Advertisement

Reading Failure in a Completely Transparent Orthography Representing a Morphologically Highly Complex Agglutinative Language: the Case of Turkish

  • Paul MillerEmail author
  • Birkan Guldenoglu
  • Tevhide Kargin
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

This study investigates differences in the word processing skills of students with and without reading difficulties who read Turkish, an entirely transparent orthography. Thirty-five students diagnosed as poor readers and 51 typically developing controls were tested across two experiments, one that assessed their ability to process identicalness of isolated real words as opposed to pseudowords and another that assessed their ability to judge semantic relatedness of two real words. Participants were from two education levels; half of them were 3rd-4th graders and half were 6th–7th graders. An integrative view of the findings points to an apparent failure of Turkish poor readers to develop a lexicalized reading route that mediates word recognition by means of permanent orthographic knowledge. Moreover, their ability to effectively process word letter sequences along a non-lexical grapheme-to-phoneme conversion-based reading route was found to be seriously restricted. Findings are discussed with direct reference to orthographic transparency, dual-route reading theory and the orthographic self-teaching concept.

Keywords

Reading failure Lexical processing Semantic processing Orthographic transparency Turkish orthography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to all educational institutes and participants that took part in this study.

Funding

This study was funded by the SLC on Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2), NSF: Grant # SBE-0541953

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

The reported study does not violate any fundamental ethical considerations for the protection of humans or animals. Its compliance with ethical standards has been approved by the IRB of the authors’ respective academic institutions.

Informed Consent

The study was executed only after getting approval from all relevant agencies, including from the participants themselves.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Avdyli, R., Castejon, L., & Cuetos, F. (2014). Lexical effects in word naming in Spanish children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17(e23), 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Bergmann, J., & Wimmer, H. (2008). A dual-route perspective on poor reading in a regular orthography: Evidence from phonological and orthographic lexical decisions. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(5), 653–676.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bianco, M., Bressoux, P., Doyen, A. L., Lambert, E., Lima, L., Pellenq, C., & Zorman, M. (2010). Early training in oral comprehension and phonological skills: Results of a three-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 14(3), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coltheart, M. (2005). Modeling reading: The dual-route approach. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 6–23). Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The national reading panel report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Di Filippo, G., de Luca, M., Judica, A., Spinelli, D., & Zoccolotti, P. (2006). Lexicality and stimulus length effects in Italian dyslexics: Role of the over additivity effect. Child Neuropsychology, 12(2), 141–149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 35(1), 116–124.Google Scholar
  8. Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263–329.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldenberg, C., Tolar, T. D., Reese, L., Francis, D. J., Bazán, A. R., & Mejía-Arauz, R. (2014). How important is teaching phonemic awareness to children learning to read in Spanish? American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guldenoglu, B. (2016). The effects of syllable-awareness skills on the word-reading performances of students reading in a transparent orthography. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(3), 425–442.Google Scholar
  11. Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure: Toward an integrated cognitive psychology of atypical reading. New York: Psychological Press.Google Scholar
  12. Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krashen, S.D. (2001). The comprehension hypothesis and its rivals. Selected papers from the eleventh international symposium on English teaching/fourth pan-Asian conference, 395–404.Google Scholar
  14. Krashen, S. D. (2002). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Taipei: Crane.Google Scholar
  15. Lundberg, I. (2006). Early language development as related to the acquisition of reading. European Review, 14, 65–79.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798706000068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Melby-Lervåg, M., Lyster, S. A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 322–352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller, P. (2005). Reading experience and changes in the processing of letters, written words, and pseudo-homophones: Comparing fifth-grade students and university students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164, 407–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller, P. (2007). The role of phonology in the word decoding skills of poor readers: Evidence from individuals with prelingual deafness or diagnosed dyslexia. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 385–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, P., Kargin, T., & Guldenoglu, B. (2014). Differences in the Reading of shallow and deep orthography: Developmental evidence from Hebrew and Turkish readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(4), 409–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller-Shaul, S. (2005). The characteristics of young and adult dyslexic readers on reading and reading related cognitive tasks as compared to normal readers. Dyslexia, 11, 132–151.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Moll, K., Ramus, F., Bartling, J., Bruder, J., Kunze, S., Neuhoff, N., et al. (2014). Cognitive mechanisms underlying reading and spelling development in five European orthographies. Learning and Instruction, 29, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moss, H. E., & Tyler, L. K. (1995). Investigating semantic memory impairments: The contribution of semantic priming. Memory, 3(3–4), 359–395.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (1995). Exploring the loss of semantic memory in semantic dementia: Evidence from a primed monitoring study. Neuropsychology, 9(1), 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1998a). Semantic processing and the development of word recognition skills: Evidence from children with reading comprehension difficulties. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998b). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1999). Developmental differences in sensitivity to semantic relations among good and poor comprehenders: Evidence from semantic priming. Cognition, 70(1), –13.Google Scholar
  27. Niemi, P., Poskiparta, E., & Vauras, M. (2001). Benefits of training in linguistic awareness dissipate by grade 3. The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 8, 330–337.Google Scholar
  28. Öney, B., & Durgunoğlu, A. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 18, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raman, I. (2006). On the age-of-acquisition effects in word naming and orthographic transparency: Mapping specific or universal? Visual Cognition, 13(7–8), 1044–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raman, I., Baluch, B., & Sneddon, P. (1996). What is the cognitive system's preferred route for deriving phonology from print? European Psychologist, 1, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Raman, I., Raman, E., & Mertan, B. (2014). A standardized set of 260 pictures for Turkish: Norms of name and image agreement, age of acquisition, visual complexity, and conceptual familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 588–595.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Report of the National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH publication no. 00–4769). Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
  33. Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., Coltheart, M., & Castles, A. (2015). Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1614–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shankweiler, D., & Fowler, A. E. (2004). Questions people ask about the role of phonological processes in learning to read. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 483–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1301–1309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2013). Psychopathology of dyslexia and reading disorders. In A. Davis (Ed.), Psychopathology of childhood and adolescence: A neuropsychological approach (pp. 109–126). New York: Springer Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  40. Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Svensson, N., & Jacobson, C. (2005). How persistent are phonological difficulties? A longitudinal study of reading retarded children. Dyslexia: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 12(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Troia, G. (2004). Phonological processing and its influence on literacy learning. In C. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Appel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 271–301). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  43. Tunmer, W. E. (2008). Recent developments in reading intervention research: Introduction to special issue. Reading and Writing, 21, 299–316.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9108-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 229–243.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zecker, S. G., & Zinner, T. E. (1987). Semantic code deficit for reading disabled children on an auditory lexical decision task. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19(2), 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Ma-Wyatt, A., Ladner, D., & Schulte-Körne, G. (2003). Developmental dyslexia in different languages: Language-specific or universal? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86(3), 169–193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Special Education, Faculty of EducationUniversity of HaifaHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Special Education Department, Educational Sciences FacultyAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Special Education Department, Faculty of EducationHasan Kalyoncu UniversityGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations