How do you say 486 in spanish

In what follows, we return to the research questions posed initially and discuss the results in terms of what they might mean for HLL pedagogy more broadly. Given that Spanish-speaking children learn to read earlier than they learn to spell Defior et al. However, as children gain more exposure to print and expand their vocabulary, this initial mapping diminishes in strength.

Our dictation task also included the verb hacer target form: hacemos [we do] , but this is only one item out of 20 in the C-non-cognate condition. In other words, an incorrect spelling of hacemos is only counted once. In contrast, in an essay where different inflected forms of hacer are spelled incorrectly, these all contribute to the error rate. The second research question focused on the difference between cognate and non-cognate words, hypothesizing a facilitative transfer effect. The data support this hypothesis, as there was a main effect for cognate status with a large effect size.

This was an expected finding, as it has been observed that bilinguals transfer spelling patterns from one language to another. While in some cases this is the source of error, such as in consonant doubling, in other cases it has a facilitative effect. The finding has clear implications for research design, since researchers who test spelling should take care to control for cognates in a principled manner.

This is a well-known problem in vocabulary testing cf. Laufer and McLean, , since the inclusion of cognates can result in overestimating or underestimating the vocabulary size for particular L1 groups. In any case, the facilitative transfer effect in spelling should be examined more closely. In other words, it is worth asking why the participants were not at ceiling on the cognate words. We suggest that our participants did not necessarily activate orthographic representations in English during spoken word recognition in Spanish.

There is a large body of research that has confirmed the parallel co-activation of both languages known by bilinguals cf. Kroll et al. With respect to cognates, visual word recognition entails joint activation of the word at the orthographic and phonological levels of representation cf. Carrasco et al. However, spoken word recognition—as in the case of our dictation task—is likely to produce a slightly different effect. Marian and Spivey, ; Lagrou et al.

This parallel activation of phonological representations leads to activation of the shared meaning of the cognates. However, the shared orthographic representations are not necessarily activated or, alternatively, are partially activated during auditory word recognition. This is a plausible explanation for why our participants did not perform at ceiling on the cognate words. Despite the generalized recognition that spelling is a very challenging aspect of literacy development for Spanish HLLs Carreira, ; Beaudrie, , , there is still not much research on the development of spelling in this population.

To our knowledge, only two intervention studies for developing spelling have been conducted, both of which involve the spelling of written accent marks Carreira, ; Beaudrie, Other spelling proposals have been made based on the results of non-intervention studies on spelling conducted with SHLLs.

For example, Llombart-Huesca , suggests the use of activities that build the cognitive-linguistic skills underlying the development of spelling, such as phonological and morphological awareness. Given this dearth of pedagogical proposals, language textbooks generally rely on spelling activities based on what works for developing spelling skills in more researched populations, such as monolingual and bilingual children.

Burgo explains that some textbooks adapt activities and strategies used in grammar teaching, such as sentence or word completion or fill in the blanks, as well as some communicative-based activities.

According to Beaudrie one of the shortcomings of language textbooks for SHLLs is that they present exhaustive lists of Spanish orthographic patterns instead of focusing on those patterns or words that present the greatest difficulty. The facilitative transfer effect for the spelling of cognates has clear pedagogical implications, especially if we consider that the estimated number of Spanish-English cognates is between 10, and 15, Dressler et al.

Utilizing cognates as a resource for bilingual students is well-known among educators who study reading comprehension and vocabulary among Hispanic children in the U. Bravo et al. For spelling interventions, a natural starting point would be to consider the distinction between cognates and non-cognates. Improving spelling of cognate words will require developing activities that make explicit connections between English and Spanish words, even if the meaning correspondence is not perfect.

Specifically, students could be asked to find translations of Spanish or English words that are not perfect in meaning but closest in spelling. For example, connecting grave—grave, adherence—adherencia, edifice—edificio would be helpful for spelling even if the meaning alignment is not ideal. Although meaning and communication has been given a prominent space in L2 classrooms, and also in the HL context, developing metalinguistic skills requires setting aside the focus on meaning to pay attention to formal aspects.

Improving spelling of non-cognate words will require other strategies. Several studies have shown that adults' spelling improves by exposure to correct spelling of words Ormrod, ; Dixon and Kaminska, Conversely, exposure to wrong spellings have the opposite effect Dixon and Kaminska, Therefore, it might be beneficial to engage students into reading and input-based activities before assigning them naturalistic writing tasks that will necessarily include words to which students have not had any previous exposure.

By spelling words incorrectly, which can happen when students are writing words as a guess, students are getting exposed to wrong spellings—their own. According to Share , spelling errors on the very first attempt at a new word are potentially more detrimental to long-term orthographic learning than spelling errors made at a later point. Reading before spelling, therefore, is important.

