Abstract
This study used a qualitative analysis of Turkish handwriting from 90 people. The samples were collected from three groups of people. There were 30 samples per group. The first group of samples were 1st Generation Turks who lived in Turkey second generation Turks who d moved away to live in an English speaking country and third generation Turks who d been born in the English speaking country. The study was based on the study by Cheng et al (2005), which used a comparison between three groups based upon race. It was found in this study that first generation speakers were more accurate and made fewer mistakes according to the Turkish script. This progressively decreased through second and third generation samples. The reason for these differences were found to be related to, but not restricted to, institutional contact with the Turkish script. Another linguistic agent at work was found to be that of language hybridisation. The limitations were indicated in the discussion section and the relevancy to former and future research was addressed.
Introduction
The study of language difference was chosen for this topic as it is becoming more relevant as the impact of globalisation is felt by more communities throughout the world. Essentially, as more people descend on the cosmopolitan and affluent regions of the world, the languages of other national regions are beginning to merge. English is the main source of global language as it is dominant in the particular global discourses of business, education and international translation. Essentially, as well as its dominance in these areas it is also the main language of interpretation between speakers of two different languages. Furthermore, there seems to be little decrease in this scenario. Alongside this dominance of this language throughout the world, the majority of affluent regions, nations and communities in the cosmopolitan world are of natively (or of in-authentically constructed) English speaking people. This was popularised during the post colonial period in which many communities formerly resident in the colonial regions of the Empire left for the Imperial homeland (Said, 1979). However, such shifts have not been restricted to the fall of the modern Empires. Rather, as trade and has shifted to incorporate a more fluid transition of people and workers to and from certain regions of the world, many English speaking nations and regions have found a range of communities moving to them for a variety of reasons. This situation has brought with it a number of language communities who have often felt alienated and secluded by the relative expertise that the other speakers speak the language. However, many of these people have quickly adapted and learned a second language, in some cases embracing the larger community of the English speaking region and overcoming feelings of alienation in the process. However, this has nevertheless left three distinct groups first generation, second generation and third generation language speakers. These three groups can reveal a great deal about communication and the skills involved in developing a second language.
The notion of changes in language and developing language skills across generations, through traditional speakers, migrants and the native offspring of migrants, is well established in the study of linguistics, psychology and culture. Essentially, one cannot simply see language as a purely technical and practical aspect of communication. Rather, it is steeped in cultural identity as differences between the language and the person s identity are deeply centred. For instance, notions of what a number of theorists are calling hybridity are becoming more and more dominant in the contemporary cultural studies vernacular. This idea fundamentally incorporates a number of cultural and historical elements associated with language, alongside established notions of universal language conventions. It is often applied to studies involving a mix in language in first and second generation immigrants who have started to speak and write in different forms from either traditional language (either native or learned). Although this is usually looked upon as a cosmopolitan and generally valued process incorporating cross culturalism, it nevertheless accepts that language is not a simple matter relating to any essentialist features such as race. Furthermore, the study of hybridity also acknowledges that second generation immigrants have a lower establishment of first generation culture. As language is part of a culture and the participation in it is evidence of an identity to the culture then this hybrid identity between cultures manifests itself in language. This is perhaps not so surprising, especially when one considers the fact that for third generation speakers there is a new language being taught at schools and in greater society that differs from the experiences that the second generation had. Alongside speech, there is also written language. Written language also consists of cultural knowledge and acquisition. What this ultimately leads to is the notion that first generation speakers and learners of the language will be better at scripting traditional forms of the written language. If we were to accept the notion of hybridity, then when this is extended to incorporate third generations the written signs and symbols of the language should take on a more morphed form. This would be owing to the speaking and learning of another language and the culture that conditions the use and meaning of that language.
Many studies have revealed that re-producing language in relation to their scripts extends to socio-political issues as well as formal language learning. For example, the German model of social integration has been unable to attain first generation Turkish residents because they lack the necessary language skills. Lacking the language skills has led to a lack of social confidence required to blend seamlessly into German society. By contrast, the second and third generation Turks have been able to attain integration. This is doubtlessly due to the learning of German from a young age and the social integration from a cultural and educationally constructed level. However, cultural orientations have been found to be more taxing. Furthermore, members of the second and third generation Turkish culture did not experience the same history many were born in Germany, many moved for visits or spells of residency between Germany and Turkey. Although social integration had been met through the sharing of a language from a fundamental developmental level, the second and third generation Turks were nevertheless bound to cultural traditions and histories.
