DOCSLIB.ORG

The Dynamics of English As a Foreign Language for Italian and Croatian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Dynamics of English As a Foreign Language for Italian and Croatian The dynamics of English as a foreign language for Italian and Croatian learners with dyslexia Maja Kelić a Croatian speech and language therapist and Michela Bettinelli, an Italian specialist teacher and adviser present their research into the characteristics of their respective language orthographies and the impact this has for second language learners of English with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. Summary The research team of two specialists in dyslexia therapy in Croatia and Italy worked on a small action-research project looking at the dynamics of the home language (referred to as L1) and how these affected the way in which English was taught to learners with dyslexia in each setting. The tasks undertaken are described below and examples are taken from the children’s work to illustrate their performance, and to draw out points that are of interest to anyone working in the field of literacy-related specialist teaching or specialist assessment. In particular the findings demonstrate the exceptionally complex issues of speech perception and production, the characteristics of different orthographies and the linguistic heritage and educational practices within different settings which combine to influence second language-learning, in both beneficial and detrimental ways. The aim of the action-research project In this project we wanted to explore how the Home Language (referred to as L1) shapes the way learners master writing in English as a foreign language as taught in school. Both the Italian and the Croatian languages differ phonologically from English but even more importantly they significantly differ from English in the way language sounds are captured in the written form. These differences affect the way Croatian and Italian learners cope with the complex English writing system. The children that took part in the study had a diagnosis of dyslexia (according to ICD-101 it is F81.0 specific reading disorder,) or language impairment (F80.1 or F80.2) in comorbidity with reading impairment. Children from the Croatian sample are all included in speech and language therapy in clinical settings. Description of the tasks Three tasks were used. All the target words used were taken from textbooks used by the learners in both countries and are common and frequently used by the children who participated in the tasks. It took some time to come up with the tasks and to find out how best to deliver them. Some of the things we considered were: • Should the words be read by someone whose first language was English? This is particularly important if you consider the further variables that the teacher’s accent/pronunciation can have upon learners’ perception of sounds and understanding of the target phoneme etc. • Should we use images to support understanding? • Should we use words embedded in sentences to support understanding? 1 International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en • How should we support the children if they did not immediately recognise the English word? (Should they be given support in their L1?) • How can we give sufficient support to encourage learners to form sentences and write independently? The final description of the tasks is given below. Task One (writing a target word): Target words were presented by picture within a sentence. This was done so that the contextual information within the sentence could facilitate lexical retrieval. See Figure 1 for an example sentence designed to trigger the target word ‘ice-cream’. William is eating ________________. Figure 1 If the learner did not remember the target word, or did not know the word, the examiner would dictate the word to the student and check the learner’s knowledge of it. Responses were classified as follows: 1. Learner wrote the word independently 2. Learner could not remember the word, but knows the word (lexical retrieval problem) 3. Learner does not know the word - the word is completely new to the learner Task Two (writing a sentence including a target topic): Images representing the target subject area were presented to the learner, and the learner had to describe the pictures using a sentence. If the student did not know what to write, the examiner would describe the picture in the mother tongue to give the context. The examiner also supplied the word, if the learner could not remember the word in English. Thus, the results were classified as in the first task. While the first task focused mainly on nouns, the second task allowed us to examine other words classes (verbs, auxiliary verbs, pronouns, etc.) Task Three (independent writing): This was a free writing task where learners were asked to describe their family. If the learner did not know what to write, the examiner provided some ideas in the mother tongue to elicit a written response from the learner. If the learner was not able to write a sentence, they were encouraged to write at least a couple of isolated words connected to the topic. