Thesis (Ph. D. (Tshivenda)) -- University of Limpopo, 2016. / This study sought to identify problems concerning Pan South African Language Board spelling rules in respect of Tshivenḓa orthography. A qualitative descriptive research method was chosen. The study population consisted of Pan South African Language Board spelling rules. The rules dealt with nine indigenous languages that were Tshivenḓa, isiZulu, Siswati, Sesotho, Setswana, Xitsonga, isiXhosa, isiNdebele and Sesotho sa Leboa. Each of the nine indigenous languages had between 12 and 56 rules. Altogether there were 255 rules which constituted the study population of this project. A small but sufficient sample of about twenty rules in Tshivenḓa orthography was selected. Data were collected by means of unstructured interviews with forty-four purposely selected participants which include linguists as well as document analysis. Ethical considerations were ensured in order to protect participants from any harm or discomfort that might arise from being involved in an investigation. The researcher explained the aim and nature of the study to respondents, to get their informed consent before the interviews. Several strategies to prevent defects, challenges and problems in Tshivenḓa orthography were recommended based on the results. The strategies focused on aspects which deal with spelling and orthography rules. Key concepts: orthography, indigenous languages, rules, writing systems.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of Science University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg for the Degree of M aster of Science November 1987

A thesis submitted to the faculty of arts, University of the Witwatersrand Johannesburg in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts. Johannesburg, 1991. / Literacy includes both the ability to read and to spell. Yet until recently, and despite its importance, there has been less research on spelling than on reading. Perhaps this was because writing as a linguistic skill was considered in a marginal way as secondary to, and derivative from, speech. It was conceptualised as a photograph of spoken language (de Saussure, 1916), or as a code of transcription (Luria, 1970) with spelling presumed to be based on inner pronunciation of the phonic (sound) forms of the spoken language. Cognitive researchers were slow to recognise that written language is neither a complete isomorph of the spoken Language (Gelb,1963),nor a process of reading-in-reverse (Bradley and Bryant, 1979; Bradley, 1983), but rather, is a complex and autonomous system of representation, both of the deeper lexical-morphemic levels of language (Venezky,1970; Ellis, 1982), as well as of the mappings of phonology. As such, spelling proficiency is a highly complex intellectual achievement in its own right, and is worthy of psycholinguistic interest in the same way as other language-based skills, such as speech perception, speech production and reading comprehension. [Abbreviated Abstract. Open document to view full version] / GR2017

No description available.

Thesis (M.A. (African Languages)) -- University of Limpopo, 2006 / Refer to the document

The present study was designed to examine differences between subtypes of readers and spellers in their performance on several phonological, orthographic, and memory tasks. A central question involved whether subtypes of readers and spellers could be distinguished based on their performance across the tasks administered. Based on their performance on a standardized achievement test, fourth and fifth grade children (N=50) were classified as having no difficulties with reading and spelling (good readers and spellers), difficulties with spelling, but not reading (mixed readers and spellers), or difficulties with both reading and spelling (poor readers and spellers). Each student was given a series of tasks to assess their use of phonological and orthographic information for memory and spelling. These tasks included: 1) rhyme judgment, 2) cued recall, 3) reading pronounceable pseudowords, 4) deciding which of. two pseudowords looks most like a real word, and 5) reporting on the kinds of strategies used to spell words. An error analysis was also conducted. Students with reading and spelling difficulties performed consistently lower than good and mixed readers and spellers on tasks assessing their use of phonological information. Good and mixed readers and spellers were not distinguishable on these tasks. Students with no reading and spelling difficulties or with spelling difficulties only performed better than poor readers and spellers on some tasks assessing orthographic processing. Specifically, mixed readers and spellers were distinguishable from good readers and spellers by their poorer recall of visually similar words. Good and poor subtypes were not distinguishable on this task. Poor readers and spellers also achieved comparable scores to the good and mixed readers and spellers on a measure of orthographic awareness. Overall results provided evidence supporting subtypes of reading and spelling ability groups. Students with no reading and spelling difficulties, or difficulties with spelling but not reading were similar in their use of phonological information. However, students with reading and spelling difficulties were more similar to the good readers and spellers in their use of orthographic information in memory. The findings from the present study have implications to subsequent research examining spelling ability, provide further evidence of the unique processing characteristics of the paradoxical good reader but poor speller, and suggest the possibility of unique programming needs to remediate spelling difficulties in mixed and poor readers and spellers.

This study compared differences in spelling achievement among groups of students who were high, average, and low achievers. The study attempted to determine, over 7 weeks, any treatment effects resulting from students being cooperatively grouped for spelling instruction. A student's level of achievement and type of grouping for spelling instruction were variables contrasted between intact treatment and control classes of students.This study used six intact classes of intermediate grade elementary children. Three classes were grouped cooperatively for spelling instruction and three classes were not grouped cooperatively for spelling instruction. The study included the scores of 135 students, 68 in the control group and 67 in the treatment group. Normal curve equivalent scores from an existing standardized achievement test were used to classify students as high, average, or low achievers.A student's level of achievement was an attribute variable that yielded proportional cell sizes in order to conduct an analysis of variance. The dependent variable was the total number of words that each student spelled correctly on seven weekly spelling tests. A t-test was used to examine the NCE scores of the treatment and control groups to verify that no significant differences existed between the groups prior to the study.Teachers were trained in a series of four sessions to implement cooperative learning using Student Teams Achievement Divisions. The sessions provided activities designed to encourage the development of collaborative skills prior to initiating treatment. A bonus point system was used to reinforce the collaborative skills.The analysis of variance tested four null hypotheses at the .05 level of confidence. None of the null hypotheses were rejected. The following results were suggested:1. Intermediate children achieve equally well regardless of how they are grouped for spelling instruction.2. High, average, and low achieving students achieve equally well regardless of how they are grouped for spelling instruction.3. Low achieving students achieve significantly different from high and average achieving students.The findings of the study suggest that cooperative grouping for spelling instruction is as effective as spelling instruction without cooperative grouping regardless of student level of achievement. / Department of Elementary Education