Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:06:51.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grain size in script and teaching: Literacy acquisition in Ge'ez and Latin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

YONAS MESFUN ASFAHA ,
JEANNE KURVERS  and
SJAAK KROON
YONAS MESFUN ASFAHA*
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
JEANNE KURVERS
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
SJAAK KROON
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yonas Mesfun Asfaha, Department of Language and Culture Studies, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, Tilburg 5000 LE, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study investigated reading in four African languages that use either syllabic Ge'ez (Tigrinya and Tigre languages) or alphabetic Latin scripts (Kunama and Saho). A sample of 385 Grade 1 children were given letter knowledge, word reading, and spelling tasks to investigate differences at the script and language levels. Results showed that the syllable based Ge'ez script was easier to learn than the phoneme-based Latin despite the bigger number of basic units in Ge'ez. Moreover, the syllable based teaching of alphabetic Saho produced better results than alphabetic teaching of Kunama. These findings are discussed using the psycholinguistic grain size theory. The outcomes confirm the importance of the availability of phonological units in learning to read.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 709 - 724
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraha, J. (2005). Kunama dialects and morphology. Journal of Eritrean Studies, 4, 28–44.Google Scholar
Banti, G., & Vergari, M. (2005). A sketch of Saho grammar. Journal of Eritrean Studies, 4, 100–131.Google Scholar
Bertelson, P. (1986). The onset of literacy: Liminal remarks. Cognition, 24, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruck, M., Genesee, F., & Caravolas, M. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early literacy acquisition. In Blachman, B. A. (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Byrne, B. (1998). The foundation of literacy. The child's acquisition of the alphabetic principle. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Oney, B. (1999). A cross-linguistic comparison of phonological awareness and word recognition. Reading and Writing, 11, 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Hooper, A. M. (2001). Why learning to read is easier in Welsh than in English: Orthographic transparency effects evinced with frequency-matched tests. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 571–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L., & Rozin, P. (1977). The structure and acquisition of reading. Relations between orthographies and the structure of language. In Rieber, A. S. & Scarborough, D. S. (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gombert, J. (1992). Metalinguistic development. New York: Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Goswami, U., & Ziegler, J. C. (2006). Fluency, phonology and morphology: A response to the commentaries on becoming literate in different languages. Developmental Science, 9, 451–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading across ortho-graphies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hambleton, R. K. (2005). Issues, designs, and technical guidelines for adapting tests into multiple languages and cultures. In Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P. F., & Spielberger, C. D. (Eds.), Adapting educational and psychological tests for cross-cultural assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lee, S. Y., Uttal, D. H., & Chen, C. (1995). Writing systems and acquisition of reading in American, Chinese, and Japanese first-graders. In Taylor, I. & Olson, D. R. (Eds.), Scripts and literacy: Reading and learning to read alphabets, syllabaries and characters. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nag, S. (2007). Early reading in Kannada: The pace of acquisition of orthographic knowledge and phonemic awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 30, 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Cedillo, G. D., & Denton, C. A. (2004). Linguistic units and instructional strategies that facilitate word recognition for Latino kindergarteners learning to read in Spanish. Bilingual Research Journal, 28, 319–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, S. (1983). Tigre grammar and texts. Malibu, CA: Undena Publications.Google Scholar
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Share, D. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, S. L., & Davis, P. M. (2005). The Eritrea National Reading Survey. Dallas, TX: SIL International.Google Scholar
Winskel, H., & Widjaja, V. (2007). Phonological awareness, letter knowledge, and literacy development in Indonesian beginner readers and spellers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, M. W. (2001). More than chanting: Multilingual literacies, ideologies and teaching methodologies in rural Eritrea. In Street, B. (Ed.), Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wydell, T. N., & Kondo, T. (2003). Phonological deficit and the reliance on orthographic approximation for reading: A follow-up study on an English–Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 26, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2006). Becoming literate in different languages: Similar problems, different solutions. Developmental Science, 9, 429–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed