jillio
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
- Messages
- 60,232
- Reaction score
- 19
The research you mentioned also states:
In a previous study of deaf spelling errors, Hanson, Shankweiler, and Fischer (1983) noted that the overwhelming majority of deaf spelling errors did not violate orthographic constraints (91.7% of the hearing responses and 96% of the deaf spellings were orthographically legal—although deaf spelling may not always conform to this pattern, see Sutcliffe, Dowker, & Campbell, 1999). Spellings were legal even though many of the errors would not be pronounced like the target (i.e., deaf spellers made mostly phonologically implausible errors; hearing spellers made mostly phonologically plausible errors).
Which confirms what was said by more than one poster previously regarding the type of errors made. Hearing participants made more phonological errors, deaf participants made more orthographic errors. Or to rephrase, hearing spellers make mistakes related to how a word sounds, deaf spellers make mistakes regarding how a word looks.
Additionally,
Given the large number of phonologically implausible errors in the deaf corpus, it is clear that deaf misspellings are not constrained by a translation of an accurate phonological specification into appropriate graphemes. To the extent that phonological information is present at all, there must be substantial gaps. If a phonological representation does play a role in the error librarylibary, for example, the /r/ must be missing from the phonological form. Magazine magnize requires a much larger degree of uncertainty about the phonemes at the end of the
word.
A striking characteristic of the deaf students’ phonologically implausible errors, however, is that in spite of the latitude allowed by missing phonological information, the errors remain orthographically legal (errors like sympathysypathy, challengechallengen, algebra alegbra, umbrella umbrable are all legal).
Which substantitates another point quite often made on this forum: that the orthographic symbols of language are independent of the phonological symbols.
In a previous study of deaf spelling errors, Hanson, Shankweiler, and Fischer (1983) noted that the overwhelming majority of deaf spelling errors did not violate orthographic constraints (91.7% of the hearing responses and 96% of the deaf spellings were orthographically legal—although deaf spelling may not always conform to this pattern, see Sutcliffe, Dowker, & Campbell, 1999). Spellings were legal even though many of the errors would not be pronounced like the target (i.e., deaf spellers made mostly phonologically implausible errors; hearing spellers made mostly phonologically plausible errors).
Which confirms what was said by more than one poster previously regarding the type of errors made. Hearing participants made more phonological errors, deaf participants made more orthographic errors. Or to rephrase, hearing spellers make mistakes related to how a word sounds, deaf spellers make mistakes regarding how a word looks.
Additionally,
Given the large number of phonologically implausible errors in the deaf corpus, it is clear that deaf misspellings are not constrained by a translation of an accurate phonological specification into appropriate graphemes. To the extent that phonological information is present at all, there must be substantial gaps. If a phonological representation does play a role in the error librarylibary, for example, the /r/ must be missing from the phonological form. Magazine magnize requires a much larger degree of uncertainty about the phonemes at the end of the
word.
A striking characteristic of the deaf students’ phonologically implausible errors, however, is that in spite of the latitude allowed by missing phonological information, the errors remain orthographically legal (errors like sympathysypathy, challengechallengen, algebra alegbra, umbrella umbrable are all legal).
Which substantitates another point quite often made on this forum: that the orthographic symbols of language are independent of the phonological symbols.