Speaking a language and knowing the script of a language are therefore two separate things. For instance, the speaker of the language must be able to recognise the colloquialisms and ever changing patterns of meaning that come to create the socialised and living context of what is intended and what can be read. However, the written word is also composed of a script, which details the style, manner, spelling and form of words and sentences. Whereas spoken language can be seen in relation to non-verbal communication and is emphasised by a great deal of extra literal activity, the conventions of the written word are based almost entirely upon signs and symbols of a visual kind. Unlike the spoken word, the written word is therefore bound within the traditions of the culture that spawned the language as they come to give the words their form. However, this is not to say that the form and style of the written words cannot be changed or cannot adapt as we have pointed out with the example of hybridity. However, where spoken language is influenced by immediate and interactive communication with a group and or culture, so the written word is a far more traditionally kept and institutionalised form of communication. It is in this distinction that we see a rationale begin to emerge to support the notion that although second generational Turks may be progressively better at speaking a second language or interacting between both languages, this may have no bearing on the written word. However, this may be a problem for third generation Turkish speakers as they will have been brought up in the institutions of the English speaking region. Alternatively, because the script is bound in the traditions and histories of Turkish culture, the extent of the second generation speaker s ability to write in the Turkish script may depend upon the continued practice of cultural activities, especially those involving words. In either instance, the first generation Turks should not be affected.
The Turkish script is a relatively new one often deemed revolutionary due to its vast shift in emphasis away from Arabic and towards modern European. Essentially, Arabic script is no longer used to write Turkish. In 1928, Turkey replaced the Arabic script by the Latin alphabet accompanied by a total prohibition on any further use of the Arabic script for teaching or publication in Turkish. This had made a similarity between the script of Turkey and the conventional writing of the UK. Although the Turkish alphabet has incorporated a number of extra letters, they are merely extensions of original letters and placed to emphasise certain pronunciations that are not made distinct in the English alphabet. However, these similarities and differences are not simply left to the script. Rather, they also run through the institutional apparatus of England and Turkey. This system of education has also accompanied the shift from archaic Arabic to modern European form. The system of general education in Turkey consists of periods of nurseryinfant schooling, followed by several years of primary school based learning before taking on intermediate schooling and eventually high school or comprehensive based study. This has similarities to the British form of schooling as well as the American institutional form of education. After intermediate school, students are then able to choose whether or not to pursue academia through attending high school. The fields of study within the schools are associated with programs of commerce, the arts, languages, the sciences or vocationally based school programmes. In high school, the students are made to take comprehensive exams. The curriculum of the Turkish schools can be regarded as diverse and in accordance with EU standards in that they include a degree of different subjects, such as maths, science, literature, sport, history, Latin and English. The government sets the overall standards and both monitors and regulates the procedures of the schools. The schools in Turkey are given educational standards by way of training programs for teachers, which are driven by the EU and placed alongside the constant update and introduction of new and developing technologies.
It is in such cultural and developmental similarities that we turn to the rationale of our study. Essentially, it would appear reasonable to merge our concepts of hybridity, three generations and similarities and differences between the script of Turkey and English. It is here that we will make the suggestion that there would be differences in skill and style of hand writing between speakers of the Turkish language that could be seen across three generations as outlined in our title. Further, we can also suggest that similarities would run between the groups due to their exposure and contact with Turkish culture and the Turkish script. However, when considering the similarities between the English and Turkish script and the traditionalist sense in which second and third generation Turks seem to operate then doubt begins to form around the quantity and quality of this difference. It is perhaps then not enough to consider the mechanism of learning a second language as a surrogate replacement for the first language for this study. Rather, it would appear more prudent to not view cultures as completely distinct from each other, but instead see them as two fluidly functioning agents interacting with each. If this were the case, then it would perhaps seem more likely that a person of a second generation culture would have a more embedded establishment of the Turkish script, whereas those of second and third generations would tail off to an immense extent given their lack of institutionalisation. Essentially, it would seem reasonable to suggest that those of a second and third generation would make more mistakes andor alterations to the original script to either be more fitting to the European version or be an integration of either. However, before conducting an experiment we must first look at the background studies surrounding the topic before constructing a methodology.
