Spelling words the way they sound (Oral habits)

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.
 
Yeah, that's the thing. I'm more concerned about the hearing variant of misspelling of definitely, rather than the deaf perspective. As I read through more and more of it, I found how it was quite very interesting that even if the hearing spelled wrong, speech-wise like 90%+ of the hearing spelling were orthographically legal, meaning it would pass if spoken.

Anyway, it is for sure there's no definite answer in this yet, in order to do so just as Dr. Marsharck described in his email:
It is a lot of work just to find a solid, single theorized answer for this basic question unless the focus was to display something in a broad issue reflective of oral language in general.

Basically to be honest with you fellow readers, I was actually persistent on solving the question related to the usage of the word DEFINITELY, as my single key interest, not every other word. I can understand that in other words/spelling there are other attributable answers and the such, and lots of arguments can be drawn from them overall.

In the perspective of the word definitely, alone, just as it was hypothesized... This seems to be something quite interesting to ponder about.

Ta-ta for now folks!

Oh yeah btw the site Dr. M mentioned to keep an eye out for (to be released this week or so) http://www.educatingdeafchildren.org incase you missed it. It is said to be "designed to provide people with evidence based answers" to questions about deaf learners of all ages. Too bad my question won't be there ;).
 
naisho said:
Yeah, that's the thing. I'm more concerned about the hearing variant of misspelling of definitely, rather than the deaf perspective. As I read through more and more of it, I found how it was quite very interesting that even if the hearing spelled wrong, speech-wise like 90%+ of the hearing spelling were orthographically legal, meaning it would pass if spoken.

Anyway, it is for sure there's no definite answer in this yet, in order to do so just as Dr. Marsharck described in his email:
It is a lot of work just to find a solid, single theorized answer for this basic question unless the focus was to display something in a broad issue reflective of oral language in general.

Basically to be honest with you fellow readers, I was actually persistent on solving the question related to the usage of the word DEFINITELY, as my single key interest, not every other word. I can understand that in other words/spelling there are other attributable answers and the such, and lots of arguments can be drawn from them overall.

In the perspective of the word definitely, alone, just as it was hypothesized... This seems to be something quite interesting to ponder about.

Ta-ta for now folks!

Oh yeah btw the site Dr. M mentioned to keep an eye out for (to be released this week or so) RIT - National Technical Institute for the Deaf - Technical College for Deaf Students incase you missed it. It is said to be "designed to provide people with evidence based answers" to questions about deaf learners of all ages.
Click to expand...

Well, the hearing spellers were producing their errors based on phonological information, which, at times will cross over into also being orthographically legal. However, there are times that it will not, as well.

Yeah, that is his field of expertise, and follows the numerous studies he already has published.
 
naisho said:
Hey Oceanbreeze, don't take this as criticism or anything, this is exactly what I was referring to in my initial post. I am an oral deaf, and because I prefer text more to speech, I tend to notice orthographical spelling errors done more frequently in the case of the hearing, I think.

When you said tought, I knew you meant taught right away. I am under the impression that when a hearing/hearing impaired (orally raised deaf) person is writing their words, some think the way it is pronounced. In this form, tought can legally pass as taught in speech form because phonetically, it literally sounds the same (to me at least).


PS. the great Bottesini, I have finally caught an error in your last post ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you. I do feel like someone is being critical of me, but not you. Also, consider that I also have learning disablities that hinder my ability to write; along with good ole fashion typing boo boos. Factor in all three and I struggle, but we all struggle in one way or another or this board, right? At least, that's how I look at it.
 
This is an interesting thread to begin with.

We are always at the median of seeing how one process it by speaking it or thinking of it. I think the most appropriate thing is, in the norm, most hearing people would also just get the grasp of becoming dependent on basing the spell of the word by how it sounds, not by how it is being spoken.

With the deaf people - I don't know about how others does it but with me, I usually process of spelling the words by breaking down the letters only for it to be re-connected to establish a word in order to understand it.

So, I think with being orthographical and phonetically wise, You'd have to break it down by getting to the point where your mind tells you differently. I suppose it is where one would be able to receive and to intervene with it.

Perhaps I'm wrong but then again, I don't know. It's just something that has been running around in my head.
 
naisho said:
Oh, it's right there in post #85, the url and everything provided along with it.
Click to expand...

Seen my later post. I wasn't being critical...I just prefer to access and read the research report in its entirety, as the methods section and the participants section can be extremely useful in determining generalizability and application.
 