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Although our action-research project focused upon the writing skills of language learners in Italy and Croatia, the results do demonstrate the readiness and willingness of the children in the sample to communicate in English in both written and spoken form. To contextualise some of the results from our research it is worth looking briefly at the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) 2. The framework was developed from over twenty years of research into second (foreign) language learning. It was designed to provide a transparent, coherent and comprehensive foundation for: • The development of syllabuses and curriculum guidelines • The design of teaching and learning materials • The assessment of foreign language proficiency The global representation of three CEFR levels (Basic User, Intermediate User and Proficient User) is given in Table 1 below. This table has been developed to give reference or orientation points for teachers and curriculum planners. Table 1 Can understand with ease virtually everything heard or read. Can summarise information from different spoken and written sources, reconstructing arguments and accounts in a coherent C2 presentation. Can express him/herself spontaneously, very fluently and precisely, differentiating finer shades of meaning even in more complex situations. PROFICIENT USER Can understand a wide range of demanding, longer texts, and recognise implicit meaning. Can express him/herself fluently and spontaneously without much obvious searching for expressions. Can use language flexibly and effectively for C1 social, academic and professional purposes. Can produce clear, well-structured, detailed text on complex subjects, showing controlled use of organisational patterns, connectors and cohesive devices. Can understand the main ideas of complex text on both concrete and abstract topics, including technical discussions in his/her field of specialisation. Can interact with a degree of fluency and spontaneity that makes regular interaction with B2 native speakers quite possible without strain for either party. Can produce clear, detailed text on a wide range of subjects INDEPENDENT and explain a viewpoint on a topical issue giving the advantages USER and disadvantages of various options. Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, B1 etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal 2 See https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes & ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. Can understand sentences and frequently used expressions related to areas of most immediate relevance (e.g. very basic personal and family information, shopping, local geography, employment). Can communicate in simple and routine tasks A2 requiring a simple and direct exchange of information on familiar and routine matters. Can describe in simple terms aspects of his/her background, immediate environment and matters in BASIC areas of immediate need. USER Can understand and use familiar everyday expressions and very basic phrases aimed at the satisfaction of needs of a concrete type. Can introduce him/herself and others and can A1 ask and answer questions about personal details such as where he/she lives, people he/she knows and things he/she has. Can interact in a simple way provided the other person talks slowly and clearly and is prepared to help. The Italian Ministry of University, Education and Research (MIUR3; 2012) makes direct reference to the framework when stating the competences children must have at the end of primary school for ‘scuola media’4 English language: At the end of primary school MIUR affirms in the document that the competences of English language must be on the level A1 (p. 39). At the end of “Scuola media” MIUR affirms in the document that the competences of English language must be on the level A2 (p. 40). The Croatian National Educational Standard (2005, p.82) explicitly states that children after eight years of studying foreign language, thus at the end of what is in Croatia elementary school, should achieve competences at the level A2. Current teaching methods of teaching English as a second language in Italy In Italy at present, children learn words and phrases by heart, not by any type of phonological instruction. They copy new words from the board (please see Figure 7 and Figure 8 in the Appendix) or books or learn through mnemonics and/or songs. Most children, when they are learning how to write, will pronounce an English word as if it is an Italian word: for example, if they have to write ‘beautiful’ they will say bay/a/oo/tifol. This way of writing, although methodologically wrong for all students, is even more confusing for learners with dyslexia as it does not give any direct, explicit systematic route for converting English speech sounds to graphemes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Orthographies in Early Modern Europe
    Orthographies in Early Modern Europe Orthographies in Early Modern Europe Edited by Susan Baddeley Anja Voeste De Gruyter Mouton An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org An electronic version of this book is freely available, thanks to the support of libra- ries working with Knowledge Unlatched. KU is a collaborative initiative designed to make high quality books Open Access. More information about the initiative can be found at www.knowledgeunlatched.org ISBN 978-3-11-021808-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 ISSN 0179-0986 e-ISSN 0179-3256 ThisISBN work 978-3-11-021808-4 is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License, ase-ISBN of February (PDF) 978-3-11-021809-1 23, 2017. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-021806-2 LibraryISSN 0179-0986 of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Ae-ISSN CIP catalog 0179-3256 record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-3-11-028812-4 e-ISBNBibliografische 978-3-11-028817-9 Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliogra- fie;This detaillierte work is licensed bibliografische under the DatenCreative sind Commons im Internet Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs über 3.0 License, Libraryhttp://dnb.dnb.deas of February of Congress 23, 2017.abrufbar.