Literary Review
Turkish Script
As has been outlined in the introduction section, the official Turkish script changed from Arabic to Latin - modern European in 1928. The Turkish script is an official writing system that was specifically designed to be used in the constitutions of Turkey in the period of the early twentieth century. An official script can be viewed as somewhat different to an official language in that the language is spoken, whereas the script is how it is written (either on paper or in mind). Further, it is particularly rare for a nation to develop an official script rather than have one already in operation as scripts are often spawned out of the culture through convention and evolution and such like. However, in some cases a script may be introduced in-authentically.
The use of the official script is then simply a case of having a means by which to make the official language universal. For instance, where there are two or more languages in operation, one language becomes dominant and prevails over the other as it comes to influence the institutional writing of the people of that language area. In such regions, the use of the script becomes deeply political in nature as it shapes, alters andor preserves certain aspects of the culture. The Turkish alphabet is subsequently based upon the Latin based alphabet used for writing the Turkish language. It consists of 29 letters. A degree of the letters had been modified due to their phonetic sound. In this sense, Turkish is already unlike contrasting forms of euro-centric language, such as Arabic, Chinese and or Muslim, which take their form from an entirely distinct script (Turner et al, 2009). Therefore, the script bears a relationship with English that is somewhat distinct from the very explicit contrast of right to left inversion.
The Turkish script is characterised linguistically by a complete transparency of bi-directional mappings that exist between orthography and phonology (Fennel, 2001). This is due to the phonetic basis in changes from the Latin-italic form of the alphabet. A great deal of recent research into the expression of the Turkish script has found that shallow orthographies are read extensively from pre-lexical translation of sub-word spelling units into phonological units (Fennel, 2001). This highlights the interaction between the scripted orthography of the word form known by the impact of the experience of the language form and the pronunciation of the language in the mother tongue. Essentially, the transference of the words into the language and vice versa is dependent upon an understanding of the written form. Without the written form of the word, the pronunciation will be undergone in the secondary language.
Alongside the official alphabet that informs the official script and the relationship between the orthographic and phonological articulation of words, there are also characteristics that pertain to elements of the Turkish script. Due to their lack of incorporation into the official script, these characteristics are viewed as less formal in nature than the alphabet. Characteristics incorporate factors pertaining to the function of a sentence or word. For example, word length, letter spacing, pen lifts and embellishments are all common patterns that can be categorised, identified and applied to certain members of a certain script. This reveals that it is more than the alphabet and the sign alone that is indicative of a person s affiliation with the script. However, these factors are also massively shaped by culture, creating the relationship between culture and characteristics of the script. Essentially, it would seem that cultures can be defined by scripts and scripts by culture. It is with this that we turn to the study of cultural authenticity and the impact of culture on habits, such as writing and style.
Cross Cultural Differences
In this section we will attempt to bring out a body of indicative literature from which we can bring about a degree of rationale for certain key concepts that arise from factors pertaining to the study of multi-cultural linguistics. Although we have already indicated a number of factors in the introduction section, the literary review section here are designed to expand beyond the surface rationale so that we may look at the more precise factors related to speakers of two languages across generations. For instance, even the premise of rationality, which is often presumed by many to be the basis of all logic, forms a cultural way of thinking. Essentially, rationality itself is culturally specific through the concept of understanding and has its basis in the discourse that has been informed by both its literary and socio-linguistic heritage and history (Fennel, 2001). For example, writing on the principles of rationality, cultural theorist Geert Hofstede indicated that,
The western concern with the truth is supported by an axiom in western logic that a statement excludes its opposite If A is true non A, which is the opposite of A, must be false. Eastern logic does not have such an axiom. If A is true, non A may also be true, and together they create a wisdom that is superior to A or non-A. This is sometimes called the complimentary of Ying and Yang, using two Chinese characters that express the male and female elements present in all aspects of reality. Human truth in this philosophical approach is always partial (Hofstede, 2001, p.363)
This indicates some of the difficulties in cross cultural communication at a deep and philosophical level. When aspects such as roles of gender, societal norms, values, education and ethics are introduced then this becomes a very large concept indeed (Hofestede, 1991). Essentially, those sharing a language would be more inclined to think and operate at an equivalent level, indicating a relationship between culture and style of writing. Through these difficulties there could be a number of reasons why some people write differently according to their experience of culture. Essentially, for those with less exposure to culture, the writing could diminish. However, what is indicative in terms of Turkish culture is the official script which runs through the entire institutional apparatus of the country. Differences in writing could therefore manifest through practical reasons, such as the exposure to the official script through institutional culture. This is then simply reinforced by what the theorist Klukholn states as
Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments of artefacts the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historical derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values. (Klukholn, 1951, p.86).
