Spelling English as a Foreign Language: A Narrative Review of Cross-Language Influences Due to Distance in Writing System, Orthography and Phonology
Saved in:
| Title: | Spelling English as a Foreign Language: A Narrative Review of Cross-Language Influences Due to Distance in Writing System, Orthography and Phonology |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Sammour-Shehadeh, Rana, Kahn-Horwitz, Janina (ORCID |
| Source: | Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Oct 2023 36(8):2147-2173. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 27 |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Spelling, English (Second Language), Native Language, Barriers, Distinctive Features (Language), Interference (Language), Written Language, Phonology |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11145-022-10386-z |
| ISSN: | 0922-4777 1573-0905 |
| Abstract: | The current narrative review focuses on cross-language influences (CLI) in spelling English as a foreign language (EFL). We identify three types of distance between first language (L1) and English that may impact English spelling, namely distance in writing system, in orthography and in phonology. The review describes and specifies the spelling difficulties that different groups of EFL learners may experience due to these distance types. We present a detailed examination of these inter-connected aspects of distance in order to characterize the different sources of CLI in spelling. Because CLI plays a significant role in learning a new language, understanding and characterizing the types of distance that lead to CLI has important implications for EFL instruction and learning. The empirical studies reviewed here clearly indicate that distance from L1 affects the English spelling of both beginning and advanced English learners, and this effect depends on the type of distance. In addition, we suggest that spelling difficulties are exacerbated in cases where L1 is distant from EFL in more than one way. Suggestions for future research are provided and pedagogical implications for EFL instruction are offered. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2023 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1390461 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHiXJD9mFXERa8w8daRTfXRAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDP3SkddTTJsQ1acMpQIBEICBm5Dj7NXjXRObyCWvan5A2xQAD9JHPV3iTYWw9JFaqSby7Rf-NTjh3y85BUon8bJINKAcdxbU0B92DPPXpGutkcHvo8undJFTEgNrIfpQ-qbm0sd8wsrx0xo1_biytkzADRoN_35e0TdUSC_2YUT5r7zwoFUcekaobjif57iu_mR6h25p1YcvWFJJcNdoyK3uqEhThyVqbRu8yEyu Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0170899697;2ap01oct.23;2023Aug31.03:48;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0170899697-1">Spelling English as a foreign language: a narrative review of cross-language influences due to distance in writing system, orthography and phonology </title> <p>The current narrative review focuses on cross-language influences (CLI) in spelling English as a foreign language (EFL). We identify three types of distance between first language (L1) and English that may impact English spelling, namely distance in writing system, in orthography and in phonology. The review describes and specifies the spelling difficulties that different groups of EFL learners may experience due to these distance types. We present a detailed examination of these inter-connected aspects of distance in order to characterize the different sources of CLI in spelling. Because CLI plays a significant role in learning a new language, understanding and characterizing the types of distance that lead to CLI has important implications for EFL instruction and learning. The empirical studies reviewed here clearly indicate that distance from L1 affects the English spelling of both beginning and advanced English learners, and this effect depends on the type of distance. In addition, we suggest that spelling difficulties are exacerbated in cases where L1 is distant from EFL in more than one way. Suggestions for future research are provided and pedagogical implications for EFL instruction are offered.</p> <p>Keywords: EFL; Spelling; Cross-language influences; Transfer</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-2">Introduction</hd> <p>English is spoken and written by a quarter of the world's population for accessing information technology, business, entertainment, and diplomacy, with non-native speakers substantially outnumbering native speakers (British Council, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]). Thus, learning and becoming literate in English is an important goal for many. Word reading and spelling are intertwined. Spelling is an essential component of literacy acquisition and learning about spelling is essential for reading development (Ehri, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>]; Graham &amp; Santangelo, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]; Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref4">74</reflink>]). Spelling words easily and automatically allows students to devote their attention to higher-level skills that are essential for writing, such as planning and revising (Berninger et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref5">13</reflink>]; Graham &amp; Santangelo, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref6">34</reflink>]; Harris et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref7">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Accurate spelling relies on the use of multiple sources of linguistic information, including phonology, orthography, and morphology (Treiman &amp; Bourassa, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref8">75</reflink>]). Learning how to spell in English is one of the main obstacles to acquiring literacy, because of the complexity of the English writing system, which has several reasons (Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref9">73</reflink>]). First, it has one-to-many phoneme to grapheme correspondences (PGC). For example, the phoneme /s/ can sometimes be spelled as <emph>s</emph> or as <emph>c.</emph> Second, for those phonemes that can be spelled in more than one way, the correct spelling is not always predictable. For example, the /i/ sound in the middle of a syllable can be spelled as <emph>ee, ea, ei,</emph> or <emph>ie.</emph> Third, English has many-to-one relations from graphemes to phonemes as well. In other words, two or more phonemes can be represented by the same grapheme. For example, both /ð/ and /θ/ are spelled as <emph>th</emph>. Finally, the relations between phonemes and graphemes in English are at times inconsistent due to morphological considerations (Bourassa et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>]; Nunes &amp; Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref11">53</reflink>]). For example, the suffix <emph>ed</emph> for past tense regular verbs has three different pronunciations (/d/ as in sobbed, /t/ as in jumped, /ɪd/ as in acted) but is spelled in a consistent manner. However, despite being a complex skill, spelling has received less research attention than other domains, such as reading, and this imbalance is even greater when English is not an L1.</p> <p>Studies employing error analysis to explore spelling difficulties have found that both native and non-native English learners produce similar types of errors. For example, the English orthography includes doubled consonants, such as <emph>bb</emph> in the word <emph>rabbit</emph>, which are misspelled by both native and non-native learners. Such misspellings include either replacing the doubled consonant with a single letter or adding a doubled consonant where a single letter is required (Cook, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]; Edelsky &amp; Jilbert, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref13">27</reflink>]; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref14">41</reflink>]). However, non-native learners also make errors that are a result of CLIs (also termed transfer) from their L1, as described at length below. When the native language impedes the acquisition and use of a new language and leads to errors, interference occurs. Alternatively, when the first and second languages have many similarities, the native language facilitates the acquisition and use of a new language (Bardovi-Harlig &amp; Sprouse, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref15">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>In an influential review of CLI in spelling English as a non-native language, Figueredo ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref16">31</reflink>]) delineates three ways that CLI in spelling can be evident. One type of indication of CLI is when L1 knowledge is applied to English spelling, either appropriately or inappropriately. The second manifestation of CLI is when different groups of non-native English learners vary in their English spelling performance. Finally, another indication of CLI is a positive relationship between L1 skills (such as phonological awareness and reading) and English spelling (Figueredo, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref17">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Figueredo's in-depth review convincingly demonstrated that CLI plays an important role in acquiring a new language, across various age groups (see also Degani et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref18">22</reflink>], for a recent special issue on CLI). In the current narrative review, we return to this important issue, and build on Figueredo's seminal research. Specifically, we review the literature published after the papers reviewed by Figueredo, to give an up-to-date description of the available evidence.</p> <p>Of note, the focus of the current review differs from that of Figueredo in two ways. First, Figueredo did not distinguish between individuals learning English as a second language (ESL) and those learning English as a foreign language (EFL). However, there are important differences between learning English in these two settings. In an EFL setting, students are non-native English speakers who live in a non-English-speaking country. In contrast, an ESL setting is one where non-native English speakers live in an English-speaking country, typically following immigration or relocation. Thus, these two learning contexts differ in the amount and type of language input, as well as in opportunities for communicating with native speakers of the language in daily settings (Gilquin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref19">33</reflink>]). In the current review, we chose to exclusively examine studies including EFL learners.</p> <p>Second, Figueredo's wide-ranging review discussed several aspects of CLI, including how L1 transfer is affected by the distance of L1 to English and by learners' proficiency; developmental pathways of acquiring English spelling; and the processes and mechanisms of transfer. In the current review, we focus our attention on the first of these issues, namely how different types of distance between L1 and English manifest in CLI in spelling of beginning and more advanced learners. Specifically, we claim that languages and writing systems can differ from each other on several distinct dimensions. In the current review, we identify three such types of distance, namely writing system, orthography, and phonology. Within each of these domains, it is possible to consider differences between the languages under discussion.</p> <p>The main goal of this review is to closely examine three inter-connected types of distance between L1 and English, in order to characterize the different sources of CLI in spelling. Spelling in English is challenging for all its learners, but especially for those who learn it as a foreign language, so it is important to identify and understand the factors that may influence CLI in spelling. Because of the great variability across studies in the populations tested, the experimental materials and tasks, and the analytic approaches, we determined that the format of a narrative review is the most appropriate (Collins &amp; Fauser, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]). A systematic review often calls for a rather narrow focus of the question and methods, which we wanted to avoid in the current case (Grant &amp; Booth, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref21">35</reflink>]). Further, the great methodological variability across studies would have made it difficult to quantify findings in a comparable manner. However, we do transparently present the manner of searching for relevant literature, and include a full table of the reviewed papers. Following the method section, the manuscript is organized into three sections, each identifying a different type of distance, namely distance of writing system, distance of orthography and distance of phonology. We then offer conclusions and implications for future research and instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-3">Method</hd> <p>We conducted electronic searches of the PsycINFO and ERIC databases using combinations of the following descriptors (<emph>cross-language influence, cross-linguistic influence, transfer, interference, spelling, spelling errors, spelling difficulty, English as a foreign language, foreign language learning, bilingualism, second language, writing system, orthograph*, phono*</emph>). Using the same terms, we also searched in reference lists of publications identified in the original search, and finally we used these same terms to search Google Scholar for additional gray literature (mainly theses and dissertations).</p> <p>The present review includes articles published between 2005 and 2021, as a complement and update to the previous review of CLIs in English spelling (Figueredo, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]). The review includes 28 studies that met the following criteria: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>) Spelling was examined using productive and/or receptive tasks; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref24">2</reflink>) Participants were primary or secondary school students studying EFL. In addition, we included studies that examined adults who had studied EFL during their school years, even if they were immersed in an English-speaking environment at the time of testing; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>) The study examined the influence of learners' L1 on EFL spelling (see Table 1). Regarding this final criterion, our search of the literature identified several studies that reported correlations between different L1 skills (e.g., phonological awareness, morphological awareness, spelling) and spelling performance in EFL (e.g., Abu-Rabia &amp; Siegel, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref26">3</reflink>]; Arfé &amp; Danzak, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>]; Dich, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]; Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref29">44</reflink>]; Niolaki &amp; Masterson, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref30">52</reflink>]; Russak, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref31">59</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref32">60</reflink>]; Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref33">66</reflink>]). Importantly, these studies did not distinguish between spelling of English structures that do or do not overlap with participants' L1. Correlations between literacy abilities in L1 and L2 do not necessarily point to the transfer of skills from L1 to L2, but rather they can be explained by common underlying linguistic and cognitive processes in both languages, such as phonological skills or working memory, as explained by the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (Sparks et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref34">69</reflink>]; see also Chung et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref35">16</reflink>]). We agree with this position, and therefore, we did not include such studies in the current review.</p> <p>Table 1 Studies included in the review, by distance type</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;First language&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sample&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Task&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Distance in writing system&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Abu-Rabia and Sanitsky (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr2"&gt;2010&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Russian, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;6th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Real word spelling&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bahloul (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11"&gt;2007&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adult males in a Saudi Arabian university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Written assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dunlap (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic, Spanish, Mandrin Chinese and Korean&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students enrolled in ESL courses in a US university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;They began EFL instruction in elementary school in their home countries&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Recording an oral response to an open-ended prompt and transcribing it&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Fender (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29"&gt;2008&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic and non-Arabic (Chinese, Korean and Japanese)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students enrolled in an EAP program in North America. They began EFL instruction in secondary school in their home countries&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test examining within-word, basic syllable-juncture and derivational spelling skills&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Joshi et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40"&gt;2006&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Norwegian, Chinese and Kannada; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 3 and 4 from the US, grades 5 and 6 from Norway and China, grades 7 and 8 from India&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;All children had received at least 2 years of formal instruction in English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test with familiar high-frequency words including irregular ones&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The spelling was scored as correct/incorrect and with 7-point scoring criteria &lt;bold&gt;(&lt;/bold&gt;Tangel &amp; Blachman, &lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr72"&gt;1995&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kahn-Horwitz et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43"&gt;2011&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Russian, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pseudoword spelling test examining spelling conventions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Martin (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr47"&gt;2017&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;French, Hebrew and Mandrin; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students were recruited at universities in their home countries. All non-native English-speaking participants began EFL instruction in primary school&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Word-pseudo-homophone discrimination task&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Martin et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;L1 alphabetic writing system (mainly Spanish),&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;L1 abjad (Arabic), and L1 morphosyllabary (Mandarin);&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;University students recruited from an intensive English program in a US university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Real word and pseudoword spelling tests&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Saigh and Schmitt (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students enrolled in an EAP program at a British university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test- deciding whether target vowels (short or long) in words were spelled correctly, incorrectly or were missing, and writing the correct spelling of the misspelled word&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Schwartz et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66"&gt;2007&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Russian, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling high frequency words (some words included initial and final consonant clusters), pseudoword spelling (including common orthographic patterns)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Orthographic distance&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Albalawi (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr4"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Female students enrolled in an intensive English language program in a Saudi Arabian university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Writing task and spelling task&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Alhaisoni et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5"&gt;2015&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students in their preparatory year in a Saudi Arabian university. They began EFL instruction in middle school&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Writing task&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Alzuoud and Kabilan (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8"&gt;2013&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students in a Jordanian university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Writing task&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bahloul (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11"&gt;2007&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adult males in a Saudi Arabian university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Written assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Deacon (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21"&gt;2017&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adult learners enrolled in intensive English courses in the US&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Writing task- spelling errors were analyzed&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dich (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23"&gt;2011&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Danish, Italian and Russian; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adult students recruited from universities in their home countries&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Irregular word spelling, pseudoword spelling test and filling in missing letters by using morphological cues&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dich and Pederson (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24"&gt;2013&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Danish, Italian and Russian; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students recruited from universities in their home countries. The best spellers were selected from each language group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Irregular word spelling: The number of hesitations before arriving at the correct spelling was examined, in addition to the size of sub-syllabic spelling units used when spelling&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hameed (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students in a Saudi Arabian university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Real word spelling&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Meril&amp;#228;inen (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50"&gt;2008&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finnish&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Upper secondary school students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Compositions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Saigh and Schmitt (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students enrolled in an EAP program at a British university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test- deciding whether target vowels (short or long) in words were spelled correctly, incorrectly or were missing, and writing the correct spelling of the misspelled word&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Schwartz et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pseudoword spelling test examining specific target conventions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tal (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71"&gt;2005&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 8 and 11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Word and pseudoword spelling tests (containing elements that are likely to pose spelling difficulties)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Van Berkel (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77"&gt;2005&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dutch&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students in their first and second year of secondary school. They began English instruction in secondary school&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test of familiar words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="5"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;italic&gt;Phonological distance&lt;/italic&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Allaith and Joshi (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6"&gt;2011&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 4 and 6 (study 1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 4, 6, 8 and10 (study 2)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The students began EFL instruction in grade 3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Real word spelling test (containing specific target phonemes)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Allaith and Joshi (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr7"&gt;2013&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 4 and 6 (study 1)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 4, 6, 8 and 10 (study 2)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The students began EFL instruction in grade 3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Real word spelling test (containing specific target phonemes)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bahloul (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11"&gt;2007&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adult males in a Saudi Arabian university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Written assessments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dich (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23"&gt;2011&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Danish, Italian and Russian; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Adult students recruited from universities in their home countries&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Irregular word spelling, pseudoword spelling test and filling in missing letters by using morphological cues&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gunion (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Japanese&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students enrolled in an EAP program in a British University&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test adapted from Okada (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55"&gt;2005&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kahn-Horwitz et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43"&gt;2011&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Russian, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pseudoword spelling test examining spelling conventions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Meril&amp;#228;inen (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50"&gt;2008&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finnish&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Upper secondary school