Beyond Binary: Rethinking Orthographic Depth Through the Lens of Turkish Orthography

Abstract

Orthographic systems have traditionally been categorized as either shallow or deep. How- ever, the validity of this dichotomy has been increasingly questioned. Turkish orthography, characterized by its clear-cut grapheme-phoneme correspondence, is often labeled as ‘shal- low’ in current literature. This research re-evaluates this characterization by investigating distinct factors, such as the irregular representation of vowel length and the multifaceted phonemic roles of certain letters. By comprehensively analyzing these aspects and charting the fluid interplay between orthography and phonology, this paper aims to assess the true ex- tent of the orthographic depth of modern standard Turkish. Findings suggest an ‘intermedi- ate’ position for Turkish on the orthographic depth continuum, prompting a rethinking of the prevailing pedagogical approaches. This study underscores the need for a more detailed clas- sification system to account for orthographic depth variations across languages. Additional- ly, recommendations are provided to enrich the understanding of orthographic systems and emphasize the significance of orthography in language instruction and literacy development.

Keywords

• Orthographic Depth Hypothesis
• Turkish Orthography
• Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence
• Phonemic Vowel Length
• Intermediate Orthography.

Kaynakça

1. Abu-Rabia, S. (2001). The role of vowels in reading Semitic scripts: Data from Arabic and Hebrew. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14(1-2), 39-59.
2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. MIT Press.
3. Altun, H. O. (2010). Düzeltme işareti ve Türkçede yazıldığı gibi okunmayan kelimeler. Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(43), 167-179.
4. Aro, M., & Wimmer, H. (2003). Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 621-635.
5. Atasoy, F. O. (2023). Türkçede yabancı kelime, ıstılah ve özel isimlerin imlası. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (32), 343-357.
6. Caravolas, M. (2004). Spelling development in alphabetic writing systems: A cross-linguistic perspective. European Psychologist, 9(1), 3-14.
7. Caravolas, M. (2022). Reading and reading disorders in alphabetic orthographies. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 327-353). Blackwell.
8. Cossu, G., Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I. Y., Katz, L., & Tola, G. (1988). Awareness of phonological segments and reading ability in Italian children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(1), 1-16.

9. Demiriz, H. N., & Okur, A. (2019). Orthographic depth and orthographic depth of Turkish language. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 9(1), 42-51.
10. Durgunoğlu, A. Y., & Öney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11, 281-299.
11. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Development of sight word reading: Phases and findings. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 135-154). Blackwell.
12. Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 104-115.
13. Goswami, U., & Bryant, P. (1990). Phonological skills and learning to read. Psychology Press.
14. İskender, H. (2008). Vowel-zero alternation in Turkish [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Boğaziçi University.
15. İskender, H. (2015). The phonology of Arabic loanwords in Turkish: The case of t-palatalisation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. SOAS, University of London.
16. İskender, H. (2021). A case of absolute neutralization in Turkish: T-Palatalization and its predictability. Zemin, (2), 78-111.
17. Katz, L., & Frost, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67-84). Elsevier.
18. Kaya, M. (2004). Üniversite öğrencilerinin Türkçede yanlış ünlü sesletimleri. HAYEF Journal of Education, 1(1), 89-97.
19. Kenstowicz, M. (1994). Phonology in generative grammar. Blackwell.
20. Ladefoged, P., & Johnson, K. (2015). A course in phonetics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning.
21. Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Frith, U. (1997). The impact of orthographic consistency on dyslexia: A German-English comparison. Cognition, 63(3), 315-334.
22. Öney, B., & Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 1-15.
23. Özsoy, A. S. (2004). Türkçenin yapısı I: Sesbilim. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.
24. Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J., & de Jong, P. F. (2004). A cross-linguistic comparison of children learning to read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 785-97.
25. Perfetti, C., & Helder, A. (2022). Progress in reading science: Word identification, comprehension, and universal perspectives. In M. J. Snowling, C. Hulme, & K. Nation (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 5-35). Blackwell.
26. Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic diglossia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(3), 431-51.
27. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94(2), 143-174.
28. Share, D. L. (2008). On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an ‘outlier’ orthography. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 584-615.
29. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 32-71.
30. Torppa, M., Georgiou, G. K., Niemi, P., Lerkkanen, M.-K., & Poikkeus, A.-M. (2017). The precursors of double dissociation between reading and spelling in a transparent orthography. Annals of Dyslexia, 67, 42-62.
31. Treiman, R. (1991). Phonological awareness and its roles in learning to read and spell. In D. J. Sawyer & B. J. Fox (Eds.), Phonological awareness and reading: The evolution of current perspectives (pp. 159-189). Springer Verlag.
32. Turgay, T. (2020). Classifier constructions of Turkish [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Boğaziçi University.
33. Türk Dil Kurumu. (2021). Yazım kılavuzu. Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
34. Venezky, R. L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. De Gruyter Mouton.
35. Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Tóth, D., Csépe, V., Reis, A., Faísca, L., Saine, N., Lyytinen, H., Vaessen, A., & Blomert, L. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading: A cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21(4), 551-559.