The cultural conventions in Turkey have a high-context tendency. Although it has roots in a collectivist, Arab culture, an individualist ethic is more predominant today. Turkish speakers usually tend to gather less in groups, have less group decisions, especially in a foreign country (Halliday, 1989). The reasoning behind would seem to be due to the adoption of the script, which has incorporated a cultural and political implementation of European habits. Many of the second and third generation Turks moving to Europe have chosen to live in white ethnic communities, whereas many other migrants have sought mixed nationality or predominantly Turkish communities. These cultural factors would indicate that the persons are moving away from the not only the official script, but also the script of the informal language in such things as characteristics. Essentially, without the presence of the cultural and institutional factors and with hybridity in operation it would appear more likely that second and third generation Turks would be more inclined to scriptural errors.
Linguistic Differences
As we have seen, cultural differences are well established in cultural studies and the majority of writing characteristics come from the cultural norms of the region in which the person is speaking the language. This is especially relevant in the case of speakers of a foreign language. Further, the relation between first and second generations to a new culture in which a different language is spoken further accentuates the significance of such differences (Hofstede, 1986). Essentially, in the learning of a new language a shift away from the older language becomes apparent as it is replaced. However, the contact with the first language is deeply immersed in native taxonomies and semantics. Studies into certain linguistic norms have indicated the strength of this structure of meaning and how it relates culturally to the linguistic conventions of both the speaker and reader (). For example, research into the binding of overt and null subject pro-nouns in a second language (L2) has revealed the nature of the transfer between languages. Acquisition of the second language can be seen in direct opposition to the attrition of the first language (L1). In the study conducted by Gurel (2002), the first and second languages under observation were English and Turkish. The aim of the study was to provide a comparative investigation of the language transfer effects in L2 and L1 grammar. Further, it examined the transfer effects from English L1 and English L2 into the grammars of Turkish L2 and Turkish L1. Two experiments were conducted to test the extent of the L2 acquisition and L1 attrition of the binding properties in Turkish overt and null subject pronouns that were under the influence of English. It was found that
Participants included native English-speakers living in Turkey (end-state L2 Turkish speakers) and native Turkish-speakers living in North America (end-state L2 English speakers). Overall, results obtained from the two studies reveal cross-linguistic transfer effects in the manner predicted. In particular, properties of English overt pronouns (e.g., himher) are transferred onto the overt Turkish pronoun o in L2 acquisition and in attrition, whereas properties of the Turkish null pronoun and the anaphoric pronominal kendisi are unaffected by English. (Gurel, 2002)
A number of the many forms of characteristics that can be taken into account in studies relating to linguistic differences have already been grouped and applied to those of a specific cultural script. From this, it has been suggested that cultural variances have occurred the further away from the source of the script. Of course this is more difficult to measure in the ever increasing cosmopolitan world in which we live wherein people are becoming trans-migrant and culture is no longer defined by national boundaries. However, variances in culture, whether geographic or contrived within localised institutional differences, have been found to alter some of the characteristics, while the form of the writing has remained. In one such study aimed at analysing differences in characteristics between three of the major cultural centralities, Cheng et al (2005) used one hundred and fifty-four examples of hand writing collected from participants. These characteristics were noted as letter design, pen-lifts, letter spacing and embellishments. In this seminal study, it was found that a number of characteristic features that were peculiar to the individual racial group could be successfully identified. This confirmed the vast impact that their native language writing systems or scripts had on English handwriting (Cheng et al, 2005). However, the extent to which this could be considered racial and not cultural, institutional or environmental is questionable. Nevertheless, the findings indicated a certain set of conventional norms associated with certain cultural and scripted regionality indicating a definitive, yet variable, link between the two. It was found that