students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Compositions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Naruemon (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr51"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thai&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;First-year university students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Essays&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Okada (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr55"&gt;2005&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Japanese; native English control group&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;University students, junior high-school and senior high-school students&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Written assignments&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Russak and Kahn-Horwitz (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61"&gt;2015&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Good and poor spellers studying in grades 5, 8 and 10. They began EFL instruction in grade 3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Word and pseudoword spelling tests (containing specific target phonemes and orthographic conventions)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Saigh and Schmitt (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64"&gt;2012&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students enrolled in an EAP program at a British university&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test&amp;#8212;Deciding whether target vowels (short or long) in words were spelled correctly, incorrectly or were missing, and writing the correct spelling of the misspelled word&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Schwartz et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66"&gt;2007&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Russian, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling high frequency words (some words included initial and final consonant clusters), pseudoword spelling (including common orthographic patterns)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Schwartz et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67"&gt;2016&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Arabic, Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5th graders who received EFL instruction from 3rd third grade&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Pseudoword spelling test examining specific target conventions&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tal (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr71"&gt;2005&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hebrew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 8 and 11&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Word and pseudoword spelling tests (containing elements that are likely to pose spelling difficulties)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Van Berkel (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77"&gt;2005&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dutch&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Students in their first and second year of secondary school. They began English instruction in secondary school&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spelling test of familiar words&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Wang et al. (&lt;xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79"&gt;2020&lt;/xref&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Korean&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left" colspan="2"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Grades 4&amp;#8211;6&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Essays&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Studies within each subsection are arranged alphabetically. The same study may appear more than once, depending on the number of distance types it relates to. Information about the onset of EFL instruction is included in the table when provided by the authors of the paper</p> <p>The exclusion criteria of studies from the review included (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref36">1</reflink>) Studies conducted in countries where English has a special or official status, such as Singapore, or in countries where English is taught during early childhood years, such as Hong Kong (Li et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref37">46</reflink>]); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>) Studies with missing information regarding participants' age or current or previous learning setting (whether it was ESL or EFL).</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-4">Distance of the writing systems of L1 and English</hd> <p>Writing systems vary in how they represent linguistic units. In alphabetic writing systems, such as English and French, letters represent both vowels and consonants, whereas in consonantal writing systems (also called abjads), such as Hebrew and Arabic, letters mainly represent consonants. In contrast to these sound-based writing systems, meaning-based writing systems connect written symbols and meaning directly. For example, Mandarin and Cantonese (Chinese languages) are considered morpho-syllabaries in which characters represent morphemes (Cook &amp; Bassetti, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]). The L1 literacy experience of English learners with different writing systems may affect spelling knowledge and performance in English (e.g., Joshi et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>] and see below).</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-5">Adult studies</hd> <p>The impact of distance in writing systems on spelling has been examined in several studies. Martin ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref41">47</reflink>]) examined English whole-word spelling knowledge and sensitivity to different types of misspellings, using a word-pseudohomophone discrimination task. Participants were presented with two possible spellings (e.g., <emph>cloud</emph> and <emph>kloud</emph>) of a word they heard (/klaʊd/) and were asked to indicate which of the two spellings was correct. Martin compared native English-speaking participants to three groups of English learners with L1s representing the continuum of writing systems: French (an alphabet), Hebrew (an abjad), and Mandarin Chinese (a morpho-syllabary). The L1 Chinese speakers had the highest overall accuracy, followed by the L1 Hebrew and the L1 French speakers, indicating that L1 literacy in a morpho-syllabary is linked to stronger orthographic knowledge skills, which can transfer to an additional language and improve whole-word spelling knowledge. Additionally, L1 Chinese and L1 Hebrew speakers identified misspelled consonants more accurately than misspelled vowels, whereas L1 French speakers were similarly accurate for both categories. Specifically, the learners with an abjad writing system, which mainly represents consonant graphemes, exhibited the least sensitivity to misspelled vowels in English, reinforcing the conclusion that the characteristics of a learner's L1 writing system influence the development of English spelling.</p> <p>In a second study, Martin and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref42">49</reflink>]) examined real word and pseudoword spelling accuracy of English learners from L1 alphabetic (mostly Spanish speakers), abjad (Arabic speakers) and morpho-syllabic (Mandarin Chinese speakers) writing systems. The morpho-syllabic L1 speakers had the highest real word spelling accuracy representing the memorization of an orthographic string for a real word, but very low pseudoword spelling accuracy, which requires knowledge of phoneme-grapheme correspondences. Once again, spelling accuracy was much lower for vowel phonemes than consonant phonemes, and this pattern was most prominent among the abjad L1 speakers (see also Dunlap, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref43">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several studies have focused specifically on the English spelling knowledge of adult Arabic speakers (e.g., Bahloul, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref44">11</reflink>]; Deacon, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]; Fender, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref46">29</reflink>]; Saigh &amp; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref47">64</reflink>]) and found that these learners struggled with English spelling and made more errors than other learner groups. For example, Fender ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref48">29</reflink>]) found that L1 Arabic speakers had more difficulty than a comparison group, including speakers of Chinese, Korean and Japanese, in spelling orthographically complex words that did not involve common grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs). More specifically, the groups performed similarly in spelling monosyllabic words that have common sound-letter spellings (e.g., cut, dress, train), but Arabic speakers were less accurate when spelling less common digraphs (a digraph is a pair of different letters that represent one phoneme, such as the consonant digraph <emph>sh</emph> and the vowel digraph <emph>ea</emph>; Nunes &amp; Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref49">53</reflink>]). Arabic speakers were also less accurate in using open and closed syllable-spelling patterns and derivational spelling patterns. Fender ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref50">29</reflink>]) argued that Arabic speakers have less detailed English spelling information in their orthographic lexicons. Specifically, he argued that when recognizing words in Arabic, which lack short-vowel information, Arabic speakers focus on the consonant structure of words and on extra-linguistic sources of knowledge, such as sentence context and morphological knowledge (Abu-Rabia, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]). If they then similarly focus on consonant structure and sentence context when reading in English, this would lead to underspecified knowledge during English reading, which would impede the development of English spelling skills.</p> <p>Further examining the English spelling of native Arabic speakers, Saigh and Schmitt ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref52">64</reflink>]) examined the English spelling performance of long and short vowels. Participants judged the spelling accuracy of words containing short and long vowels, with each vowel occurring in three conditions: a correct, incorrect (vowel represented by different vowel grapheme) and omitted vowel condition. Participants were moderately accurate when judging long vowels, but much less accurate when judging short vowels. The researchers suggest that this pattern of results can be explained by the fact that long vowels are more salient than short ones. More importantly, they cite participants' L1 literacy experience with the Arabic writing system, in which long vowels are represented by letters but short vowels are either omitted or indicated by diacritic marks, as a plausible explanation. In contrast, Deacon ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]) did not find any significant differences between short and long vowel omission errors in L1 Arabic speakers' writing, suggesting that error rates were independent of vowel length. Given that Deacon's ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref54">21</reflink>]) and Saigh and Schmitt's ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref55">64</reflink>]) studies did not include control groups, their results should be interpreted with caution.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-6">Child studies</hd> <p>Whereas some studies assessed the spelling performance of adult participants, others were carried out with children. Joshi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref56">40</reflink>]) examined the spelling performance of Chinese-speaking children (fifth and sixth grade), Kannada-speaking children from India (seventh and eighth grade), Norwegian-speaking children (fifth and sixth grade) as well as English speakers from the United States (third and fourth grade). The writing systems of these languages differ from one another as follows: Norwegian is alphabetic, Kannada is alphabetic-syllabic and Chinese is morpho-syllabic. At the time of testing all children had received at least two years of formal instruction in English. Participants performed a spelling test of familiar high-frequency regular and irregular words. Spelling performance was coded on overall accuracy, and according to its phonological approximation to the target words (Tangel &amp; Blachman, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref57">72</reflink>]). The American third graders outperformed the other three groups, but there was no significant difference in spelling accuracy between the younger students in the Chinese, Norwegian and Kannada groups. The older Chinese children performed significantly more poorly than the other three older groups, but there was no significant difference between the Kannada and the Norwegian speakers. However, when spellings were assessed according to the degree of phonological approximation to the target word, Chinese speakers at both grade levels performed significantly more poorly than the comparable groups from India and Norway. The researchers concluded that the nature of the L1 writing system and the understanding that words can be analyzed into phonetic elements can promote spelling in English. The findings of Joshi et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref58">40</reflink>]) that Chinese speakers had a lower degree of phonological approximation to the target words in spelling than the other groups are compatible with those of Martin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref59">49</reflink>]) showing that Chinese speakers had very low pseudoword spelling accuracy.