I also find it interesting that in the book I mentioned are a couple of studies that were done using deaf people who did not know Japanese writing, and hearing people that did not know Japanese writing. During the experiment, both groups would be shown, flashed on a computer screen, increasingly difficult Japanese language symbols. They would then be asked to reproduce what they had seen. The deaf individuals were able to orthographically reproduce the symbols much more often and with more accuracy than the hearing participants.

This was replicated several times using different participants, and under different conditions and controlling for different variables. One of the conclusions drawn was that, because the hearing participants connect language symbols with the phonetic pronunciation, they were not able to connect the the Japanese symbols to anything meaningful in their experience, and therefore, could not remember what they had seen as readily. On the other hand, being accustomed to connecting a print word as a symbol with another visual symbol as in sign, the deaf participants had something to connect to, and therefore, more readily remembered and were able to reproduce the symbols they saw.

Just thought it was very interesting in terms of language, reading, and writing.
 
Jolie77 said:
Perhaps I'm wrong but then again, I don't know. It's just something that has been running around in my head.
Click to expand...

You're not wrong, there are many different examples in the English language that I tend to notice about this phenomenon.


Like for example, the names of people can be put here to light.

I have a deaf friend by the name of Arni. (Names altered to protect the innocent).

When he is with the hearing, he tends to notice that the hearing write his name as Arnie. He doesn't really blame them, but notices this pattern.

Hearing have gone to write his name as Arnie, Arny, but rarely Arni the way it is written. Why? Well, from a phonetically based perspective, you can see that they all sound the same each way it is pronounced. Even if you write it incorrectly, chances are you probably can legally pass the speech form in pronunciation.

Perhaps certain people would've met more Arnies or Arnys more than Arni's, but this goes in light to show that they most likely had written it the way they are accustomed to - how they pronounce it, or from what I was hypothesizing, how they were raised. This also goes in question of what I was asking about the definitely-definately part. Like, Oral vs ASL environment raised.


Whatever the real answer or concept is, we don't have it until someone takes the resources and the reins to actually go out there and find all these people to question and conduct research on them. It would appear the best place to do this is probably at a school or college.


Another word that popped to me (thanks, Botti) is the word "surprised". I have also noticed that the hearing tend to write it the way it is phonetically said as well, in the form of "suprised". Like I've said.. this is not a orthographical error due to the fact that it passes when said in speech.
 
naisho said:
You're not wrong, there are many different examples in the English language that I tend to notice about this phenomenon.


Like for example, the names of people can be put here to light.

I have a deaf friend by the name of Arni. (Names altered to protect the innocent).

When he is with the hearing, he tends to notice that the hearing write his name as Arnie. He doesn't really blame them, but notices this pattern.

Hearing have gone to write his name as Arnie, Arny, but rarely Arni the way it is written. Why? Well, from a phonetically based perspective, you can see that they all sound the same each way it is pronounced. Even if you write it incorrectly, chances are you probably can legally pass the speech form in pronunciation.

Perhaps certain people would've met more Arnies or Arnys more than Arni's, but this goes in light to show that they most likely had written it the way they are accustomed to - how they pronounce it, or from what I was hypothesizing, how they were raised. This also goes in question of what I was asking about the definitely-definately part. Like, Oral vs ASL environment raised.


Whatever the real answer or concept is, we don't have it until someone takes the resources and the reins to actually go out there and find all these people to question and conduct research on them. It would appear the best place to do this is probably at a school or college.


Another word that popped to me (thanks, Botti) is the word "surprised". I have also noticed that the hearing tend to write it the way it is phonetically said as well, in the form of "suprised". Like I've said.. this is not a orthographical error due to the fact that it passes when said in speech.
Click to expand...

When it comes to proper names, we also have to keep in mind that there are spellings that have been in existence for many years, and are the commonly accepted spelling of that name. Some people choose to change that accepted spelling to add originality, so they can't really blame another for spelling it incorrectly. For instance, the accepted spellin for the name Caitlin. You will also see it spelled Katelynn, Catelin, Caitlyn, Kaitlyn, and many other variations.
 
That's a good posting. I realize, people who are learning English as a second language do misspell as well, they often leave out prepositions and articles. Even though, its auditory , mistakes are spotted in written form , the person is phonetically going by the pronunciation of a word.