Chinese writers tended to complete the letter design in the simplest way. Just as the descenders of y and g , a simple downward straight stroke was common. And as mentioned above their preference in forming angles in letter formation, wedge shaped M and N or pointed A could easily be found in their writing. For the writing habit of forming a loop on the stem of f , there was no apparent connection with their accustomed hands in writing Chinese characters. They might have retained what they were taught in the early days of schooling on how to write cursive f . (Cheng et al, 2005)
This was found to be different to the conventions of the Mayalasian writers of the same study. Cheng et al stated that
The general appearance of English handwriting by Malays was smooth, and most often aesthetically done. Unlike the Chinese writers, Malays liked to use round curves in their letter formation, and special letter design and embellishments were common. Letters were joined with upwardly curved connection strokes in a rhythmic and skilful manner. There were very few hiatuses between letters. Loops and circles in letter formation were broad and round, which injected uniformity to the passage (Cheng et al, 2005)
As we have already seen in the Turkish Script section, the activity of the official script is characterised by a completely bi-directional mapping between orthography and phonology. In one study, a hypothesis was put forward that stated that shallow orthographies would be read extensively from pre-lexical translation before being transferred into phonological units. In this linguistic study involving cognitive testing, it was found that the nature of the tasks being allocated had an impact upon the result. For instance, it was not simply a case of a word being recognised, understood and then articulated in one way. Rather, the way in which the meaning of the word was recognised, understood and articulated related to the type of orthographical result. Essentially, the context in which the word was presented indicated the type of characteristic of the word. Raman et al stated in their findings that
Both sets of results support the ideas that (1) the preferred route for naming amongst readers of Turkish script is lexical, regardless of the orthographic-phonological transparency and (2) the naming process is a flexible one in which task demands may affect the nature of the route used for naming. (Raman et al, 1996)
The problem with these findings is that they do not contain the necessary cultural differences. That is to say, that they do not represent speakers and writers of the language in different languages, cultures and or scripts. These variations may have been indicative of the findings. Nevertheless, the findings do establish the relationship between orthographical and phonological tasks. What is shown is what Zuckerman refers to as an important but hitherto neglected method of borrowing between languages (Zuckerman, 2003). In this study, it is suggested that speakers of two languages are re-interpreted through the dominant script, which is the dominant of the two languages. Perception is aimed at interpreting in this language in relation to identification of the word. In the case of the speaker of a foreign language, the new word is defined by sound and meaning being matched to similar sounding familiar words. The authors explained that
This study introduces the term phono-semantic matching (henceforth PSM) to describe the technique whereby a foreignism is reproduced in the target language, using pre-existing native elements that are similar to the foreignism both in meaning and in sound, and it traces its occurrence in two key language groups (Zuckermann, 2003)
Essentially, the study showed that the words of a language being learned would be sourced in relation to the script and meaning of the spoken language rather than morphed into a hybrid. The authors concluded in their findings that
Such multi-sourced neo-logization is an ideal means of lexical enrichment because it conceals foreign influence from the future native speakers, ensuring lexicographic acceptability of the coinage, recycles obsolete autochthonous roots and words (a delight for purists) and aids initial learning among contemporary learners and speakers. (Zuckermann, 2003)
Therefore, there is a mechanism more complex than a framework of two competing languages in the case of the third generation inhabitants of a language region. Further, the notion of a hybrid language is more complex than simply being a case of two languages, or indeed two scripts, becoming as one. Rather, it would appear that a degree of signs and signifiers relate the word to a meaning, whether semantic or phonetic. It would seem that while the semantic meaning is deeply lexical and symbolic of a language, so the phonological elements of words are routed to the script of the word. Therefore, if semantic meaning cannot be sought, then use of the sound of the language is matched to the spelling of the word. In this instance, the third generation speaker must then match the phonetics of the word to be able to spell, indicating the relationship between sound and spelling.