</p> <p>Several studies have compared the English spelling of L1 Hebrew speakers and L1 Russian speakers in Israel. As mentioned earlier, Hebrew employs an abjad writing system in which letters mainly represent consonants, whereas both Russian and English use alphabetic writing systems where letters represent both consonants and vowels. Kahn-Horwitz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref60">43</reflink>]) compared fifth-grade Russian-Hebrew bi-literate bilinguals (with literacy skills in L1 Russian and L2 Hebrew), Russian-Hebrew mono-literate bilinguals (with L2 Hebrew literacy knowledge and L1 Russian spoken language knowledge), and Hebrew monolinguals on the spelling of short vowels in English. Russian-Hebrew bi-literate bilinguals demonstrated an advantage over the other two groups for spelling of short vowels. The authors explain that this is most likely due to their literacy experience with a writing system in which vowels are represented by letters. A second study also examining a population similar in grade and L1 background (Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref61">66</reflink>]) reported that once again the bi-literate bilinguals performed above the other two groups on all pseudoword spelling measures. Bi-literate bilinguals also performed more accurately than their monolingual peers on a vowel spelling measure, but the difference with the mono-literate bilinguals did not reach significance. The researchers concluded that literacy in L1 Russian is a significant contributor to English basic literacy skills. Thus, there seems to be a facilitating effect of Russian-English resemblance, as they are both alphabetic writing systems with letters representing consonants and vowels. Abu-Rabia and Sanitsky ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]) reached similar conclusions. Namely, they found that Russian-Hebrew bilingual sixth graders outperformed L1 Hebrew speakers on English spelling, most likely due to the similarity between the alphabetic Russian and English writing systems.</p> <p>To summarize, the studies reviewed above demonstrate that the distance between the English writing system, which is alphabetic, and English learners' L1 writing system seems to affect spelling in English. Learners with a morpho-syllabic writing system in their L1 (Mandarin and Cantonese speakers) performed poorly on pseudoword English spelling tasks, compared to other groups with non-morphosyllabic writing systems. Learners with an abjad writing system in their L1 (Arabic and Hebrew speakers) exhibited a greater difficulty in spelling vowels and were less sensitive to misspelled vowels in English, relative to L1 learners with alphabetic writing systems. These distance effects between learners' L1 writing systems and English on English spelling were evident among both child and adult learners. Closely related to the issue of distance in writing systems is the consideration of orthographic distance, which we address next.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-7">Orthographic distance between L1 and English</hd> <p>Distance between L1 and English can also be described in terms of the characteristics of the orthography within alphabetic writing systems, including considerations of orthographic depth. Orthographic conventions and differences across orthographies in phoneme-to-grapheme and grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences for shared phonemes or graphemes are critical regarding a description of orthographic distance.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-8">Orthographic depth</hd> <p>Orthographic depth refers to the reliability of grapheme-phoneme and phoneme-grapheme correspondences. The relationship between orthography and phonology varies along a continuum (e.g., Frost et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref63">32</reflink>]; Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref64">68</reflink>]). Some orthographies, such as English and Danish, are considered deep, requiring phoneme-grapheme and grapheme-phoneme correspondence mapping, as well as decoding of larger grain sizes than graphemes, including syllables and rimes (Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref65">80</reflink>]). Other orthographies, such as Italian and Spanish, are considered shallow, with consistent mappings from graphemes to phonemes and from phonemes to graphemes. However, most alphabetic orthographies (e.g., English, Russian, French, Dutch, German) are more consistent in the feedforward than in the feedback direction, namely they are more consistent in the grapheme-phoneme direction than in the phoneme-grapheme direction (Caravolas, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref66">15</reflink>]). Schmalz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref67">65</reflink>]) proposed that orthographic depth is a conglomerate of two separate constructs. The first construct is the <emph>unpredictability</emph> of spelling-sound correspondences. The second one is the <emph>complexity</emph> of these correspondences, with complex correspondences defined as those that are multi-letter (e.g., <emph>sh</emph> represents the sound /ʃ/) and/or context-sensitive (e.g., <emph>g</emph> followed by <emph>i</emph> is pronounced /dʒ/). Schmalz demonstrated that the two constructs can be dissociated.</p> <p>Learning to spell in a deep orthography like English can be extremely challenging for those whose L1 orthography is shallow (Seymour et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref68">68</reflink>]). Dich ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref69">23</reflink>]) conducted an in-depth investigation exploring how the depth of L1 orthography impacts EFL spelling, by examining the spelling performance of adult L1 Italian, Russian and Danish speakers, compared to a control group of L1 English speakers. The study included several spelling tasks. The first task tested participants' ability to spell words using morphological cues by filling in missing letters. In order to verify whether participants relied on morphological cues rather than spelling the word from memory, they were asked to describe the specific strategy they used. Russian and Danish speakers, whose L1 orthography is deep (Russian is deep for spelling but shallow for reading), were more accurate in completing the appropriate letter, and reported using more morphological strategies than Italian learners. These results support the notion that learners with deep L1 orthographies develop the ability to consider larger grain size units than phoneme-grapheme correspondences, and that this ability may transfer across languages (Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref70">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, the results from two additional measures in the study were not fully aligned with the idea of how L1 orthographic depth might impact EFL spelling. First, in a pseudoword spelling task, tapping phonological skills, Italian speakers performed less accurately than Russian and Danish speakers, who did not differ from each other. This is unexpected because having a shallow orthography, like Italian, is thought to be beneficial for the development of phonological skills. However, error analysis demonstrated the largest group differences in the spelling of consonant clusters. Thus, the learners' performance may have been affected by their phonological systems: The more complex syllable structure in Danish and Russian may promote learners' awareness of consonant clusters, which could transfer to an additional language and facilitate spelling (see more on this in the next section). Second, in an irregular word spelling task, tapping whole-word memorization skills, the depth of L1 orthography did not predict accuracy. However, participants who had experience in spelling an L1 with a deep orthography reported using whole-word visual strategies, which were transferred to L2. English speakers reported relying the most on visual strategies, followed by Danish speakers, Russian speakers, and finally Italians. On the other hand, Italian speakers with a transparent orthography relied on phonetic strategies more than the other groups.</p> <p>In a follow-up study with participants recruited from the same groups, Dich and Pederson ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref71">24</reflink>]) used a dynamic approach to assess the spelling of a list of commonly misspelled irregular words by logging keystrokes during typing (Strömqvist et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref72">70</reflink>]). There were no differences in the number of within-word hesitations across the groups. However, within-rime intervals (between vowel and coda) were significantly shorter than those between onset and rime, but only in English and Danish speakers. The researchers proposed that these cross-linguistic differences may be caused by the transfer of strategies that participants use when spelling in their L1. That is to say, spellers parse words when typing in their L2 the same way they would do when spelling in their L1, which is related to the grain-size of the L1 orthography (Ziegler &amp; Goswami, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref73">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Considerations of orthographic depth can similarly be pertinent in cases where there is also distance in writing system between L1 and English. Therefore, in addition to the distance between the Arabic and English writing systems mentioned in the previous section, which helps explain L1 Arabic speakers' difficulties in English spelling, the difference in orthographic depth is another factor proposed to explain these difficulties. Deacon ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]) analyzed the distribution of consonant, short vowel and long vowel errors in English texts written by adult Arabic speakers who had completed more than four months of intensive English study in the United States. Participants made significantly more vowel than consonant errors, in accordance with previous studies (e.g., Dunlap, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]). Deacon attributed this finding to the deep English orthography and the greater variance in vowel grapheme-phoneme correspondences (GPCs), which makes learning vowels more difficult. Errors in choosing the right grapheme, especially for vowels, were the most common error type. Deacon proposed that Arabic speakers have poor orthographic representations for whole-word forms, and mostly rely on phonological representations when spelling, using a simple and limited set of GPCs.</p> <p>English orthographic depth, manifested by large variation in vowel GPCs and phoneme-grapheme correspondences (PGCs), was also suggested to account for the finding that adult Arabic speakers had greater success in noticing missing vowels than incorrectly spelled vowels in an English spelling task (Saigh &amp; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref76">64</reflink>]). According to the researchers, Arabic speakers have difficulty distinguishing between the different vowel letters because of the many variations of their spelling in English in comparison to the high consistency of their spelling in the Arabic orthography. In fact, many studies that attempted to identify and understand the English spelling difficulties of Arabic speakers ascribe them to the differences in orthographic depth between Arabic and English, with the latter being more complex and varied in terms of PGCs, leading to multiple spelling errors (e.g., Albalawi, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>]; Alhaisoni et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref78">5</reflink>]; Alzuoud &amp; Kabilan, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref79">8</reflink>]; Bahloul, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref80">11</reflink>]; Hameed, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref81">37</reflink>]. See also Martin &amp; Juffs, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref82">48</reflink>], on complex GPCs in English).</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-9">Orthographic conventions</hd> <p>Aside from the difference in orthographic depth between L1 and English, another manifestation of orthographic distance relates to orthographic conventions. One example of an orthographic convention in English is the digraph. Another orthographic structure is the doubled consonant, which marks the sound of the preceding vowel. If conventions such as digraphs and doubled consonants are not present in a learners' L1 orthography, learning to spell them correctly in EFL may be difficult. Several studies explored the spelling of these orthographic conventions among different groups of EFL learners.</p> <p>Tal ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref83">71</reflink>]) examined the spelling of doubled consonants among Hebrew-speaking eighth and 11<sups>th</sups> graders. Although the spelling accuracy of words with doubled consonants was high among both age groups, it was still significantly lower than control words (matched on length, frequency, and letter identity). Importantly, the spelling of pseudowords with doubled consonants (such as <emph>kinner</emph>, <emph>piff</emph>) was much less accurate than that of real words, suggesting that students seem to memorize the spelling of words with doubled consonants, but they find it difficult to apply the rule to new words. Likewise, in a recent intervention study, Kahn-Horwitz ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref84">41</reflink>]) found doubled consonants to be a rather challenging convention to acquire by strong and struggling ninth-grade Hebrew-speaking students.