ISB5 Turkish-French Bilingualism2005

8/13/2019 ISB5 Turkish-French Bilingualism2005

1/21

Written Picture Naming inTurkish-French Bilingual Children

Biran E. Mertan1 and Ilhan Raman2

1Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus2

Middlesex University, UK

5th International Symposium on Bilingualism,20-23 March 2005, Barcelona


2/21


3/21

Background Cognates in two different languages share

the same etymology. They are conceptually, orthographically and

phonologically similar.

Empirical research has shown that

cognates are processed much faster and

more accurately than noncognates. It is important to investigate how cognate

objects affect bilingual spelling performance

in children


4/21

Background contd Cross-linguistic effect of shared

orthography, phonology and semantics isnot clear

However, one needs to note previously

reported facilitatory effects of cross-linguistic orthographic and semanticsimilarity on response latencies to target

words, but inhibitory effects ofphonological overlap as in Dutch-English(Dijkstra,Grainger & van-Heuven, 1999)


5/21

Turkish Orthography The modern Turkish orthography consists

of a 29 letter Latin alphabet of eight

vowels and 21 consonants.

The modern Turkish orthography was

deliberately designed to embody thesounds in the spoken language in a totally

transparent representation.

Print-to-sound translation rules for each of

the letters in the Turkish alphabet are

totally one-to-one, explicit and contextindependent, i.e. no sources of irregularity.


6/21

Turkish vs. French Writing

Systems Although Turkish and French vary greatly

on the orthographic transparencycontinuum, there are some shared

characteristics:

both scripts use the Latin alphabet

both written and read from left to right

shared letters/graphemes and phonemes


7/21

Turkish and French Alphabets

Turkish alphabeta b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v y z

French alphabet

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p qr s t u v w xy z

Letters unique to each alphabet are in bold

23 letters are shared between two orthographies


8/21

Orthographic Transparency Continuum

Orthographic transparency continuum based on print-to-sound mappings

Alphabetic Writing Systems

Turkish

Transparent

Italian

SpanishRelatively transparent

English

French

Persian

Mixed

Arabic

Hebrew

Opaque


9/21

Questions Is there a relationship between orthography

and acquisition of literacy in two languages? How do the unique properties of a language

shape fluency of spelling?

In bilingual, biscriptal Turkish-French

readers, to what extent does the properties

of L1 and L2 influence languageprocessing?


10/21

Stimuli The picture names were cognates in Turkish

and French with similar pronunciation andspelling

Turkish

kamyon

French

camion


11/21

abajurotomobil

sinema

kamyon

kasket

parat

piyano

apka

telefon

jandarmaampul

sigara

kolye

kasetmanto

du

radyo

valiz

televizyonotobs

Object Name

Turkish

lampshadecar

cinema

lorry

cap

parachute

piano

hat

telephone

gendarmelight-bulb

cigarette

necklace

cassettecoat

shower

radio

luggage

televisionbus

abat-jourautomobile

cinma

camion

casquette

parachute

piano

chapeau

tlphone

gendarmeampoule

cigarette

collier

cassettemanteau

douche

radio

valise

tlvisionautobus

English

translation

Object Name

French


12/21

Predictions Cross-linguistic orthographic and semanticsimilarity on response latencies to target words,

is known to have facilitatory effects whereasphonological overlap yields inhibitory effects(Dijkstra,Grainger & van-Heuven, 1999)

This effect was found in Dutch-English, twoIndo-European languages

It is important to examine the role of sharedphonology, orthography and semantics in

spelling by using cognates in two orthographieswith similar orthography and phonology

Turkish is a Turkic language while French

belongs to the Indo-European cluster


13/21

Predictions Children were predicted to conduct more spelling errors inFrench overall due to its unpredictable nature betweenprint and sound.

Moreover, we predicted errors to reflect children's earlylanguage instruction in L1: those who received their L1training in Turkey were predicted to make more spellingerrors in French compared to Turkish. Similarly, children

who received their L1 training in France were predicted tomake more spelling errors in Turkish compared to French.

Moreover, an interaction between Turkish and Frenchlanguages at the lexico-semantic level in bilingual childrenwas predicted in relation to their L2 spelling proficiency.

This is because while mappings between orthography andphonology in Turkish are totally transparent andconsistent, in French they are relatively opaque andinconsistent.


14/21

Method Design In a counterbalanced design, children were instructed to write

cognate picture names down in French and Turkish. The criticalvariable was whether they received their early primary education in

Turkey or France.

Participants The participants were 10-11 year old children and residents in

France. A total of 14 children were selected from a sample of 103

and were matched on socio-economic background, age andscholastic attainment. Each child was required to have been in theFrench education system for at least two years as well as attendingextracurricular Turkish language classes in France.

Materials/ Stimuli/ Procedure The stimulus picture names were cognates in Turkish and Frenchwith similar pronunciation and spelling in L1 and L2 (e.g., light bulbis ampul in Turkish and ampoule in French). In addition, all pictureswere rated to have name agreement, familiarity and similar

complexity by independent judges. The study was conducted in thechildrens schools.


15/21

Graph 1: Spelling errors in Turkish and

French according to primary education

GP

French EducationTurkish education

Mean

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

TR_ERRSP

FR_ERRSP

3

7

8

5


16/21

Line graph showing the interaction

between L1 & L2 errors

GROUP

2.00 French Educ1.00 Turkish Educ

EstimatedMarginalMeans

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

ERROR

1 Turkish Errors

2 French Errors


17/21

Results

There was a significant difference betweenthe two education groups on Turkish errors

t(12) = -2.5 p


18/21

Current models of bilingual language

processing differ in their assumptions aboutthe organisation of the lexical system in L1

and L2.

The effects of language we observed here

are compatible with models that assume

separate lexica for L1 and L2

Models of Bilingual Language

Processing


19/21

Kroll & Stewart Revised

Hierarchical Model (1999)

L1 L2

concepts

lexicallinks

conceptuallinks

conceptuallinks

pictures

Figure 8


20/21

Discussion The results suggest that acquisition of

spelling skills in the second orthography is

perhaps determined by the complexity of thefirst orthography.

Children who learnt the transparent Turkish

orthography first, made an equal number oferrors in Turkish and French despite Frenchbeing more opaque than Turkish.

On the other hand, children who acquiredthe French orthography first, struggled withTurkish despite the simple mappings

between its orthography and phonology.


21/21

Future Directions This raises a question in relation to transferring of

phonological and orthographic skills between

orthographies that have distinct mappingsbetween orthography and phonology.

The current results raise a further question

whether orthographic and phonological overlapare necessary to establish shared lexical entriesfor cognates in attaining L1 and L2 fluency in thebilingual child.

The results suggest that pedagogical practicescould involve the use of cognates particularlywhen there is a considerable amount of

phonological and orthographic overlap.

ISB5 Turkish-French Bilingualism2005

Documents