The Possible Group Dynamic
As well as the cultural factors explored so far in the literature review, we must also consider the political which leads us into the notion of identity and group formation. Essentially, as the groups have been defined for this study in terms of first, second and third generation, we see that there is a distinct identity with a culture, lifestyle or way of being. This does not necessarily mean having to have a genuine cultural impact. Rather, it only requires the person to identify with what they perceive as a culture, thereby becoming strongly bound to a specific community and their traditions (Sperber Wilson, 1986). Further, according to studies into in group and out groups, the person may become resistant to learning new forms by identifying foreign words on the basis of their perceived out group status. This is given clarity by Unseth who states that
The choice of a language or script to either identify with or create distance from another group, borrowing elements from other languages and scripts, the death of languages and scripts, contact induced change in languages and scripts, and the identification of languages and scripts with gender. (Unseth, 2005)
Essentially, second and third generation speakers may enlarge the in group to include words of the other culture. The study was conducted by using the key concepts and tools developed for socio-linguistic studies based upon how language communities chose to speak their language and found that they were profitably applied to the study of how they choose scripts. The findings here reveal the relevance of group dynamics and the similarities between those of a specific speech group.
Methodology
Design
The design of the study was qualitative with a part statistical analysis. It used random opportunity samples to provide the three groups, from which observations of difference were to be analysed on the basis of shared within-group characteristic themes. Although the samples were opportunist, they were based upon rigid experimental factors. These factors were outlined in the title first generation Turkish people living in Turkey second generation Turkish people who had emigrated to the UK and third generation who were the children of those that had emigrated and were born in the UK but taught Turkish.
The study was designed to incorporate two types of structural design incorporating two key elements of both qualitative and quantities methodology. The first was a stage based upon taking down the information from the participants, while the second was the way in which that data was analysed and presented in the results section of this study. was an observation whereas the other was a level of significant based upon differences.
Step 1 Global view.The global view was the first observation of the results looking primarily for incidences of spelling errors in each sample from each generation. Essentially, the handwriting specimens were studied in detail to look for characteristic features in letter formation, letter design, pen-lift, letter and word spacing and embellishment etc. This involved checking for incidences of grammatical error in each sample from each generation was undergone. The measurement of dimensions for an average word in each sample from each generation was also measured as well as the spaces between two words in each sample from each generation. Word construction (e.g. cursive etc.) in each word from each sample in each generation was also observed.
Step 2 Character.From the observations made in the global view a number of measurements were carried out for the character view. First, a selection of characters that appeared to be different between the generation groups was conducted by eyeballing the data. Then a scan of incidences of that character from each sample in each generation was undergone. Finally, the characters for the specific features using scientific principles was employed and compared statistically.
Based upon prior research, it was hypothesised that there would be a degree of spelling error appearing in the 2nd generation that would be accentuated in the 3rd generation group. The Null Hypothesis held that there would be no overall difference between the three generation groups in relation to the occurred frequency of any of the characteristic features stated in the results section. Therefore, if the Null Hypothesis were true from a statistical standpoint P1 P2 P3. In this instance, P is the probability of observing a characteristic feature in the handwriting of the particular generation, with 1 denoting the particular generation. The significance level 0.05 was chosen, which is a commonly accepted level in scientific research studies.
Participants
90 participants were used from a random sample. These were divided into three groups depending upon generation status. She collected the 30 handwriting samples from people (adults) who lived in Turkey. These were to provide the first group of samples (1st Generation). 30 handwriting samples were also collected from people who immigrated in the UK (2nd generation) and 30 handwriting samples from their children (3rd generation), who were born in the UK but taught Turkish language by parents or Sunday school. These became the participant groups from which the study was conducted.
Materials Apparatus
The materials used in the study were paper pens, a photocopy machine, a personal computer and a scanner. Participant Information Forms (for participants to read before they took part) and Participant Consent Form (for participants to sign to agree they understood the study and want to take part) were also used in relation to the principles of informed consent and experimental ethics. From these materials, the data was generated and a study was devised to analyse the differences between the groups as well as the similarities within the groups. Material data was then collected in the form of hand writing samples from the 90 people (30 people from each of the generation groups). However, some of the samples were destroyed in the process so that 13 of them from each generation were processed in this study. The hand writing samples provided the study with its primary material data.
