Spelling words the way they sound (Oral habits)

Jolie77 said:
Perhaps it's not the phonetical issue or the orthographical issue which seems to be in pertain of this but as to how both different groups are in the "play" for what it says otherwise?
Click to expand...

Well, this is what everyone in the professional field has to say about it. Even as much as it seems like it is reasonable that it is relevant to phonetic errors, they are unable to draw a conclusion.

Both professors who conducted the 'Deaf spelling' reached a conclusion that although sounds are what seems plausible, there is no solid black-white answer. Dr. Marschark, the reference who was indicative of the deaf cognitive thinking process has replied that he is unsure of what exactly are the indications that cause this as well, but he notes that this can easily be done if anyone is to take on the task of performing the study.

Although like he said, there is no ultimate purpose in doing it unless the major focus was that we were to attempting to find something wrong with language in general. (Which I'm not intending to do, all I was looking to see if there is a correlation for the word definitely-definately specifically that ties differently between hearing and deaf in some form or another.)
 
naisho said:
Well, this is what everyone in the professional field has to say about it. Even as much as it seems like it is reasonable that it is relevant to phonetic errors, they are unable to draw a conclusion.

Both professors who conducted the 'Deaf spelling' reached a conclusion that although sounds are what seems plausible, there is no solid black-white answer. Dr. Marschark, the reference who was indicative of the deaf cognitive thinking process has replied that he is unsure of what exactly are the indications that cause this as well, but he notes that this can easily be done if anyone is to take on the task of performing the study.

I'm going to have to offer a correction here, Naisho. He did not say that cause could be easily determined. In fact, the very reason that exact cause has not been determined is because it is extremely difficult to do so. The phenomenon has been shown to exist, results have been replicated, so we know the difference is there. However, determining the exact biological changes that would have to be evident to empirically determine cause is next to impossible.

Although like he said, there is no ultimate purpose in doing it unless the major focus was that we were to attempting to find something wrong with language in general. (Which I'm not intending to do, all I was looking to see if there is a correlation for the word definitely-definately specifically that ties differently between hearing and deaf in some form or another.)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Research is much more interested in the typical errors across the board, than in one specific word area. One specific word is not enough to show pattern, or to establish a direction for further applied research.
 
naisho said:
Well, this is what everyone in the professional field has to say about it. Even as much as it seems like it is reasonable that it is relevant to phonetic errors, they are unable to draw a conclusion.

Both professors who conducted the 'Deaf spelling' reached a conclusion that although sounds are what seems plausible, there is no solid black-white answer. Dr. Marschark, the reference who was indicative of the deaf cognitive thinking process has replied that he is unsure of what exactly are the indications that cause this as well, but he notes that this can easily be done if anyone is to take on the task of performing the study.

Although like he said, there is no ultimate purpose in doing it unless the major focus was that we were to attempting to find something wrong with language in general. (Which I'm not intending to do, all I was looking to see if there is a correlation for the word definitely-definately specifically that ties differently between hearing and deaf in some form or another.)
Click to expand...

jillio said:
I'm going to have to offer a correction here, Naisho. He did not say that cause could be easily determined. In fact, the very reason that exact cause has not been determined is because it is extremely difficult to do so. The phenomenon has been shown to exist, results have been replicated, so we know the difference is there. However, determining the exact biological changes that would have to be evident to empirically determine cause is next to impossible


Exactly. Research is much more interested in the typical errors across the board, than in one specific word area. One specific word is not enough to show pattern, or to establish a direction for further applied research.
Click to expand...


Allright - That's like saying in another sense with the correlation of words that can't be proven because we know it is there but it can't be based on one thing just because virtually, anyone could do the same mistake even if they're not deaf or hearing?

What I mean is, There's no empirical sources that can be refuted to this because of the typical errors which cannot be applied for any further notice?
 
Jolie77 said:
Allright - That's like saying in another sense with the correlation of words that can't be proven because we know it is there but it can't be based on one thing just because virtually, anyone could do the same mistake even if they're not deaf or hearing?

What I mean is, There's no empirical sources that can be refuted to this because of the typical errors which cannot be applied for any further notice?
Click to expand...

I think you could refute that by using this forum, to search words and find percentage of wrong spellings between deaf and hearing.
 
jillio said:
I'm going to have to offer a correction here, Naisho. He did not say that cause could be easily determined. In fact, the very reason that exact cause has not been determined is because it is extremely difficult to do so. The phenomenon has been shown to exist, results have been replicated, so we know the difference is there. However, determining the exact biological changes that would have to be evident to empirically determine cause is next to impossible.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for the correction. I appreciate it.

Anyway I was not referring to the results being easily determined, I was referring to the simplicity of the study of finding out who were more indicative of performing that substituted "a" for the "i", from the hearing to the oral deaf, to the profoundly deaf that grew with a signed environment. That, is the simplicity I was referring to, because all you have to do is take a few factors into account, then begin the study from there. It IS "easy" and simple, but it is tedious as we both know.

I did not however say, that this is what would give the answer. All I was inferring was that this will easily show the results of who does the mistake of misspelling it [definitely] in the orthographical sense more often, the hearing, the oral deaf, late deafened, or the profoundly deaf? Or a combination of all those who grew in the oral environment versus that of the signed environment?
 
Jolie77 said:
Allright - That's like saying in another sense with the correlation of words that can't be proven because we know it is there but it can't be based on one thing just because virtually, anyone could do the same mistake even if they're not deaf or hearing?

