Learning How to Spell in Turkish
Öz
In comparison to the large body of research on reading and its underlying processes in the field of literacy
acquisition, the number of studies investigating the components of writing has remained rather limited
(Treiman, 1993). Given that spelling is a fundamental aspect of the ability to write, understanding the nature
of spelling may contribute to improvements in literacy instruction, in particular, for those who experience
learning difficulties. The course of spelling development has been mostly studied in English (Ehri, 1986;
Frith, 1980; Gentry, 1982; Henderson, 1985), a language known for its opaque orthography. In recent work
there appears to be a growing interest to investigate spelling patterns in relatively transparent orthographies
such as German (Wimmer & Hummer, 1990) and Czech (Caravolas, Volin & Hulme, 2005). However, only
few studies to date have dealt with spelling performance in transparent orthographies such as Finnish
(Lehtonen, 2006) and Turkish (e.g., Babayiğit & Stainthorp, 2007; Erden, Kurdoğlu, & Uslu, 2002). The
primary purpose of the present paper is to examine spelling development in Turkish across grades 1-3. We
compared results obtained from different tasks (e.g., single word, sentence and text spelling tasks based on
auditory and visual prompts) based on a comprehensive error categorization. Spelling performance in
Turkish is analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively; and the findings are discussed in terms of
development of spelling across grades and characteristics of error types according to varying spelling task
demands. The most common error type was found to be grapheme substitution, followed by grapheme
omission; and auditory prompts yielded more errors when compared to visual prompts, which was an
expected outcome. Some implications are made regarding the role of universal processes and language
specific characteristics in the emergence of spelling errors.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynakça
- Aşlıyan, R., Günel, K., & Filiz, A. (2006). Türkçe Otomatik Heceleme Sistemi ve Hece İstatistikleri, Akademik Bilişim+ BilgiTek IV Konferansı, Pamukkale Üniversitesi, Denizli.
- Aydın, Ö. (2012). Elifbâdan alfabeye: İki yazı sisteminde yazıbirim-sesbirim etkileşimi. ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 39, 61-86.
- Babayigit, S. & Stainthorp, R. (2007). Preliterate phonological awareness and early literacy skills: Evidence from Turkish. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 394-413.
- Bosman, A. M. T. & Van Orden, G. C.(1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. In C. A. Perfetti, L.Rieben ve M. Fayol, (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 173-194). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Bryant, P.E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L.L. & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental Psychology, 26, 429-438.
- Caravolas, M., Volin, J. & Hulme, C. (2005). Phoneme awareness is a key component of alphabetic literacy skills in consistent and inconsistent orthographies: Evidence from Czech and English children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92(2), 107-139.
- Durgunoglu, A.Y.& Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading & Writing, 11, 281-299.
- Ehri, L. C. (1986). Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and read. Advances in developmental and behavioral pediatrics, 7, 121-195.
Ayrıntılar
Birincil Dil
İngilizce
Konular
-
Bölüm
-
Yayımlanma Tarihi
1 Ocak 2015
Gönderilme Tarihi
7 Haziran 2017
Kabul Tarihi
-
Yayımlandığı Sayı
Yıl 2015 Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1