    [Show full text]
  • Spelling Acquisition in English and Italian: a Cross-Linguistic Study
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Frontiers - Publisher Connector ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 08 December 2015 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01843 Spelling Acquisition in English and Italian: A Cross-Linguistic Study Chiara V. Marinelli 1, 2*, Cristina Romani 3, Cristina Burani 4, 5 and Pierluigi Zoccolotti 1, 2 1 Department of Psychology, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy, 2 Neuropsychological Research Centre, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia, Rome, Italy, 3 School of Life and Health Science, Aston University, Birmingham, UK, 4 ISTC Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technologies, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy, 5 Department of Life Sciences, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy We examined the spelling acquisition in children up to late primary school of a consistent orthography (Italian) and an inconsistent orthography (English). The effects of frequency, lexicality, length, and regularity in modulating spelling performance of the two groups were examined. English and Italian children were matched for both chronological age and number of years of schooling. Two-hundred and seven Italian children and 79 English children took part in the study. We found greater accuracy in spelling in Italian than English children: Italian children were very accurate after only 2 years of schooling, while in English children the spelling performance was still poor after 5 years of schooling. Cross-linguistic differences in spelling accuracy proved to be more persistent than the corresponding ones in reading accuracy. Orthographic consistency produced not only quantitative, but also qualitative differences, with larger frequency and regularity effects Edited by: Simone Aparecida Capellini, in English than in Italian children.
    [Show full text]
  • Tizianamascia-FELA-Symposium II Italy 19.1.20
    4TH BALTIC SEA CONFERENCE ON LITERACY. SEARCHING FOR A COMMON LANGUAGE JANUARY 16th – 21st, 2020, TALLINN THE INITIAL TEACHING OF LITERACY ACROSS EUROPE INITIAL TEACHING OF READING AND WRITING IN ITALY Tiziana Mascia Free University of Bozen OUTLINE OF MY PRESENTATION • CHARACTERISTICS OF ITALIAN ORTHOGRAPHY • EVOLUTION OF METHODS - SYNTHETIC AND ANALYTIC • INITIAL TEACHING OF LITERACY IN ITALY • PHONO-SYLLABIC METHOD • SOME EXAMPLES PRINCIPLES OF ITALIAN ORTHOGRAPHY ITALIAN ORTHOGRAPHY Principles of Italian orthography • Transparent orthography: with a few exceptions, the Italian language is spelt as it is spoken, and read as it is written. • There are precise rules whereby certain graphemes will always correspond to the same phonemes. Only in a few cases do some letters of the alphabet represent more than one phoneme. • Italian children show a higher speed and accuracy in learning how to read words with simple structures than their peers from countries with opaque orthographies, such as France or Scotland (Seymour et al., 2003). WHAT ARE THE MAIN DIFFICULTIES? The main difficulties are the following: • Use of double consonants. • Incorrect use of apostrophes and accents. • Initials of names in capital letters. • Division into syllables to write and spell correctly. • Use of the letter H or the letter E with an accent to indicate a verb. WHAT ARE THE MAIN DIFFICULTIES? The main difficulties are the following (some examples): • Regional accents can interfere with the correct writing of words (azione; azzione; ...) . • Identifying compound words: Expressions that were originally made up of several words and have become compound words. In some cases the words also continue to remain separate (al di là means beyond; aldilà means afterlife; all’erta means being careful – allerta means danger).