However, the type of reading that will be beneficial for students' spelling abilities must be conducive to attention to each and every grapheme in the word. When a new word is not properly decoded in reading, it might still be understood, but it does not become properly encoded in our mental lexicon Ehri and Rosenthal, In order to create a strong orthographic representation of a word in our minds, it is necessary to successfully decode a word fully and thoroughly in reading aloud, and not simply read it in silence.

The treatment group remembered the full spellings of words better than the students in the control group, who practiced reading words using normal pronunciations. The spelling pronunciation strategy proved especially effective for helping students remember silent letters.

Note, however, that we are not proposing oral reading as a technique to be used during class for the purposes of reading comprehension. In fact, oral reading can hinder comprehension because the reader has to devote cognitive resources to the mechanics of reading e. Schimmel and Ness, Instead, we see reading aloud as a technique that strengthens phonological and orthographic processing, both considered to be lower-level processes vital to reading ability cf. Nassaji, A reasonable concern is that asking students to pronounce words in an exaggerated way that deviates from their normal pronunciation might cause confusion.

However, Ocal and Ehri b state that they did not observe students confusing the two pronunciations, probably because students are already familiar with the normal pronunciation. In sum, this should be presented as an isolated activity to help improve spelling, and not as a way to read for comprehension or to pronounce the words in normal speech.

In broad terms, there is a need for more form-focused activities that target spelling in the heritage language curriculum. One type of pedagogical activity that holds promise is the dictogloss task Wajnryb, and its variations. The dictogloss is different from standard dictation in that it works with longer stretches of text, generally more than words. The activity is a combination of listening, remembering, and writing Prince, and the goal is for learners to use their own linguistic resources in reconstructing the text.

The dictogloss has been used extensively in second language classrooms, generally with a grammatical focus, although some recent studies have targeted formulaic sequences cf.

Lindstromberg et al. In our view, the dictogloss task is ideal for targeting orthography in the heritage language classroom because the input text can be seeded with many examples of a particular PGC e. In one variation of the dictogloss, the original text is presented in written form, and students work to produce their own written version without looking at the original. In the final phase of the dictogloss task, the students' written version is later compared to the original, and any issues surrounding language form—including orthography—can be discussed.

Therefore, knowing the spelling of one word should facilitate accuracy in spelling of all morphologically related words. However, as Llombart-Huesca found, some HLLs have difficulties in relating words that belong to the same morphological family. A student might relate words that are close in meaning, but have no formal relation, like mirar watch and ver see , but not realize that hacer to do , hice I did , and deshacer to undo are morphologically related.

However, the latter type of relatedness, and not the former, is the one that has an effect on spelling. Activities in which students are required to either identify or produce words that are morphologically related to a given word or containing a specific suffix might raise morphological awareness, which in turn should improve spelling accuracy and consistency across morphologically related words. For example, as Llombart-Huesca proposes, students may be given pairs of words, for which they need to identify whether or not they are morphologically related for example, hacer—deshice ; cocer—cosimos [to do—I undid; to cook—we sewed].

A similar task consists in giving students a prompt word e. Students are then asked to identify which ones are morphologically related to the prompt word. In the absence of context, attention to spelling is the only resource available to identify the morphological identification. Green and Wolter propose morphological match-up tasks, in which students are asked to match roots with derivational affixes to create words.

Bryant et al. Llombart-Huesca suggests that these activities may be implemented as interventions that target commonly misspelled words, or in the context of vocabulary activities. Although HLLs are a heterogeneous population with varied levels of proficiency and dominance in the heritage language, our study was not designed to examine predictors of spelling ability in Spanish.

In other words, we did not address the issue of individual variation e. To address this issue, one would need to measure a number of variables such as decoding ability, exposure to print, and vocabulary knowledge. Ocal and Ehri a conducted such a study with college-aged students, focusing on their English spelling ability. They found that spoken and written vocabulary knowledge combined were strongly correlated with spelling ability.

In turn, exposure to print was a significant predictor of participants' vocabulary knowledge. In the current study, our participants were given a standardized test of proficiency DELE , which is primarily a test of vocabulary and morphology.

We suspect that the DELE is much too coarse of a measure to be a predictor of spelling ability. To address variation among HLLs, future studies should probe participants about their degree of engagement with written text in Spanish e. To expand this line of research, pedagogical intervention studies are necessary. However, the field of instructed heritage language acquisition is still in its infancy.

With respect to spelling, there are only two published intervention studies Carreira, ; Beaudrie, In terms of a grammar focus, Bowles documented only three studies with Spanish HLLs that included a pedagogical intervention. Some recent research is taking a broader approach, documenting positive changes in terms of HLLs' narrative abilities over time and as a result of instruction Parra et al.

