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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Avdyli, R., Castejon, L., & Cuetos, F. (2014). Lexical effects in word naming in Spanish children. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17(e23), 1–8.
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.
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.
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.
Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The national reading panel report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326–335.
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.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 35(1), 116–124.
Frost, R. (2012). Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 263–329.
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.
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.
Jackson, N. E., & Coltheart, M. (2001). Routes to reading success and failure: Toward an integrated cognitive psychology of atypical reading. New York: Psychological Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245–257.
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.
Krashen, S. D. (2002). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. Taipei: Crane.
Lundberg, I. (2006). Early language development as related to the acquisition of reading. European Review, 14, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798706000068.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moss, H. E., & Tyler, L. K. (1995). Investigating semantic memory impairments: The contribution of semantic priming. Memory, 3(3–4), 359–395.
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.
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.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (1998b). Individual differences in contextual facilitation: Evidence from dyslexia and poor reading comprehension. Child Development, 69, 996–1011.
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.
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.
Öney, B., & Durgunoğlu, A. (1997). Beginning to read in Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 18, 1–15.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., Coltheart, M., & Castles, A. (2015). Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1614–1629.
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.
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
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.
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.
Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1301–1309.
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.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
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.
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.
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.
Tunmer, W., & Greaney, K. (2010). Defining dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 229–243.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, P., Guldenoglu, B. & Kargin, T. Reading Failure in a Completely Transparent Orthography Representing a Morphologically Highly Complex Agglutinative Language: the Case of Turkish. J Dev Phys Disabil 31, 669–689 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09667-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-019-09667-3