    [Show full text]
  • ADAPTATIONS of HEBREW SCRIPT in This Chapter I Present An
    CHAPTER TWO FROM ARAMEA TO AMERICA: ADAPTATIONS OF HEBREW SCRIPT In this chapter I present an overview of the development of the Hebrew writing system, followed by a survey of language families with attested Hebrew-letter texts. While I aim to provide a broader and more inclusive overview of Hebraicization than has been available previously, I do not make any claim to comprehensiveness. 1. FROM HEBREW TO JEWISH WRITING Nothing is known of Hebraic writing before the Israelites emerged in the land of Canaan and "borrowed the art of writing" from the local inhabitants in the twelfth or eleventh century BCE (Naveh 1982: 65). In the earliest known Hebrew inscription, the Gezer calendar,1 the writing resembles that of tenth-century Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos, and features no specifically Hebrew characters. Indeed, the Phoenician influence was so dominant that neither the Hebrews nor the Aramaeans ever innovated new characters to represent consonant phonemes that did not exist in Phoenician. The first distinctive features of Hebrew writing are actually to be found in ninth-century inscriptions in Moabite, a Canaanite dialect related to Hebrew. According to Naveh (1982), these adaptations of the contemporary Hebrew script represent the first stage of the Hebrew scribal tradition. Despite dialectal differences between the spoken Hebrew of Judah (the 1 Naveh notes that although the calendar can be dated to the late tenth century, the language of this inscription "does not have any lexical or grammatical features that preclude the possibility of its being Phoenician" (1982: 76). southern kingdom) and Israel (the northern kingdom), the same script was used in both kingdoms, as well as by the Moabites and Edomites to write their own kindred languages while under the rule of Israel and Judah.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthographic Input and Second Language Phonology
    Bassetti, B. (2008) Orthographic input and second language phonology. In Piske, T. and Young- Scholten, M. (eds.), Input Matters in SLA. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters (pp. 191-206). Copyright Notice The documents distributed here have been provided as a means to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work on a noncommercial basis. Copyright and all rights therein are maintained by the authors or by other copyright holders, notwithstanding that they have offered their works here electronically. It is understood that all persons copying this information will adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. These works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder. Orthographic input and second language phonology Benedetta Bassetti 1. Introduction For many instructed second language learners, much second language input is not spoken, but written input. Unlike children acquiring their first language, L2 learners are often exposed to L2 written input from the early stages of the learning process, and written input can constitute a large part of their overall L2 input. Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers have mostly shown little interest in the differences between spoken and written input. While spoken and written language differ in terms of structures and vocabulary (see Halliday, 1990), more interestingly for this chapter, written representations provide a visual analysis of language. For instance, the English writing system represents phonemes as individual letters and words as strings of letters separated by spaces, although neither phonemes nor words are isolated units in the spoken language. Different writing systems represent different units of language: while alphabetic writing systems (such as Italian) represent phonemes, consonantal writing systems (such as Arabic) represent consonants, syllabic writing systems (such as Japanese kana) represent syllables, and morphemic writing systems (such as Chinese) represent morphemes.
    [Show full text]
  • CROSS-LINGUISTIC STUDY of SPELLING in ENGLISH AS a FOREIGN LANGUAGE: the ROLE of FIRST LANGUAGE ORTHOGRAPHY in EFL SPELLING a Di
    CROSS-LINGUISTIC STUDY OF SPELLING IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: THE ROLE OF FIRST LANGUAGE ORTHOGRAPHY IN EFL SPELLING A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Nadezda Lvovna Dich August 2011 © 2011 Nadezda Lvovna Dich CROSS-LINGUISTIC STUDY OF SPELLING IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE: THE ROLE OF FIRST LANGUAGE ORTHOGRAPHY IN EFL SPELLING Nadezda Lvovna Dich, Ph. D. Cornell University 2011 The study investigated the effects of learning literacy in different first languages (L1s) on the acquisition of spelling in English as a foreign language (EFL). The hypothesis of the study was that given the same amount of practice, English learners from different first language backgrounds would differ on their English spelling proficiency because different orthographies “train” spelling skills differently and therefore the opportunities for positive cross-linguistic transfer that benefits English spelling would differ across L1s. The study also predicted that cross-linguistic differences in English spelling would not be the same across different components of spelling proficiency because cross-linguistic transfer would affect some skills involved in spelling competence, but not others. The study tested native speakers of Danish, Italian, and Russian with intermediate to advanced EFL proficiency. The three languages were chosen for this study based on the differences in native language spelling skills required to learn the three orthographies. One hundred Danish, 98 Italian, and 104 Russian university students, as well as a control group of 95 American students were recruited to participate in the web-based study, which was composed of four tasks testing four skills previously identified as components of English spelling proficiency: irregular word spelling, sensitivity to morphological spelling cues, sensitivity to context-driven probabilistic orthographic patterns, and phonological awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Spelling Skills in Spanish Orthography: a Longitudinal Study