One problem with broadly-focused interventions, however, is the issue of isolating treatment effects: if participants improve their spelling over time but were exposed to various different activities e. Thus, we envision research on spelling interventions that isolates a specific type of activity, such as several 1-h sessions focused only on developing the morphological knowledge needed to identify common suffixes e.

An additional challenge will be to include a control group that is also engaged in some kind of meaningful learning activity i. Despite its importance, spelling is a skill that is taken for granted when performed accurately.

Moreover, in a language with a shallow orthography like Spanish, accuracy can often be accomplished by resorting to consistent PGCs.

Thus, even without the benefits of formal instruction and significant exposure to print, HLLs can achieve a functional level of spelling proficiency. For HLLs of Spanish, mastering these spelling conventions is an important step toward using the language in professional settings.

We have offered a number of pedagogical recommendations for targeting spelling in the HLL classroom. In making these recommendations, we assume that an incidental approach to teaching spelling is not sufficient.

We await evidence, especially in the form of controlled intervention studies, to determine the efficacy of any pedagogical activities proposed here. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

AL-H designed and conducted the study, entered the data in SPSS, and wrote the following sections: Spanish orthography, methodology, and pedagogical implications. EZ conducted the analysis and wrote the data analysis section, as well as the acquisition and development of orthography, results, discussion, and conclusions.

Both authors revised and edited all sections of the paper. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The authors would like to thank Lizette Pineda for her help recording the items, as well as all the students who participated in this study. Beaudrie, S. A corpus-based study on the misspellings of Spanish heritage learners and their implications for teaching.

The teaching and learning of spelling in the Spanish heritage language classroom: mastering written accent marks. Hispania , — On the relationship between self-concept and literacy development in the Spanish heritage language context. Belpoliti, F. Spanish Heritage Learners Emerging Literacy. London: Routledge.

Bowles, M. Exploring the role of modality: L2-heritage learner interactions in the Spanish language classroom. Google Scholar. Potowski London: Routledge , — Bravo, M.

Wagner, A. Muse, and K. Bryant, P. Nunes, P. Bryant, U. Pretzlik, and J. Burgo, C. Current approaches to orthography instruction for Spanish heritage learners: an analysis of intermediate and advanced textbooks. Normas 5, — Callahan, L. Carrasco, H. Cross-language effects of phonological and orthographic similarity in cognate word recognition: the role of language dominance.

Carreira, M. Hammadou Greenwich: IAP , — Commentary: pedagogical implications of experimental SNS research. Davies, M. Routledge Frequency Dictionaries. New York, NY: Routledge. Defior, S. Spelling acquisition: a transversal study of Spanish children. Complexity and lexicality effects on the acquisition of Spanish spelling.

The initial development of spelling in Spanish: from global to analytical. Delbridge, A. Evidence-based strategies for fostering biliteracy in any classroom. Early Edu. Dijkstra, T. How cross-language similarity and task demands affect cognate recognition.

J Memory Lang. Diuk, B. Psykhe 18, 61— Dixon, M. Is it misspelled or is it mispelled? The influence of fresh orthographic information on spelling. Dressler, C. Spanish-speaking students use of cognate knowledge to infer the meaning of english words.

Durgunoglu, A. Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Ehri, L. C, and Rosenthal, J. Spellings of words: a neglected facilitator of vocabulary learning. Elola, I. A study of Spanish foreign language and heritage language learners. Hispania 99, 87— Storch and W. Suzuki Amsterdam: John Benjamins , 1— 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.

Ford, K. The effect of orthographic complexity on Spanish spelling in grades 1—3. Green, L. Morphological awareness intervention: techniques for promoting language and literacy success. Helms-Park, R. Henshaw, F. Learning outcomes of L2-heritage learner interaction: the proof is in the posttests. Kroll, J. Psycholinguistic perspectives on second language learning and bilingualism: the course and consequence of cross-language competition.

Lagrou, E. Knowledge of a second language influences auditory word recognition in the native language. Laufer, B. Loanwords and vocabulary size test scores: a case of different estimates for different L1 learners. Laurent, A. Bilingualism and phonological awareness: the case of bilingual French-Occitan children. Linan-Thompson, S. Spelling it out, one por uno: patterns of emergent bilinguals in a dual language classroom.

Lindstromberg, S. A modified dictogloss for helping learners remember L2 academic english formulaic sequences for use in later writing. Llombart-Huesca, A. Morphological awareness and heritage language learners. Understanding spelling errors in Spanish heritage language learners. Phonological awareness and spelling of Spanish vowels in Spanish heritage language learners.