</p> <p>Schwartz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref85">67</reflink>]) examined the pseudoword spelling performance of fifth-grade Arabic and Hebrew speakers on various English orthographic conventions, including short vowels, vowel digraphs <emph>ee</emph> and <emph>oo</emph> and the consonant digraph <emph>th</emph>. Both groups struggled to accurately spell vowel digraphs, probably because this structure – two letters representing a single phoneme – does not exist in either of the L1s. Both groups also struggled to accurately spell the different short vowels (with the exception of the short vowel /æ/ represented by the grapheme <emph>a,</emph> that exists as a phoneme in Arabic—Arabic speakers were successful in spelling this phoneme). Hebrew speakers struggled to spell the consonant digraph <emph>th</emph> but the Arabic speakers spelled it with high accuracy, despite it being a novel orthographic convention. This group difference is most likely because the phonemes /ð/ and /θ/ are part of the phonemic inventory of Arabic but not of Hebrew (see more on this below). An additional study examined the spelling of consonant and vowel digraphs in Hebrew-speaking eighth and 11<sups>th</sups> graders, whose L1 does not include digraphs (Tal, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref86">71</reflink>]). Adolescents from both age groups were significantly less accurate when spelling words and pseudowords containing digraphs than when spelling control items. Further, vowel digraphs were spelled less accurately overall than consonant digraphs.</p> <p>The results of these studies demonstrate that learners of English who speak an L1 with an orthography that does not include digraphs encounter difficulty acquiring these spelling conventions in English. However, different digraphs pose different difficulty levels, depending on their type (consonants or vowels) and whether they represent familiar phonemes for the learners. These issues are taken up in the discussion section.</p> <p>Another orthographic convention in English is the use of capital letters. Difference in the rules for using capital letters between the learners' L1 and English may lead to CLI. In Finnish, unlike English, the names of nationalities and languages, among others, are not capitalized. Accordingly, Meriläinen ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref87">50</reflink>]) demonstrated that speakers of Finnish as an L1 showed capitalization errors in English, due to CLI from their L1.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-10">Orthographic mis-mappings</hd> <p>Difficulties in English spelling can also arise due to orthographic mis-mappings, which may occur when two languages sharing the same script (the Roman alphabet) use different graphemes to represent the same phoneme. A single study testing Dutch-speaking students in the beginning stages of learning English during their secondary education found that they occasionally spelled the phoneme /ʃ/ as <emph>sj</emph> (*<emph>sjoe</emph> instead of <emph>shoe</emph>) and the phoneme /j/ as <emph>j</emph> (*<emph>jello</emph> instead of <emph>yellow</emph>), due to L1 influence (Van Berkel, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref88">77</reflink>]). However, these phoneme-grapheme correspondence errors were not common. We were unable to identify additional studies examining this phenomenon within the review period and suggest that this issue is worthy of further research.</p> <p>To sum up this section, orthographic distance between learners' L1 and English, manifested by differences in orthographic depth and conventions, has an effect on English spelling. The specifics of how such CLI is expressed can differ depending on the target spelling being tested (Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref89">67</reflink>]) and the task demands (e.g., Dich, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref90">23</reflink>]). Further, CLI rooted in differences in orthographic depth continues being evident in learners even following several years of English instruction, as in the case of Arabic-speaking university students who make English vowel spelling errors (e.g., Deacon, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref91">21</reflink>]). In addition, the absence of spelling conventions, such as digraphs and doubled consonants from the learners' L1, or differences between the rules for using conventions (such as capital letters) may also impede the spelling of these English conventions. Whereas some of these conventions are mastered early on, others continue to pose difficulties even for advanced learners in their secondary education. Differences in the graphemic representation of phonemes shared by the leaners' L1 and English may also cause spelling difficulties in English.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-11">Phonological distance between L1 and English</hd> <p>Acquiring English spelling means learning the accurate way of representing speech sounds in writing. Consequently, an additional source of CLI from L1 on EFL spelling can be phonological differences between the languages, both in their phonemic inventory and in the syllable structure.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-12">Phonemic inventory</hd> <p>A major manifestation of the phonological distance between two languages pertains to the phonemic inventory. Several studies in the field of EFL have found that the presence of phonemes in the learners' L1 usually facilitates spelling in English, whereas the absence of phonemes from their L1 may impede spelling (e.g., L1 Arabic, Allaith &amp; Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref92">6</reflink>]; L1 Russian, Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref93">43</reflink>]; L1 Hebrew, Russak &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref94">61</reflink>]; L1 Dutch, Van Berkel, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref95">77</reflink>]; L1 Finnish, Meriläinen, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref96">50</reflink>]; L1 Japanese, Okada, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref97">55</reflink>]; L1 Thai, Naruemon, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref98">51</reflink>]; L1 Korean, Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref99">79</reflink>]). For example, Schwartz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref100">67</reflink>]) compared the English spelling of elementary school L1 Arabic and L1 Hebrew-speaking children and found that Arabic speakers, who were familiar with the phoneme /æ/ from their L1, outperformed Hebrew speakers on the spelling of this phoneme. On the other hand, Hebrew speakers outperformed Arabic speakers on the spelling of the phoneme /p/ because they were familiar with it from their L1. In line with this, Allaith and Joshi ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref101">6</reflink>]) found that elementary school Arabic-speaking children performed similarly to English-speaking children on the spelling of the phonemes /t/ and /d/, which exist in both languages. However, they were less accurate than English-speaking students in spelling the phonemes /p/ and /v/, which do not exist in Arabic, and there was only small improvement from fourth to 10th grade. Adult Arabic speakers were also found to confuse /b/ and /p/ in spelling as well as the vowel phonemes /ɪ/ and /ɛ/, because there is no equivalent to the latter sound in Arabic (Saigh &amp; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref102">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>Phonemic overlap between L1 and English also plays a role when spelling novel phonemes represented by novel orthographic structures in English, such as digraphs. For example, Kahn-Horwitz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref103">43</reflink>]) compared L1 Hebrew- and L1 Russian-speaking elementary school children and found that both groups experienced difficulty with spelling the digraph <emph>th</emph>. The digraph <emph>th</emph> is considered a novel orthographic structure and represents novel phonemes (/ð/ and /θ/) for both groups. However, L1 Russian-speaking children exhibited an advantage in spelling the digraph <emph>ch</emph>, which represents a phoneme that exists in their L1 but not in the Hebrew speakers' L1. Similarly, Schwartz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref104">67</reflink>]) found that Arabic speakers outperformed Hebrew speakers on spelling the consonant digraph <emph>th</emph> which is a novel orthographic structure for both groups but represents a phoneme that is familiar only to Arabic speakers.</p> <p>Nevertheless, it appears that phonemic overlap between L1 and English sometimes is not sufficient to facilitate spelling in English, as in the case of diglossia. Diglossia is a situation where two varieties of the same language coexist throughout a speech community, with each one having different social functions, as in Arabic (Ferguson, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref105">30</reflink>]; Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref106">63</reflink>]). Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) is used across the Arab world for writing and formal communication, whereas Spoken or Colloquial Arabic is used for everyday conversation and encompasses all spoken Arabic dialects. MSA and Spoken Arabic have overlapping, albeit non-identical, phonemic inventories (Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref107">62</reflink>]). Allaith and Joshi ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref108">7</reflink>]) explored the effect of the diglossic nature of Arabic on English spelling, and specifically examined how the presence of phonemes in the learners' oral language, but not in their written language experience, influences spelling in English. They found that Bahraini Arabic-speaking elementary school students made more errors than their native English-speaking counterparts on English phonemes that exist only in Bahraini Spoken Arabic but not in MSA (the written variety). In contrast, there was no difference between the two groups in spelling English phonemes which exist in both varieties of Arabic. Thus, the presence of a phoneme in learners' oral language is insufficient to facilitate its spelling in English when it is absent from the written variety, and positive CLI from L1 to English requires knowledge of grapheme-phoneme correspondence in L1 (see also Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref109">43</reflink>], for supporting evidence).</p> <p>Whereas "foreign" phonemes usually pose difficulty for English learners, the influx of new words including these phonemes to the learners' L1 can expand the phonemic inventory of the language over time, such that previously foreign phonemes become familiar. For example, although the phoneme /w/ is foreign to Hebrew, it did not pose spelling difficulties for Hebrew-speaking eighth and 11th graders because some borrowed words from English including this phoneme (e.g., <emph>Word, Windows, Wikipedia</emph>) have entered Hebrew (Tal, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref110">71</reflink>]). Similar findings were observed with the phonemes /w/ and /dʒ/ among fifth-grade L1 Hebrew and bilingual Russian-Hebrew speakers (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref111">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-13">Syllable structure</hd> <p>Phonological distance between two languages is also evident in the structure of syllables. In English, consonant clusters—combinations of consecutive consonants with no intervening vowels between them—may consist of two or three consonants in word-initial and word-final positions (Treiman, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref112">73</reflink>]). Several studies have demonstrated that spelling consonant clusters in English may pose a challenge for learners whose L1 does not include such phonological structures. For example, Modern Standard Arabic does not have initial consonant clusters (Saiegh-Haddad, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref113">62</reflink>]) and only allows clusters of two consecutive consonants in word-final positions; moreover, consonant clusters are overall more prevalent in English than in Arabic (Odisho, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref114">54</reflink>]). As a result, Arabic speakers learning English have difficulty in spelling consonant clusters, and they sometimes insert short vowels, either before or within the cluster (Bahloul, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref115">11</reflink>]; Saigh &amp; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref116">64</reflink>]). Similarly, Japanese speakers sometimes insert extra vowels when spelling English consonant clusters because the Japanese mora is generally formed by a consonant and a vowel (Gunion, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref117">36</reflink>]; Okada, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref118">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>Along similar lines, adult Italian speakers were less accurate than Danish and Russian speakers on spelling English pseudowords containing consonant clusters (Dich, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref119">23</reflink>]). This is most likely because both Danish and Russian include clusters of up to four consonants, but Italian only includes clusters of up to three consonants and the number of permitted consonant combinations is limited. Schwartz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref120">66</reflink>]) reported that Russian-Hebrew bilingual children also outperformed L1 Hebrew-speaking children on spelling English pseudowords including consonant clusters. However, two additional studies (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref121">43</reflink>]; Russak &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref122">61</reflink>]) found that Hebrew-speaking children and adolescents were able to accurately spell English words and pseudowords including clusters consisting of two consecutive consonants. These findings can be explained by the fact that biconsonantal clusters exist in Hebrew (Asherov &amp; Bat-El, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref123">10</reflink>]), and once this structure is mastered, it can transfer across languages (Russak &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref124">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>To summarize this section, when EFL learners have no experience with a novel phoneme nor with its orthographic representation, they experience great difficulty when attempting to spell it in English (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref125">43</reflink>]). However, spelling performance is better when the novel orthographic pattern represents a phoneme that exists in the learners' L1. At the same time, there are cases when a novel phoneme does not pose spelling difficulties for English learners, as when it enters the learners' L1 from other languages. In addition, differences in syllable structure between L1 and English may lead to spelling difficulties. From the studies reviewed above, it appears that some spelling difficulties, arising from the phonological distance between the learners' L1 and English, may persist even after several years of instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-14">Discussion</hd> <p>In the current review of the English spelling of EFL learners, we demonstrate how distinct patterns of CLI leading to spelling difficulties may arise due to different types of distance between L1 and English. Specifically, we suggest that such distance can, and should, be conceptualized as encompassing at least three dimensions, namely distance in the writing system, orthography and phonology. Understanding and characterizing these sources of CLI that originate from the distance between L1s and EFL can have important implications for EFL instruction and learning.