Procedure
The tests consisted of asking the participants to write out a number of words onto a piece of lined paper. Once the words had been written, the test was over. The majority of the study was carried out locally, apart from the thirty first generation speakers who were canvassed in their home country. This meant that the procedure of the experiment took on two approaches by two experimenters. The data was gathered in unison over a period of two weeks. The primary experimenter questioned thirty Turkish people living in an English speaking country and then thirty locally born people whose parents were of Turkish origin were asked the same questions. Meanwhile, the second experimenter travelled to Turkey to ask the same questions to thirty people who had been born and raised in Turkey. All of the participants were given a Participant Information Forms and a Participant Consent Form before the test took place and a short debriefing detailing the purpose and aim of the experiment was given shortly after the test. Anonymity was assured. The data was then collated and an analysis of the differences between the hand writing in each of the group samples began.
Results Findings
From the observational study it was found that there were four characteristics that were significant in terms of between group differences and within group similarities. These were letter design, pen-lifts, letter spacing and embellishments. Further, there were clear differences between each generation and similarities within each generation in relation to each of the four characteristics. The hand writing conformed to the Turkish script in relation to each of the five characteristics in the first generation. In the second generation sample, it was less exaggerated. However, the spelling and alphabet was articulated correctly with only minor mistakes in some of the samples. By the third generation samples, this had become exaggerated to the point at which the spelling conformed almost entirely to the English alphabet and script. Further, the five characteristics were vastly different from the form of the first generation, whose hand writing was in most cases definite and assured in the traditional script of Turkish. The second generation samples showed elements of this, but were not as fluid or as fluent in the vast majority of cases. The majority of the third generation samples showed little signs of the script at all and favoured a more orthographically English style and form of writing the words. As predicted, the errors related to the phonetic sounds of the English pronunciation of the words in the third generation speakers, whereas second generation speakers seemed more likely to be able to recognise the utterance and classify it in terms of the Turkish alphabet. In the case of the first generation speakers, this process of recognition was evident throughout the data. The null hypothesis of (P1 P2 P3) was rejected.
The mean average in each category shows the difference between groups in each of the relevant characteristic. It would appear from the data that there was a significant difference between the skill levels in either conditions (F (1, 29) 0.27, p0.005). Therefore, it can be said that there was a significant difference between the categories.
Discussion
It would seem from the findings that the first generation Turkish speakers had a degree of differing variations when compared to the second and third generation speakers. The relevant characteristics included letter design, pen-lifts, letter spacing and embellishments. From this, we can see that the hypothesis that there would be differences between the generations was supported. Further, we can also see from the literature review that this was primarily due to the changes in established script and exposure to the script. Among the differences in orthographic characteristics, pen lift was the most varied throughout the groups. A clear trend was observed from the first generation through to third generation on all of these factors, getting larger and more incorrect the further away from the script the group became. In relation to the hypothesis and rationale of this study, the results were not surprising.
As predicted, the level of script features was much stronger in the samples that had the closest institutional contact with the official script. Further, those that had contact with a different script at an institutional level were less inclined to recognise the pronunciation and or spelling of the words in accordance with the Turkish script. In the middle of this, those who had contact with the script at an early stage in life seemed to be much more inclined to articulate it correctly in their hand writing. However, this still showed signs of diminishing as one may expect when exposed to another script. Further, the hand writing features appeared to diminish over a longer period. However, we had determined in our literature review section that a simple conclusion suggesting that hand writing would follow the trend of contact would be a simplistic conclusion. Therefore, we must attempt to incorporate these findings in relation to the cultural, social, cognitive and or political factors outlined in the literature review.
It would appear that contact is a factor as the three groups show a general trend away from correct to mistake-strewn on the basis of institutional contact. Further, it would also appear that institutional contact-integration with the script at an earlier age was more indicative of utilising, or at least thinking cognitively, in terms of a certain a script. This is exemplified in the third generation samples who clearly exhibit a cognitive process of recognition based upon the words in the English spelling. However, it is not possible to simply state that this trend is based upon contact. The experiment did not have the capacity to include other variables that may be influencing recognition of the words. For instance, the difference in length of the words may not be indicative of a lacking contact with the script, but may be an intentionally developed skill that is being practised by the speaker of two languages.
According to the relation between the orthographic and the phonological, the speaker of both languages may be transferring the words through two systems rather than simply using one. This would explain the utilisation of the words in the third generation and the disparity between some of the words. Essentially, as the words are familiar, they are incorporated by the third generation speaker into the English system on the basis of semantic meaning. As we have already discussed in the literature review section, the semantic meaning is recognised in linguistic studies as being dominant, but also dependent on phonological and orthographic recognition. In some cases, the third generation speakers are not inclined to recognise the Turkish meaning of the words through their dominant language of English.
