, M.E. 1980. structure of English in adults ofvarious literacy levels.
Lecture 2. Ferguson, C.A. 1981. Language awareness and literacy. givetiat the School of Audiology andSpeech Sciences, University of British Columbia, VancouverB.C., Caniada, February 12, 1981.
A word is a word: metalinguistic 3. Hamilton, M.R. & Barton, D. 1980. skills in adults of varying literacylevels. To appear in a slightly revised version in the Journalof Psycholingdistic Research.
Bilingual adults' attitudes to learning toread and. 4. Hovey, R. 1980. write. Term paper based on the project.
Copies of items 1. and 3. areincluded with this report.