</p> <p>The studies reviewed above clearly indicate that distance between L1 and English can result in CLI in English spelling, and that the specific characteristics of such CLI may depend on the type of distance. The first type of distance we examined was distance between the English alphabetic writing system and learners' L1 writing system. The papers we reviewed demonstrated that learners with an L1 morpho-syllabic writing system perform poorly on pseudoword English spelling tasks (Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref126">49</reflink>]), and learners with an L1 abjad writing system are less sensitive to and commit more vowel than consonant errors in English, compared to L1 learners with alphabetic writing systems (Deacon, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref127">21</reflink>]; Dunlap, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref128">26</reflink>]; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref129">47</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref130">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another source of CLI in English spelling is orthographic distance, which is manifested by differences in orthographic depth and spelling conventions. Whether CLI originating from differences in orthographic depth is evident might depend on the specific task parameters, including spelling of real versus pseudowords (Dich, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref131">23</reflink>]). The absence of orthographic conventions, such as digraphs and doubled consonants, in the learners' L1 may also impede the spelling of some conventions in English (Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref132">67</reflink>]). Orthographic distance is also manifested by differences in the graphemic representation of phonemes shared by the leaners' L1 and English (the Roman alphabet), which may lead to spelling difficulties in English (Van Berkel, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref133">77</reflink>]).</p> <p>The final source of CLI in English spelling identified in the review is phonological distance. A major manifestation of the phonological distance between the learners' L1 and English pertains to the phonemic inventory. The studies reviewed above show that the absence of phonemes in the learners' L1 may lead to spelling difficulties when attempting to represent these phonemes in writing in EFL (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref134">42</reflink>]; Meriläinen, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref135">50</reflink>]; Naruemon, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref136">51</reflink>]; Okada, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref137">55</reflink>]; Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref138">67</reflink>]). Nonetheless, novel phonemes do not always pose difficulties for English learners, as is the case when such phonemes enter the learners' L1 from other languages and become familiar (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref139">43</reflink>]; Russak &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref140">61</reflink>]; Tal, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref141">71</reflink>]). It is important to note that the existence of phonemes in the learners' L1 is at times not sufficient to facilitate spelling in English, as in the case where they are represented by novel orthographic conventions such as digraphs (e.g., Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref142">67</reflink>]) or are only part of the oral but not the written inventory (e.g., Allaith &amp; Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref143">7</reflink>]). Complex English phonological structures, such as consonant clusters, that are not shared with the learners' L1 may also pose spelling difficulties (Dich, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref144">23</reflink>]; Gunion, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref145">36</reflink>]; Saigh &amp; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref146">64</reflink>]; Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref147">66</reflink>]).</p> <p>Spelling difficulties in English can also occur due to an interaction between two types of distance. Specifically, spelling difficulties can be more pronounced due to the joint effect of orthographic and phonological distance compared to the effect of one type of distance alone. For example, Kahn-Horwitz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref148">43</reflink>]) found that Russian and Hebrew speakers had difficulty spelling the novel orthographic structure <emph>th,</emph> which represents the phonemes /ð/ and /θ/ that are novel for both groups. However, L1 Arabic-speaking children were more successful in spelling this novel orthographic structure, most likely because the phoneme it represents exists in their L1 (Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref149">67</reflink>]). EFL spelling difficulties may also arise due to an interaction between all three distance types, i.e., distance in writing systems, orthography and phonology, as in the case of Arabic speakers, who struggle with English spelling, specifically with regards to the spelling of vowels (e.g., Saigh &amp; Schmitt, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref150">64</reflink>]). In terms of distance of writing system, in the Arabic abjad writing system, letters mainly represent consonants and long vowels, whereas short vowels, represented by diacritical marks, are usually omitted. Therefore, Arabic speakers do not pay much attention to vowels and may omit them when spelling in English or may experience more difficulties spelling vowels than consonants. In terms of orthographic distance, the phoneme-grapheme correspondence in vowels is very consistent in Arabic as compared to English, where there is a great variation in vowel spelling, which leads to inaccurate English vowel spelling. Finally, in terms of phonological distance, many English vowel phonemes are unfamiliar to Arabic speakers as they do not exist in their L1. The joint effect of the three types of distance between L1 Arabic and English exacerbates the difficulties in spelling English vowels.</p> <p>The effect of the different types of distance from L1 on English spelling is apparent among beginning as well as advanced English learners. Thus, both beginners and advanced learners experience difficulty in applying phoneme-grapheme correspondence rules when their L1 writing system is morpho-syllabic (Joshi et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref151">40</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref152">49</reflink>]), and experience more difficulty spelling English vowels than consonants when their L1 writing system is abjad, compared to spellers with an L1 alphabetic writing system (Kahn-Horwitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref153">43</reflink>]; Martin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref154">49</reflink>]). However, no study has directly compared the effect of the distance in writing systems on English spelling among beginner versus more experienced EFL spellers. In order to reach a better understanding of whether and how the effect of distance may change across time as learners become more proficient, longitudinal studies should be carried out to track the trajectory of EFL spelling of learners with different L1 writing systems.</p> <p>Similarly, the effect of orthographic distance within alphabetic writing systems on English spelling across the different stages of learning English is not clear. The few studies examining the effect of orthographic depth of learners' alphabetic L1 on English spelling were carried out on advanced adult English learners (Dich, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref155">23</reflink>]; Dich &amp; Pederson, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref156">24</reflink>]). Studies targeting how EFL learners manage to spell orthographic conventions that are absent in their L1 indicate that some of these conventions are mastered during the early stages of English acquisition (Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref157">67</reflink>]), whereas others continue to pose difficulties for more advanced learners (Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref158">41</reflink>]; Tal, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref159">71</reflink>]). As suggested above, this might depend on whether the orthographic conventions are vowels or consonants and whether they represent familiar phonemes for the learners.</p> <p>Another possible explanation why some orthographic conventions are more difficult to master than others is related to English instruction. In EFL settings, learners often receive a limited number of instructional hours in English per week (Prior et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref160">57</reflink>]; Vaisman &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref161">76</reflink>]), during which they are expected to master many different skills, including those that are not related to literacy acquisition. Therefore, English teachers may not devote sufficient time to teaching orthographic conventions. In Israel, for example, spelling instruction begins by introducing the students to the letter names, followed by grapheme-phoneme and phoneme-grapheme correspondences. However, after this initial stage, EFL teachers often rely more on whole language-based approaches, and students are provided with little explicit instruction of orthographic conventions beyond the initial stage (Humaidan &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref162">39</reflink>]; Russak &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref163">61</reflink>]). A recent intervention study found that explicit instruction of orthographic conventions was beneficial, resulting in improved EFL spelling (Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref164">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Examining the impact of phonological distance between L1 and English revealed that some phonemes that do not exist in the learners' L1 continue to pose spelling difficulties to advanced spellers, whereas others are acquired at initial stages of EFL acquisition (Allaith &amp; Joshi, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref165">6</reflink>]; Russak &amp; Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref166">61</reflink>]). Whereas CLI that originates from phonological distance may persist into intermediate and advanced stages of EFL learning, a study conducted with second graders in a second language setting found the effect of distance to diminish after a single year of instruction so that L1 Cantonese-speaking children demonstrated English spelling equivalent to that of L1 English-speaking children (Wang &amp; Geva, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref167">78</reflink>]). This illustrates the difference between EFL and ESL spelling acquisition.</p> <p>The current review highlights the effect of different distance types on different L1 groups. However, some questions remain, especially regarding the possibility that the different distance types may have distinct effects across the stages of English learning. More specifically, longitudinal EFL spelling studies may provide answers to questions such as whether distance in writing systems has a stronger effect on spelling during the initial stages of learning English, when learners have not been sufficiently exposed to the written language, whereas the effect of phonological distance on spelling persists to more advanced learning stages. Such longitudinal studies of spelling in EFL, including learners with different L1 writing systems, could shed light on whether learners with an L1 morpho-syllabic writing system exhibit CLI on EFL spelling into later stages of learning than learners with an L1 abjad. Such a finding would suggest that morpho-syllabic writing systems can be understood as being more distant from an alphabetic system than abjad writing systems. Future research might investigate the impact of the three distance types identified here by including EFL learners with L1s varying in writing system and learners with alphabetic writing systems varying in orthographic depth. It is important to examine the spelling of words and pseudo-words that contain novel phonemes represented by English orthographic conventions In addition, tracking CLI across the beginning, intermediate and advanced stages of learning English would further our understanding of the development trajectory of CLI in EFL.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-15">Pedagogical implications for EFL instruction</hd> <p>We identified three types of distance between L1 and English, namely distance in writing system, orthography, and phonology, which may impede spelling in English, and specified the spelling difficulties that may occur as a function of each. Our hope is that this specification would allow EFL teachers to anticipate the spelling difficulties that their students may encounter when spelling in English and emphasize them in teaching. For example, English teachers of students with an L1 abjad writing system should emphasize the difference between the representation of vowels in L1 and English and that every word in English must contain at least one vowel letter (Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref168">41</reflink>]). Similarly, English teachers of students with an L1 morpho-syllabic writing system should promote the students' phonological awareness skills and incorporate the phonics method in reading and spelling instruction (Humaidan &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref169">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, spelling difficulties that may occur due to an interaction between different types of distance should receive more attention than those which may occur due to one type of distance only, because the former types of spelling difficulties seem to be more persistent. For instance, a novel orthographic convention that represents a novel phoneme is expected to pose greater spelling difficulty than a novel orthographic convention that represents a familiar phoneme, and therefore English teachers should devote more time and attention to teaching it.</p> <p>Third, in addition to emphasizing the differences between the students' L1 and English, EFL teachers should also stress the similarities, especially in the initial stages of learning English, so that students can draw upon them when spelling (Humaidan &amp; Martin, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref170">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourth, given that EFL learners may have trouble in spelling some orthographic conventions, and these difficulties may persist across time, students should be exposed to explicit spelling instruction focusing on phonological, orthographic, and morphological components of English. This type of instruction has been found to be effective across an African American English context (Pittman et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref171">56</reflink>]), an English second language setting, (Robinson-Kooi &amp; Hammond, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref172">58</reflink>]) and an EFL setting (Kahn-Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref173">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fifth, because some phonemes that are absent in the learners' L1 continue to pose spelling difficulties to intermediate and advanced EFL learners, it may be advisable to provide EFL learners with increased exposure to these phonemes starting from an early age and give them numerous opportunities to practice their spelling. Instructional time at school may be devoted to emphasizing these phonemes and their corresponding graphemes that do not exist in the learners' L1. Helpful pedagogical tools might include multisensory, structured, and explicit instruction (Kaldonek-Crnjakovic, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref174">45</reflink>]). For example, the EFL teacher models the articulation of a target novel phoneme and the EFL learners articulate the novel phoneme while using a small mirror to observe the process.</p> <p>Finally, we suggest that EFL teachers should openly discuss with learners the complexities of English spelling and emphasize that acquiring English spelling is an effortful and protracted process. Such frank discussion can act to normalize students' difficulties, reduce frustration, and help in maintaining students' motivation over time.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-16">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by a scholarship from the graduate studies authority at the University of Haifa to RSS and ISF Grant 340/18 to AP.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-17">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0170899697-18">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors do not have any competing interests related to this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-19">Consent for publication</hd> <p>This work has not been published elsewhere.</p> <hd id="AN0170899697-20">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0170899697-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S. Reading in a root-based-morphology language: The case of Arabic. Journal of Research in Reading. 2002; 25: 299-309. 10.1111/1467-9817.00177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref24" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S, Sanitsky E. Advantages of bilinguals over monolinguals in learning a third language. Bilingual Research Journal. 2010; 33; 2: 173-199. 10.1080/15235882.2010.502797</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref25" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Abu-Rabia S, Siegel LS. Reading skills in three orthographies: The case of trilingual Arabic-Hebrew-English speaking Arab children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2003; 16; 7: 611-634. 10.1023/A:1025838029204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref77" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Albalawi FS. Analytical study of the most common spelling errors among Saudi female learners of English: Causes and remedies. Asian Journal of Educational Research. 2016; 4; 3: 48-62</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref78" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Alhaisoni EM, Al-Zuoud KM, Guadel DR. Analysis of spelling errors of Saudi beginner learners of English enrolled in an intensive English language program. English Language Teaching. 2015; 8; 3: 185-192. 10.5539/elt.v8n3p185</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref92" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Allaith ZA, Joshi RM. Spelling performance of English consonants among students whose first language is Arabic. Reading and Writing. 2011; 24; 9: 1089-1110. 10.1007/s11145-010-9294-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref108" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Allaith ZA, Joshi RM. How does a diglossic first language phonology influence spelling in a second language? The case of Arabic speakers' spelling of English words. Insights on Learning Disabilities. 2013; 10; 2: 5-30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref79" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Alzuoud KM, Kabilan MK. Investigating Jordanian EFL students' spelling errors at tertiary education. International Journal of Linguistics. 2013; 5; 3: 164-176. 10.5296/ijl.v5i3.3932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Arfé B, Danzak RL. The influence of first language spelling and response inhibition skills on English-as-an-additional-language spelling. Cognitive Development. 2020; 56: 100952. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Asherov D, Bat-El O. Syllable structure and complex onsets in modern Hebrew. Brill's Journal of Afroasiatic Languages and Linguistics. 2019; 11; 1: 69-95. 10.1163/18776930-01101007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bahloul, M. (2007). Spelling errors of Arab learners: Evidence of inter-graphic mapping. In C. Combe &amp; L. Barlow (Eds.), Language teacher research in the middle east (pp. 41−51). United Graphics, Inc. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0904.10</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bardovi-Harlig K, Sprouse RA. Negative versus positive transfer. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching. 2018. 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Abbott SP, Graham S, Richards T. Writing and reading: Connections between language by hand and language by eye. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2002; 35; 1: 39-56. 10.1177/002221940203500104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bourassa DC, Treiman R, Kessler B. Use of morphology in spelling by children with dyslexia and typically developing children. Memory &amp; Cognition. 2006; 34; 3: 703-714. 10.3758/BF03193589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caravolas M. Spelling development in alphabetic writing systems: A cross-linguistic perspective. European Psychologist. 2004; 9; 1: 3-14. 10.1027/1016-9040.9.1.314</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chung SC, Chen X, Geva E. Deconstructing and reconstructing cross-language transfer in bilingual reading development: An interactive framework. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 2019; 50: 149-161. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.01.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins JA, Fauser BCJM. Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews. Human Reproduction Update. 2005; 11; 2: 103-104. 10.1093/humupd/dmh058</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook VJ. L2 users and English spelling. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 1997; 18; 6: 474-488. 10.1080/01434639708666335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook VJ, Bassetti BCook VJ, Bassetti B. An introduction to researching second language writing systems. Second language writing systems. 2005; Multilingual Matters: 1-67. 10.21832/9781853597954</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> British Council (2013, August 27). The English Effect. https://<ulink href="http://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/english-effect-report-v2.pdf">www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/english-effect-report-v2.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deacon RJ. The causes of English spelling errors by Arabic learners of English. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 2017; 3; 2: 1-22. 10.32601/ejal.460951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Degani T, Prior A, Wodniecka Z. Editorial: Modulators of cross-language influences in learning and processing. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 13: 898793. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dich, N. (2011). Cross-linguistic study of spelling in English as a foreign language: The role of first language orthography in EFL spelling (Publication No. 3485096) [Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dich, N, &amp; Pederson, B. (2013). Native language effects on spelling in English as a foreign language: A time-course analysis. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 51–68. https://<ulink href="http://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/native-language-effects-on-spelling-english-as/docview/1417475634/se-2">www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/native-language-effects-on-spelling-english-as/docview/1417475634/se-2</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dich N. Development of sensitivity to phonological context in learning to spell in English: Evidence from Russian ESL speakers. Written Language &amp; Literacy. 2010; 13; 1: 99-117. 10.1075/wll.13.1.04dic</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunlap, S. (2012). Orthographic quality in English as a second language [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh] (Publication No 3532830). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edelsky C, Jilbert K. Bilingual children and writing: Lessons for all of us. The Volta Review. 1985; 87; 5: 57-72</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ehri LCSnowling MJ, Hulme C. Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. The science of reading: A handbook. 2005; Wiley: 135-154. 10.1002/9780470757642.ch8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fender, M. (2008). Spelling knowledge and reading development: Insights from Arab ESL learners. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 19–42. <ulink href="http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl">http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/rfl</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferguson CA. Diglossia. Word. 1959; 14: 47-56. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Figueredo L. Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language influence on the development of English-as-a-second language spelling skill. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2006; 19; 8: 873-905. 10.1007/s11145-006-9014-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frost R, Katz L, Bentin S. Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1987; 13; 1: 104-115. 10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.104</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilquin GGilquin G, De Knop S. Input- dependant L2 acquisition: Causative constructions in English as a foreign and second language. Applied construction grammar. 2016: Delhi; de Gruyter Mouton: 115-148. 10.1515/9783110458268-006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham S, Santangelo T. Does spelling instruction make students better spellers, readers, and writers? A meta-analytic review. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2014; 27; 9: 1703-1743. 10.1007/s11145-014-9517-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009; 26: 91-108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gunion R. What are the types and proportions of major spelling errors made by short-stay Japanese university students enrolled in full-time at Newcastle University?. ARECLS. 2012; 9: 15-41</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hameed PF. A study of the spelling errors committed by students of English in Saudi Arabia: Exploration and remedial measures. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. 2016; 7; 1: 203-207. 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.1p.203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris KR, Graham ST, Aitken A, Barkel A, Houston J, Ray A. Teaching spelling, writing, and reading for writing: Powerful evidence-based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children. 2017; 49; 4: 262-272. 10.1177/0040059917697250</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Humaidan AY, Martin KIWhite E, Delaney T. Instructor-generated orthographic assessments in intensive English classes. Handbook of research on assessment literacy and teacher-made testing in the language classroom. 2019; IGI Global: 204-243. 10.4018/978-1-5225-6986-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Joshi RM, Hoien T, Xiwu-Feng R, Chengappa R, Boulware-Gooden RJoshi RM, Aaron PG. Learning to spell by ear and by eye: A cross-linguistic comparison. Handbook of orthography and literacy. 