In cases of semantic unfamiliarity, the process of phonological recognition of word-parts then comes into play and recognition is then matched to the orthographical rather than phonological, meaning that they spell the word in the spelling according to the pronunciation in the English script. This does not apply to the second generation speakers as they have not hybridised the meaning of language and can establish between the Turkish sound and spelling of a word and the English sound and spelling of a word, much like the first generation. However, there were fundamental differences between the first and second generation speakers when the characteristics were taken into account.
According to the findings, the main difference between first and second-third generation speakers was the change in characteristics. The script was followed very closely by first generation speakers as can be expected. However, what was perhaps surprising was the vast loss of script by the second generation speakers. This surprise can be better understood when comparisons are made to the vast loss of accuracy apparent in the spelling and use of alphabet between first-second generation and third generation speakers. One may be quite reasonable in thinking that like the spelling and alphabet accuracy, the main difference would be between second and third generation speakers. However, this is quite simply not the case. The reason for this is perhaps indicated in the literature review.
Essentially, as the first and second generation shared an institutional and cultural acquisition of Turkish language as their first language, they formed what could be called a linguistic trait according to the Turkish. This trait is the naming of words in a lexical form of cognition. Essentially, whereas the third generation were not bound by lexical processes, as they were replaced by phonological recognition, the first and second generation were bound by this Turkish trait. However, whereas the first generation s cognitive process was matched succinctly with orthographic recognition, so the second generation had an interfering agent in the conventions of the second language. In this instance, the second language could have been disrupting the cause of the lexical recognition meaning that cognition was transferred to the English script, whilst recognition based upon lexical depth and semantic meaning was sought by identifiers of the Turkish language.
However, although we offer these two accounts as way of explaining the two key findings based upon the literature review, this is not to overlook the notion of contact and its bearing. For example, the fact that the third generation speaker recognises Turkish as something quite different from the first generation speaker is something that is crucial to their establishing of a hybrid process of cognitive recognition. Further, the minor institutional experience of Turkish is comparatively little and seeing loose, untraditional and trans European Turkish throughout their locality, as well as speaking a degree of hybrid forms throughout their environment, will have an impact upon the way that they perceive Turkish. This will have an impact upon the process of cognition, but will also establish script, spelling and alphabet mistakes as part of a perceived genuine Turkish language. This is not overlooked and should perhaps be used in future studies based upon hybridised language studies.
Limitations
One of the primary limitations of this study is in relation to the fact that there was no data regarding the contextual presentation of the words. Rather, the words were simply prompted, written and then examined. According to some of the research in the literature review, the context of the word is deeply indicative of the articulation of the word, by way of meaning. Therefore, the participant may have thought of the word according to either the English or hybridised script and spelled as such. In this instance, the word is not scripted incorrectly, as the participant is aware of the word script in the Turkish culture as well. Essentially, it could have been the case that they had both the Turkish and English meaning of the word, which we understand follows a different convention when spoken written. Therefore, the client did not neglect the script, but had the capacity to think of words in two or more scripts according to the context into which the word is prompted.
The lack of social identifiers also limited the study. Although some inferences could be made from a general body of three generations, nothing could be said of the social differences that are indicative of the culture. This limit s the extent of any generalisations made on the basis of this study. Further, nothing could be said of the impact that sex, education, class and or background had on the findings. In future or replica studies, these factors could perhaps be taken into account.
It was found in this study that first generation speakers were more accurate and made fewer mistakes according to the Turkish script. This progressively decreased through second and third generation samples. The reason for these differences were found to be related to, but not restricted to, institutional contact with the Turkish script. Another linguistic agent at work was found to be that of language hybridisation. What this study has established is the determination of characteristics in Turkish handwriting of the three generations of Turkish people that relate to an array of complex linguistic frameworks currently being theorised and studied. It identified four significant characteristics at play between these three groups. By using the established scientific procedure of qualitative and statistical analysis, examiners and critics will be able to determine the class characteristics in English handwriting of first, second and third generation groups,
and possibly the identity of a writer s ethnic origin.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment