Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates

Rao, Chaitra; Vaid, Jyotsna; Srinivasan, Narayanan; Chen, Hsin-Chin

doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9256-9

Cited by 49 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(56 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effects of Arabic letter complexity were also reported by Rao et al (2011). They compared the speed of written word recognition in readers of Urdu and Hindi.…”

Section: Diversity In Writing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…However, Hindi is written in Devanāgarī orthography, which is an abugida, and Urdu is written using a variation of the Perso-Arabic orthography, which is an abjad. Rao et al (2011) found that even native Urdu speakers and readers, whose second language was Hindi, recognized words faster in Hindi than in Urdu. They interpreted this as reflecting the higher degree of visual complexity in the Arabic orthography than in the Hindi orthography.…”

Section: Diversity In Writing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Language and literacy in the context of brain, cognition, and culture

Eviatar

2017

J Cult Cogn Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of Arabic letter complexity were also reported by Rao et al (2011). They compared the speed of written word recognition in readers of Urdu and Hindi.…”

Section: Diversity In Writing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Diversity In Writing Systemsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Language and literacy in the context of brain, cognition, and culture

Eviatar

2017

J Cult Cogn Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brown et al (1984) examined the size of repetition priming in Hindi-Urdu bi-scriptal readers. Hindi and Urdu are morphologically and phonologically identical at the spoken level but differ in their script: Hindi is written from left to right in a shallow script with discrete letters, while Urdu is written from right to left in an opaque script modeled on Persian and Arabic (see Rao et al 2011). Brown et al (1984 examined repetition priming for Hindi and Urdu words preceded by primes presented in the same or different script.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The processing cost for reading misaligned words is script-specific: evidence from Hindi and Kannada/Hindi readers

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among biscriptal readers do script-specific orthographic properties in one language affect the processing of words in their other language? This question was examined with respect to the seriality effect, a phenomenon first reported by Vaid and Gupta (Brain Lang 81:679-690, 2002). In this effect, native readers of Hindi are slower to name words whose written and spoken order is misaligned (e.g., the word win is written I-W-N), as compared to words containing letters whose written order is congruent with their spoken order. The present study examined whether the seriality effect is restricted to stimuli presented in the original script (Hindi) or carries over to affect processing in a structurally similar but visuospatially different script (Kannada) which does not have the same misalignment. In a lexical decision task, slower responses to misaligned than to aligned Hindi words were observed in both readers of Hindi and in KannadaHindi biliterates; however, biliterates' responses were not slower to cognates of Hindi misaligned words presented in Kannada script. These findings suggest that processing costs associated with orthographic conventions of a particular script do not carry over to another script, even when the scripts in question share similar design principles. More generally, our findings suggest that the processing of orthographic knowledge relating to the sequencing of sounds and letters is script-specific.

show abstract

“…Deep orthographies have complex mappings (e.g., standard writing conventions for English, Mandarin Chinese and Hebrew), while shallow orthographies more closely approximate the ideal one-to-one mapping (Korean Hangul, Japanese Kana, Spanish alphabet). The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis holds that shallower orthographies will be easier to learn due to their more consistent mappings from grapheme to linguistic unit, and that in such writing systems phonology will play a more prominent role in lexical access than will be the case for deeper orthographies (Frost et al, 1987;Frost & Katz, 1989;Katz & Frost, 1992;Rao et al, 2011;Schmalz et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the Mandarin language is rendered in print using at least three different orthographies grounded in two different design principles: morpho-syllabic traditional characters in Taiwan, morpho-syllabic simplified characters in the Peoples Republic of China and alphabetic pinyin in the early grades in both (Cheung & Ng, 2003). In fact, it may not be unusual for the same language, or minimally different language varieties, to be written with very different scripts, as in the cases of Serbian/Croatian (Feldman et al, 1985; and Hindi/Urdu (Rao et al, 2011). Moreover, two orthographies may be superficially similar in that they make use of the same script, yet map to languages that differ subtly (AAE/MAE) or markedly (English/Dutch) from one another.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthography, Word Recognition, and Reading

Braze

Gong

2017

The Handbook of Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orthographies differ from one another in terms of their scripts and in the specifics of the mapping from script to linguistic unit. Orthographic depth, the complexity of the mapping from script to language, modulates the ease with which an orthography is learned. Within an orthography, the consistency or regularity of a particular spelling pattern will temper the difficulty with which written words containing that pattern can be recognized. There is hope for a unified cross-orthography account of visual word recognition, although details of how non-alphabetic writing systems (e.g., syllabaries, morphosyllabaries, alphasyllabaries) may be fit into theoretical frameworks built on a foundation of empirical work on alphabetic reading are not entirely clear. There is a substantial gap in the literature with regard to reading and literacy in languages that make use of non-alphabetic writing systems. This euro-centric bias in reading research continues to limit advances in our understanding of the potential for literacy as a universal human capacity.Keywords: eye movements; computational models; lexical access; lexical representation; orthography; phonology; reading; writing systems PreliminariesThe nature of connection between oral and written language has been worried over by researchers for decades, perhaps as much as a century (Huey, 1908). Huey credits V. Egger with the notion that "to read is, in effect, to translate writing into speech (Huey, 1908, p. 123)." Some 60 years later, this basic idea was well on its way to becoming a lynch pin of our modern understanding of the relationship between speech perception, printed word recognition and language comprehension. Alvin Liberman, in Kavanagh (1968), framed the idea somewhat differently when he wrote that "reading is in some sense

show abstract

Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates

Cited by 49 publications

References 47 publications

Language and literacy in the context of brain, cognition, and culture

Language and literacy in the context of brain, cognition, and culture

The processing cost for reading misaligned words is script-specific: evidence from Hindi and Kannada/Hindi readers

Orthography, Word Recognition, and Reading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About