2006; Lawrence Erlbaum: 569-580</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz J. 'I didn't even know one of the conventions before': Explicit EFL spelling instruction and individual differences. Cognitive Development. 2020; 55: 100880. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100880</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz J, Kuash S, Ibrahim R, Schwartz M. How do previously acquired languages affect acquisition of English as a foreign language: The case of Circassian. Written Language and Literacy. 2014; 17; 1: 40-61. 10.1075/wll.17.1.03kah</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz J, Schwartz M, Share DL. Acquiring the complex English orthography: A tri-literacy advantage?. Journal of Research in Reading. 2011; 34; 1: 136-156. 10.1111/j.1467-9817.2010.01485.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahn-Horwitz J, Sparks RL, Goldstein Z. English as a foreign language spelling development: A longitudinal study. Applied Linguistics. 2012; 33; 2: 343-363. 10.1017/s0142716411000397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaldonek-Crnjakovic A. Fostering literacy skills and self-efficacy in a Chinese EAL learner with dyslexia. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties. 2020; 26; 1: 1-20. 10.1080/19404158.2020.1845218</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li T, McBride-Chang C, Wong A, Shu H. Longitudinal predictors of spelling and reading comprehension in Chinese as an L1 and English as an L2 in Hong Kong Chinese children. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2012; 14; 2: 286-301. 10.1037/a0026445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin KI. The impact of L1 writing system on ESL knowledge of vowel and consonant spellings. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2017; 30; 2: 279-298. 10.1007/s11145-016-9673-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin K, Juffs A. Eye-tracking as a window into assembled phonology in native and non-native reading. Journal of Second Language Studies. 2021; 4; 1: 65-95. 10.1075/jsls.19026.mar</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin KI, Lawson E, Carpenter K, Hummer E. English word and pseudoword spellings and phonological awareness: Detailed comparisons from three L1 writing systems. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020; 11: 1309. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01309</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meriläinen LGarant M, Helen I, Yli-Jokipii H. Lexical transfer in the written English of Finnish students in 1990, 2000 and 2005: Elements of improvement in the mastery of English vocabulary. Kieli ja globalisaatio – Language and globalization. 2008; Finnish Association of Applied Linguistics: 255-274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naruemon D. Causes of English spelling errors made by Thai foreign language learners. ARECLS. 2012; 10: 22-43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niolaki GZ, Masterson J. Transfer effects in spelling from transparent Greek to opaque English in seven-to-ten-year-old children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2012; 15; 4: 757-770. 10.1017/S1366728911000721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nunes T, Bryant P. Children's reading and spelling: Beyond the first steps. 2009; Wiley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odisho EY. Consonant clusters and abutting consonants in English and Arabic, implications and applications. System. 1979; 7: 205-210. 10.1016/0346-251X(79)90004-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okada TCook V, Bassetti B. A corpus-based study of spelling errors of Japanese EFL writers with reference to errors occurring in word-initial and word-final. Second language writing systems. 2005; Multilinguals Matters: 164-183. 10.21832/9781853597954-008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pittman RT, Joshi RM, Carreker S. Improving the spelling ability among speakers of African American English through explicit instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction. 2014; 53; 2: 107-133. 10.1080/19388071.2013.870623</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prior A, Zeltsman-Kulick R, Katzir T. Adolescent word reading in English as a foreign language. Journal of Research in Reading. 2020; 43; 1: 116-139. 10.1111/1467-9817.1229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson-Kooi S, Hammond L. The spelling detective project: A year 2 explicit instruction spelling intervention. Australian Journal of Teacher Education. 2020; 45; 3: 63-80. 10.14221/ajte.2020v45n3.5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russak S. A study of literacy acquisition in English as a foreign language amongst native Hebrew and Arabic speaking pupils. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 2019; 24; 9: 1373-1391. 10.1080/13670050.2019.1581126</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russak S. The contribution of cognitive and linguistic skills in L1 and EFL to English spelling among native speakers of Arabic and Hebrew. Cognitive Development. 2020; 55: 100924. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2020.100924</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russak S, Kahn-Horwitz J. English as a foreign language spelling: Comparisons between good and poor spellers. Journal of Research in Reading. 2015; 38; 3: 307-330. 10.1111/jrir.12009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad E. Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2003; 24: 431-451. 10.1017/S0142716403000225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saiegh-Haddad E. The impact of phonemic and lexical distance on the phonological analysis of words and pseudowords in a diglossic context. Applied Psycholinguistics. 2004; 25: 495-512. 10.1017/S0142716404001249</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saigh K, Schmitt N. Difficulties with vocabulary word form: The case of Arabic ESL learners. System. 2012; 40; 1: 24-36. 10.1016/j.system.2012.01.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schmalz X, Marinus E, Coltheart M, Castles A. Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin &amp; Review. 2015; 22; 6: 1614-1629. 10.3758/s13423-015-0835-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz M, Geva E, Share DL, Leikin M. Learning to read in English as third language: The cross-linguistic transfer of phonological processing skills. Written Language and Literacy. 2007; 10; 1: 25-52. 10.1075/wll.10.1.03sch</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz M, Ibrahim R, Kahn-Horwitz J. Multi-literate experience as a treasure chest for young learners of English as a foreign language. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2016; 29: 1293-1315. 10.1007/s11145-016-9633-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour P, Aro M, Erskine J. Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology. 2003; 94: 143-174. 10.1348/000712603321661859</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks RL, Patton J, Luebbers J. Individual differences in L2 achievement mirror individual differences in L1 skills and L2 aptitude: Crosslinguistic transfer of L1 to L2 skills. Foreign Language Annals. 2019; 52: 255-283. 10.1111/flan.12390</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strömqvist, S, Holmqvist, K, Johansson, V, Karlsson, H, &amp; Wengelin, Å. (2006). What keystroke logging can reveal about writing. In K. Sullivan &amp; E. Lindgren (Eds.), Computer key-stroke logging and writing (pp. 45–71). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080460932_005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tal, M. (2005). An Analysis of the English spelling difficulties of native Hebrew speakers [Unpublished master's thesis]. University of Haifa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tangel D, Blachman B. Effect of phoneme awareness instruction on the invented spelling of 1st -grade children: A one-year follow up. Journal of Reading Behavior. 1995; 27: 153-185. 10.1080/10862969509547876</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman R. Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. 1993; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195062199.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman RMetsala JL, Ehri LC. Why spelling? The benefits of incorporating spelling into beginning reading instruction. Word recognition in beginning literacy. 1998; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: 289-313</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Treiman R, Bourassa DC. The development of spelling skill. Topics in Language Disorders. 2000; 20; 3: 1-18. 10.1097/00011363-200020030-00004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vaisman EE, Kahn-Horwitz J. English foreign language teachers' linguistic knowledge, beliefs, and reported practices regarding reading and spelling instruction. Dyslexia. 2019; 26; 3: 305-322. 10.1002/dys.1608</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Berkel ACook V, Bassetti B. The role of the phonological strategy in learning to spell in English as a second language. Second language writing systems. 2005: Delhi; Multilinguals Matters: 97-121. 10.21832/9781853597954-005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang M, Geva E. Spelling acquisition of novel English phonemes in Chinese children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2003; 16; 4: 325-348. 10.1023/A:1023661927929</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang S, Choi I, Seog DSY. Young Korean EFL learners' spelling errors: An exploratory study. Studies in Modern Grammar. 2020; 107: 123-146. 10.14342/smog.2020.107.123</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ziegler JC, Goswami U. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin. 2005; 131; 1: 3-29. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Rana Sammour-Shehadeh; Janina Kahn-Horwitz and Anat Prior</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref174"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1390461 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Spelling English as a Foreign Language: A Narrative Review of Cross-Language Influences Due to Distance in Writing System, Orthography and Phonology – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sammour-Shehadeh%2C+Rana%22">Sammour-Shehadeh, Rana</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kahn-Horwitz%2C+Janina%22">Kahn-Horwitz, Janina</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5887-0805">0000-0002-5887-0805</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Prior%2C+Anat%22">Prior, Anat</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8026-2825">0000-0001-8026-2825</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. Oct 2023 36(8):2147-2173. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 27 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spelling%22">Spelling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+%28Second+Language%29%22">English (Second Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Language%22">Native Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Distinctive+Features+%28Language%29%22">Distinctive Features (Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interference+%28Language%29%22">Interference (Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonology%22">Phonology</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s11145-022-10386-z – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The current narrative review focuses on cross-language influences (CLI) in spelling English as a foreign language (EFL). We identify three types of distance between first language (L1) and English that may impact English spelling, namely distance in writing system, in orthography and in phonology. The review describes and specifies the spelling difficulties that different groups of EFL learners may experience due to these distance types. We present a detailed examination of these inter-connected aspects of distance in order to characterize the different sources of CLI in spelling. Because CLI plays a significant role in learning a new language, understanding and characterizing the types of distance that lead to CLI has important implications for EFL instruction and learning. The empirical studies reviewed here clearly indicate that distance from L1 affects the English spelling of both beginning and advanced English learners, and this effect depends on the type of distance. In addition, we suggest that spelling difficulties are exacerbated in cases where L1 is distant from EFL in more than one way. Suggestions for future research are provided and pedagogical implications for EFL instruction are offered. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2023 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1390461 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1390461 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s11145-022-10386-z Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 27 StartPage: 2147 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Spelling Type: general – SubjectFull: English (Second Language) Type: general – SubjectFull: Native Language Type: general – SubjectFull: Barriers Type: general – SubjectFull: Distinctive Features (Language) Type: general – SubjectFull: Interference (Language) Type: general – SubjectFull: Written Language Type: general – SubjectFull: Phonology Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Spelling English as a Foreign Language: A Narrative Review of Cross-Language Influences Due to Distance in Writing System, Orthography and Phonology Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sammour-Shehadeh, Rana – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kahn-Horwitz, Janina – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Prior, Anat IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 10 Type: published Y: 2023 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0922-4777 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-0905 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 36 – Type: issue Value: 8 Titles: – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
