scholarly journals Mor dhan ə noosins: English orthography kills literacy and we have a duty to reform it

English Today ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 58-60
Author(s):  
Adam Dedmon
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Murphy ◽  
Emily A. Diehm

Purpose Morphological interventions promote gains in morphological knowledge and in other oral and written language skills (e.g., phonological awareness, vocabulary, reading, and spelling), yet we have a limited understanding of critical intervention features. In this clinical focus article, we describe a relatively novel approach to teaching morphology that considers its role as the key organizing principle of English orthography. We also present a clinical example of such an intervention delivered during a summer camp at a university speech and hearing clinic. Method Graduate speech-language pathology students provided a 6-week morphology-focused orthographic intervention to children in first through fourth grade ( n = 10) who demonstrated word-level reading and spelling difficulties. The intervention focused children's attention on morphological families, teaching how morphology is interrelated with phonology and etymology in English orthography. Results Comparing pre- and posttest scores, children demonstrated improvement in reading and/or spelling abilities, with the largest gains observed in spelling affixes within polymorphemic words. Children and their caregivers reacted positively to the intervention. Therefore, data from the camp offer preliminary support for teaching morphology within the context of written words, and the intervention appears to be a feasible approach for simultaneously increasing morphological knowledge, reading, and spelling. Conclusion Children with word-level reading and spelling difficulties may benefit from a morphology-focused orthographic intervention, such as the one described here. Research on the approach is warranted, and clinicians are encouraged to explore its possible effectiveness in their practice. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12290687


2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Nicolai ◽  
Grzegorz Kondrak
Keyword(s):  

English Today ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan S. Kaye

Two inter-related essays deal with matters of current English usage. The first is on an orthographic theme, while the second is on a lexical one. (1) On the letters ‘ph’ in English, (2) On Beedham on Pinker on ‘computer mouse’


2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-292
Author(s):  
Naymé Salas ◽  
Markéta Caravolas

Writing development is understood to be a multidimensional task, heavily constrained by spelling in its early stages. However, most available evidence comes from studies with learners of the inconsistent English orthography, so our understanding of the nature of early writing could be highly biased. We explored writing dimensions in each language by assessing a series of text-based features in children’s texts between mid-Grade 1 to mid-Grade 2. Results revealed that two constructs, writing conventions and productivity, emerged in both languages, but the influence of orthographic consistency started to be evident in the later time points. Other constructs of text generation seemed to emerge later and were less stable over time. The article thus highlights the language-general underpinnings of early text-writing development and the impact of orthographic consistency; furthermore, it strengthens the view that some writing components develop before others. We discuss implications for the assessment of early written products.


2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hye K. Pae ◽  
Sun-A Kim ◽  
Quintino R. Mano ◽  
Yeon-Jin Kwon

1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Green ◽  
Paul Meara

Native English speakers search short strings of letters differently from the way they search strings of nonalphanumeric symbols. Experiment 1 demonstrates the same contrast for native Spanish speakers. Letter search, therefore, is not a result of the peculiarities of English orthography. Since visual search is sensitive to the nature of the symbols being processed, different scripts should produce different effects. Experiments 2 and 3 confirmed such differences for Arabic and Chinese scripts. Furthermore, these experiments showed no evidence that native Arabic and native Chinese speakers adapt their search strategy when dealing with letters. Implications of these findings are considered.


Neophilologus ◽  
1920 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 333-348
Author(s):  
W. van der Gaaf
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document