    Development of spelling skills in Spanish orthography: a longitudinal study Francisca Serrano Universidad de Granada [email protected] Gracia Jiménez Fernández Universidad de Granada [email protected] Sylvia Defior Universidad de Granada [email protected] Key words: spelling skills, spanish orthography, lexical effect, complexity effect, phoneme-grapheme correspondences Abstract The main aim of this research was to study the spelling skills development in the early stages of learning of Spanish children. Several studies show that the depth of the orthography affects spelling acquisition; it is supposed that spelling skills are easier to acquire in a transparent orthography than in a deep orthography. The Spanish written system is considered shallow, but has some complexities in the mapping of phonemes onto graphemes. Participants were 63 Spanish children in first grade of Primary Education. All the children are tested at three different Test Points (November, February and May) with four dictation tasks: Letter knowledge, simple and complex word spelling (6 items) and pseudoword spelling. The goals were to study the lexical and non-lexical spelling procedures according to the dual route models, on one hand, and to investigate the complexity effect in spelling. Syllabic structure influence and error analysis were also carried out. Results showed a high level of performance in all task and lexical effect, complexity effect and syllabic structure effect was found. The findings are discussed regarding Spanish written system transparency and the teaching methods used in the early stages of spelling acquisition. Introduction Reading and spelling acquisition is an instructional goal relevant enough to deserve the analysis of the conditions that could facilitate this acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • A Description and Analysis of Contents Jeannette Di Bernardo Jones Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2007 University of Pennsylvania MS Codex 436: a description and analysis of contents Jeannette Di Bernardo Jones Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Music Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Jeannette Di Bernardo, "University of Pennsylvania MS Codex 436: a description and analysis of contents" (2007). LSU Master's Theses. 3052. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/3052 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA MS CODEX 436: A DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Music in The School of Music by Jeannette D. Jones B.A., Covenant College, 2001 May 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the many people who have contributed to the completion of this thesis. First, I would like to thank Cristle Collins Judd, who first suggested the topic, pointing me to the manuscript in the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Rare Book and Manuscript Library. I would also like to thank the staff of the Rare Books and Manuscript Library for their friendly and helpful advice and for their willingness to allow me to photograph so many pages from their holdings for use in my research and for their permission to use some of these photographs in my thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Valentina Tobia
    University of Milano-Bicocca Department of Psychology Doctoral program in Experimental Psychology, Linguistics, and Cognitive Neuroscience XXV cycle COGNITIVE PROFILES OF TYPICAL AND ATYPICAL READERS: EVIDENCE FROM THE ITALIAN ORTHOGRAPHY Supervisor: Dr. Gian Marco Marzocchi Valentina Tobia TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – General introduction 1.1 Developmental Dyslexia………………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 How do children learn to read?.…………………………………………………………………..2 1.3 Cognitive deficit models of Developmental Dyslexia……………………………………………6 1.3.1 Deficits in general learning abilities…………………………………………….………..6 1.3.2 Language-based deficits……………………………………….…………………………7 1.3.3 Visual- and attentional- based deficits………………………………………………….11 1.3.4 The multiple cognitive deficit model………………………………..………………….14 1.4 Cultural and linguistic influences………………………………………………………..………..17 1.5 Developmental Dyslexia in the Italian orthography………………………………………….…19 1.6 Socio-emotional and behavioral correlates of Developmental Dyslexia………………………..21 1.7 The current studies……………………………………………………………………………......24 Chapter 2 - Predictors of reading fluency in Italian orthography: Evidence from a cross- sectional study of primary school students 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..27 2.1.1 Phonological awareness (PA).…………………………………………………………..28 2.1.2 Rapid automatized naming (RAN).……………………………………………………..29 2.1.3 Verbal short-term memory (VSTM).…………………………………………………...32 2.1.4 Vocabulary……………………………………………………………………………...32 2.1.5 Visual search and visuo-spatial attention…………………………………………….....33
    [Show full text]
  • Italian Italian Orthography in Early Modern Times Andreas Michel
    Italian Italian orthography in Early Modern times Andreas Michel 1. The ideal of phonological spelling and the writing tradition The 16th century had a profound effect on the development of many Euro- pean languages. The letterpress created in the mid-15th century played a significant part in this development, which led to a certain long-term ortho- graphical unity, as well as to the establishment of punctuation rules. How- ever, the 16th century was not just a time of linguistic regulation: it was also one of phonographemic experiments by individual philologists and grammarians. The French grammarian Louis Meigret (c. 1510– c.1560) published Le tretté de la grammére françoéze in 1550, and in this work he used a kind of spelling which was based on phonological criteria (cf. Baddeley, this vol- ume). The same thing was done by Jacques Peletier du Mans (1517–1583) in his Dialogue de l’ortografe e Prononciation Françoęse (1550). They both met with rejection to the greatest possible extent. A quarter of a cen- tury earlier, the Italian grammarian Giangiorgio Trissino (1478–1550) had encountered a similar experience in his attempt to mark open and closed vowels as well as voiced and unvoiced s with special characters. The con- flict emerged because, before the establishment of real orthographical norms between the Middle Ages and Early Modern times, many Romance languages had already developed writing traditions, whose reform encoun- tered resistance from traditionalists. These traditions grew stronger over the centuries, and often hindered the progress of rational writing systems based on phonological criteria. In the case of spelling in European alphabetic writing, two different systems can be distinguished: the phonemic and the morphophonemic.
    [Show full text]
  • CDP++.Italian: Modelling Sublexical and Supralexical Inconsistency in a Shallow Orthography Conrad Perry, Johannes Ziegler, Marco Zorzi
    CDP++.Italian: Modelling Sublexical and Supralexical Inconsistency in a Shallow Orthography Conrad Perry, Johannes Ziegler, Marco Zorzi To cite this version: Conrad Perry, Johannes Ziegler, Marco Zorzi. CDP++.Italian: Modelling Sublexical and Supralexical Inconsistency in a Shallow Orthography. PLoS ONE, Public Library of Science, 2014, 9 (4), pp.e94291. 10.1371/journal.pone.0094291. hal-01016354 HAL Id: hal-01016354 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01016354 Submitted on 12 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License CDP++.Italian: Modelling Sublexical and Supralexical Inconsistency in a Shallow Orthography Conrad Perry1*, Johannes C. Ziegler2, Marco Zorzi3,4 1 Faculty of Life and Social Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia, 2 Aix-Marseille Université and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Marseille, France, 3 Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale and Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Universita di Padova, Padova, Italy, 4 IRCCS San Camillo Neurorehabilitation Hospital, Lido di Venezia, Italy Abstract Most models of reading aloud have been constructed to explain data in relatively complex orthographies like English and French. Here, we created an Italian version of the Connectionist Dual Process Model of Reading Aloud (CDP++) to examine the extent to which the model could predict data in a language which has relatively simple orthography-phonology relationships but is relatively complex at a suprasegmental (word stress) level.
    [Show full text]
  • Antonio Baroni
    Alphabetic vs. non-alphabetic writing: Linguistic fit and natural tendencies Antonio Baroni This article has two main purposes. The first one is to prove that the alleged superiority of the alphabet to other writing systems (syllabic and logosyllabic ones) is an ethnocentric prejudice and that the optimality of a writing system has to be measured following a series of criteria which cannot be reduced to the faithful mapping of sounds. The second one is to incorporate into the graphemic theory external data and new approaches to develop new methods of investigation and to emancipate graphemics from phonology. The structure of the article is composed of seven parts. First of all, we discuss some definition problems; then, in the introduction, the main points of view about the alphabetic principle are exposed and in chapter 2 the relationships between writing systems and language percep- tion are investigated. In chapter 3 we attempt to define some criteria to judge the degree of optimality of the different writing systems. In chapter 4 we try to find some patterns of predictability of the degree of opacity and transparency of some of the main European writing systems (the opaque English, French and Danish orthographies and the shallow Finnish and Italian orthographies). In chapter 5 we shortly examine the natural evolu- tion of writing in recent times: Internet, SMS and new writing systems. Finally, in chapter 6 we try to draw some temporary conclusions.* Definitions Before starting our investigation about the degrees of optimality of the different writing systems, it would be better to deal with defini- tion problems.
    [Show full text]