Hispanic Stud. Marian, V. Competing activation in bilingual language processing: within-and between-language competition. Bilingualism 6, 97— Medrano, A. Matute Guadalajara: Universidad de Guadalajara , 71— Mikulski, A. The purpose of the Pronouncing Dictionary of United States Supreme Court cases is to help conscientious lawyers, judges, teachers, students, and journalists correctly pronounce often-perplexing case names.

For an explanation of the phonetic symbols and transcription practice used, please see our pronunciation notes PDF. Please send corrections and suggestions for additional listings to Eugene R. Skip to main content. Duffy 39 U. Redfield 98 U. Miller U. Collector of Internal Revenue U. Commissioner U. Phoenix Insurance Co. Folgueras y Rijos U. Arnaudet U. Lewis U. Labatut 60 U. Kelly 83 U. Uinta Tunnel Mining Transportation Co. Cuebas y Arredondo U.

Innerarity 47 U. Petitpain 59 U. Schoonejongen U. FDIC U. Moisan U. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals U. Banning U. Magone U. Oregon U. James U. Gaillard Treasurer U. Louis Bank 88 U. Bernal 70 U. Bowers U. South Dakota U. Carmichael U. Tarpey U. The Haverton U. Diehr U. Florida U.

City of Tigard U. Minnesota Moline Plow Co. Alabama U. Wiese U. Des Moines Valley Railway Co. American Surety Co. Michigan U. Tanneret 79 U. Nathaniel Hayward 61 U. New Mexico Rwy. County of Merced U. Bank of Cincinnati 85 U. Trabue U. Androscoggin Mills 89 U. Towle 66 U. Tokushige U.

Board of Elections of New York U. Maurice U. Meighan U. Risjord U. Henarie U. Michigan Department of Natural Resources U. Louisiana U. Bryant Lumber Co. Perkins 48 U. Municipality No. Scarpelli U. United States U. Noble U. Piquignot 57 U. Ceballos U. Lapeyre U.

Aiello U. Philippi U. Romein U. State Bar of Nevada U. Chouteau 75 U. United States 75 U. Estopinal U. Cleary U. Bimeler 55 U. Raich U. Johnson U. United States 45 U. Van Ee U. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. Bollinger U. Bladow U. Agee U. Weare 92 U. Dagenhart U. Plumer U. Joseph Railroad Co. Husen 95 U. Prosise U. Perea Perea U.

Barber U. McCall U. Hall U. Baton Rouge U. Guyot U. Hisquierdo U. Bernalillo County Assessor U. Castaneda U. Douglass 7 U. Toltec Ranch Co. Glover U. Mechling U. Caballes U. Koehne U. Cyr U. Ouellette U. Rowley U. Central Altagracia U. Huron Copper Mining Co. Eisentrager U. Sayre U. Insular Government of Philippine Islands U. Auten U. Brush U. Vail U. Hedden U.

Ventris U. Geiger U. Montana U. City of New London U. Sinnott U. Taylor U. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc. Kansas U. Obama U. Mandel U. United States 95 U. Mirzayance U. Flynn U. Richmond Silver Mining Co. Murphy 96 U. Hoadley U. Burton U. National Cash Register Co. Costa Crociere U. Chapuis U. United States Trustee U. Feusier U. Board of Regents U. Uhlig U. Delle Rose U. Prentice U. NLRB U. PSKS, Inc.

Lecanu 71 U. Broderick Bascom Rope Co. Campau 70 U. Thomas U. United States 97 U. Health Services Acquisition Corp. Humphrey U. Elting U. New York U. Andrade U.

Taxing District U. Comingor U. United States 91 U. Watkins U. Defenders of Wildlife U. Herman U. Thiboutot U.

Springs U. Texas Pacific Railway Co. Livandais U. Lalley 84 U. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons U. Baltimore Railway Co. Parsons U. Felix U. Maryland 17 U. Rose U. Texas U. Cargo of Java Sugar U. Wilson U. Jicarilla Apache Tribe U. Oliver U. Guasti U. Schoene U. Dretke U. City of Olathe U. Krumseig U. Seibert U. Bolden U. Haymes U. States Marine Lines U. District of Columbia U. Virginia U. New York Harlem Railroad Co. Giarratano U. De Cordoba U.

Oyster U. Young U. Ritter 97 U. Williams U. Iacobucci U. Sanchez U. Holder U. Poirier U. Ely U. Clapp U. Knut U. Mauclet U. Robertson U. Central Leather Co. Tallentire U. Suquamish Indian Tribe U. Idaho U. Sundower Offshore Services, Inc. Jacobus U. Aiken U.

Entergy Operations, Inc. DiGuglielmo U. Haslip U. Kentucky U. United States 80 U. Dacres U. Ware 8 U. Minnesota U. Wells Electronics U. Polk U. Guillen U. Ledoux U. Langford U.