I am tri-lingual :)
 
jillio said:
When it comes to proper names, we also have to keep in mind that there are spellings that have been in existence for many years, and are the commonly accepted spelling of that name. Some people choose to change that accepted spelling to add originality, so they can't really blame another for spelling it incorrectly. For instance, the accepted spellin for the name Caitlin. You will also see it spelled Katelynn, Catelin, Caitlyn, Kaitlyn, and many other variations.
Click to expand...

True. I think names are a bad example of spelling. Although I find it interesting that people tend to go towards one type. I would say 90% of the people spell my name Vickie/Vicki instead of Vicky. And the worst part? Sometimes I would end my email with my name, and their response email would say "Dear Vicki"!!!!! That is definitely a phonetic thing!
 
Daredevel7 said:
True. I think names are a bad example of spelling. Although I find it interesting that people tend to go towards one type. I would say 90% of the people spell my name Vickie/Vicki instead of Vicky. And the worst part? Sometimes I would end my email with my name, and their response email would say "Dear Vicki"!!!!! That is definitely a phonetic thing!
Click to expand...

I have a niece who is also named Vicki. She spells it with an "i" when everyone else wants to spell it with a "y."
 
Working with names is the hardest part as an interpreter, especially in a classroom, the students names are usually spelled different then when I hear it phonetically, like Sammi not Sammy or Cimberly not Kimberly. It can be a pain.
 
Oceanblue7 said:
Working with names is the hardest part as an interpreter, especially in a classroom, the students names are usually spelled different then when I hear it phonetically, like Sammi not Sammy or Cimberly not Kimberly. It can be a pain.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some of the ways people spell names nowadays is bizarre. I know someone named Kaleigh, but I've also seen the name named spelled Caylee and Kayley.
 
Daredevel7 said:
True. I think names are a bad example of spelling. Although I find it interesting that people tend to go towards one type. I would say 90% of the people spell my name Vickie/Vicki instead of Vicky. And the worst part? Sometimes I would end my email with my name, and their response email would say "Dear Vicki"!!!!! That is definitely a phonetic thing!
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I was trying to start in my first post.. and you've noted even though they've already read your email address (or they should have), they still go and write it in the form most desirable to them.

Although names are a bad example to derive from, it's the MOST COMMON and obvious variant to draw this "pronunciation" thinking process from. A lot of hearing, or HOH people should have had a blunder or blooper with another's name. It's not a solid area to base my hypothesis this on, but like from your own name as you are aware people tend to spell it one way in particular, most closely with what they personally associate it the way they "feel" it should be, just as what I was trying to say about the pronunciation part of definitely-definately.

I have been called the same as well, as Vicky, Vicki and Vickie both as a (in feminine form) derogatory nickname in my childhood, and I have observed what you are describing. This is really all anecdotal until someone takes up the reins on the challenge in this project.
 
naisho said:
That's exactly what I was trying to start in my first post.. and you've noted even though they've already read your email address (or they should have), they still go and write it in the form most desirable to them.

Although names are a bad example to derive from, it's the MOST COMMON and obvious variant to draw this "pronunciation" thinking process from. A lot of hearing, or HOH people should have had a blunder or blooper with another's name. It's not a solid area to base my hypothesis this on, but like from your own name as you are aware people tend to spell it one way in particular, most closely with what they personally associate it the way they "feel" it should be, just as what I was trying to say about the pronunciation part of definitely-definately.

I have been called the same as well, as Vicky, Vicki and Vickie both as a (in feminine form) derogatory nickname in my childhood, and I have observed what you are describing. This is really all anecdotal until someone takes up the reins on the challenge in this project.
Click to expand...

My real name is Ellen and a lot of hearing spell my name as Allen. I usually have to tell them my name begins with an e.
 
Daredevel7 said:
True. I think names are a bad example of spelling. Although I find it interesting that people tend to go towards one type. I would say 90% of the people spell my name Vickie/Vicki instead of Vicky. And the worst part? Sometimes I would end my email with my name, and their response email would say "Dear Vicki"!!!!! That is definitely a phonetic thing!
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. Or another possibility is that they have a friend or family member that spells their name "Vicki", so they rely on their schema for the spelling of that name. For instance, I have a niece named "Danielle" and a student by the same name, only she spells it "Danyelle". I have a very difficult time spelling the student's name correctly unless I am really concentrating on it, because I am accustomed to spelling it the way my niece does.
 
Back
Top