What I mean is, There's no empirical sources that can be refuted to this because of the typical errors which cannot be applied for any further notice?
Click to expand...

Exactly. We can say that these types of errors are seen consistently when we compare deaf and hearing spellers, and that there is a positive correlation between hearing status and type of error made. What we can't say is that this correlation is seen because of actual organic changes in the brain of deaf people. In order to assign cause, we would have to be able to show that.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I would think that for someone who was raised in a mostly deaf environment would rarely make phonetic mistakes.

You know, sometimes I wonder if Deaf people have a hard time with lolcats pictures at:
Lolcats ‘n’ Funny Pictures of Cats – I Can Has Cheezburger?
since most of the captions are purposefully spelled out phonetically (with some bad grammar added too.)
Click to expand...

OMG I totally love lolcats, they are just so hilarious. And totally cute too as well.
 
I was brought up orally. I spell fairly well, but I pronounce words like how they are spelled, so my pronunciation is off, not my spelling.
 
Moon-child said:
I was brought up orally. I spell fairly well, but I pronounce words like how they are spelled, so my pronunciation is off, not my spelling.
Click to expand...

That's true. I do the same thing too! However, this happens with hearing people too. If they read the word before hearing it, they tend to say it the way it's spelled. I've noticed that this usually happens with longer words that people rarely say (ex. monochromatic) or words that have been phonetically changed due to an addition of suffix (ex. economy vs economic).

Curse you, English!
 
Moon-child said:
I was brought up orally. I spell fairly well, but I pronounce words like how they are spelled, so my pronunciation is off, not my spelling.
Click to expand...

I was also raised orally. I'm more likey to make mistake based on sight than phonics though I do make phonically based errors like using mail or male when I mean mail and I spell it male or vice versa.
 
Interesting discussion.

I'm phonetic all the way and make my mistakes along those lines. Case in point, I run into trouble more with the simpler English words like tough, tongue, believe, and massage (for the last word I keep thinking message but know it isn't right spelling). The less there is to "hear" or sound out the more problematic it can be. You just have to know the rules. The more complex or longer the word the less trouble I have.
 
this does not work for me! My spelling is so bad my computer get a headache when I use spell check!
 
deafskeptic said:
I was also raised orally. I'm more likey to make mistake based on sight than phonics though I do make phonically based errors like using mail or male when I mean mail and I spell it male or vice versa.
Click to expand...

Before I started wearing hearing aids, this happened to me as well. I think it's pretty common for alot of people regardless of hearing loss/deafness.
 
Same thing with words like "their" and "they're". They sound exactly the same (at least I think so. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) So, many people make the mistake of using the wrong their/they're term when writing. It's all about the structure behind the word that determines which one should be used. Same for "your" and "you're".
 
AlleyCat said:
Same thing with words like "their" and "they're". They sound exactly the same (at least I think so. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.) So, many people make the mistake of using the wrong their/they're term when writing. It's all about the structure behind the word that determines which one should be used. Same for "your" and "you're".
Click to expand...

Exactly.

By the way, the words "their" and "they're" do sound alike.
 
I frequent some other message boards that are not deaf related and the mistakes mentioned here are ones I see on other message boards by hearing people. I think it may be part of our education system in America and the way grammar is taught vs a hearing/Deaf thing.

I'm usually a good speller, however, I tend to be very tired by the time I sit down so I end up leaving words out, etc.
 
Bottesini said:
I think you could refute that by using this forum, to search words and find percentage of wrong spellings between deaf and hearing.
Click to expand...

That's a thought but there's a problem. It would not be reliable because there are no proven empirical data that can support this. It's kind of in a murky area which makes it hard for it to be able to be refuted.

jillio said:
Exactly. We can say that these types of errors are seen consistently when we compare deaf and hearing spellers, and that there is a positive correlation between hearing status and type of error made. What we can't say is that this correlation is seen because of actual organic changes in the brain of deaf people. In order to assign cause, we would have to be able to show that.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity -

How would we be able to show that when when we already are seeing it but yet we can't formally document it? Even though the correlation is seen and there are several factors that parallels to this reason of such words that are spelled slightly different but it does not exactly prove that deaf and/or hearing people are spelling these words out of these contexts.
 
Taylor said:
I frequent some other message boards that are not deaf related and the mistakes mentioned here are ones I see on other message boards by hearing people. I think it may be part of our education system in America and the way grammar is taught vs a hearing/Deaf thing.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I hate to say this, but when I look at posts from people in their teens and 20s, they seem to contain more errors and abbreviations than those who are in their 30s, 40s, 50s and older.

I hope that doesn't sound judgemental because I don't mean for it to. It's just an observation I've made.
 
no, people in older group misspell words too, like my parents, my grandparents

ask your grandparents to write you a letter. some of you will be surprised. And I am referring to hearing grandparents. My grandma usually gets on MSN chat and her spelling is very confusing.

and I know lot of kids my age (30's) don't know how to spell either. They are the ones who will avoid computers like it is plague . Especially the guys. so do the older groups. It's the ones who know how to write pretty good who will use the computer.


of course, teens think texting is cool so I can see why they do what they do. I'll tell you one thing, if we can understand texting, they would make a great closed captioning or paralegal or rely service.

I think Shorthand and texting are the same thing. shorthand have always existed...especially in medical field.
 
Back
Top