Pseudohomophone Effects and Phonological Recoding Procedures in Reading Development in English and German

Goswami, Usha; Ziegler, Johannes C.; Dalton, Louise; Schneider, Wolfgang

doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2790

Cited by 147 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For this reason, no advantage of PSHs was observed with respect to UNWs. A similar result was found by Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, and Schneider (2001), who compared performance on PSH reading of German-and Englishspeaking children. Since English PSHs were orthographically similar to real words, while German PSHs contained somewhat unusual spellings, two types of control nonwords were used.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Reading aloud pseudohomophones in Italian: Always an advantage

Peressotti

Colombo

2011

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present article, the lexical contribution to nonword reading was evaluated using Italian pseudohomophones that contained atypical letters or letter sequences. Pseudohomophones were read faster than orthographically matched nonwords in both mixed (Experiment 1) and pure (Experiment 2) lists; in addition, a base-word frequency effect was obtained in both conditions. The same pseudohomophone advantage was observed when nonwords without atypical letter sequences were mixed in the experimental list (Experiment 3 ), and it disappeared only in lexical decision, in which pseudohomophones were rejected as quickly as control nonwords. The pattern of results was explained by assuming that, due to their orthographic properties, the Italian pseudohomophones did not benefit from an orthographic lexical contribution and were mainly processed through the interaction system between the sublexical mechanisms and the phonological output lexicon. and skilled readers is how lexical and sublexical knowledge is exploited during reading of words that have never been seen before. Most research that has addressed this issue has focused on the relative contributions of orthographic and phonological knowledge used by expert readers to quickly translate a novel visually presented letter string into its phonological/phonetic correspondence (e.g., nonwords such as BLARK). One approach used to examine the lexical contribution to reading aloud is to examine performance for pseudohomophones (PSHs; e.g., BRANE), a special class of nonwords whose pronunciations, but not their spellings, are identical to those of real words (e.g., McCann & Besner, 1987). Recent research has suggested that the time taken to read PSHs aloud is strongly influenced by both orthographic and phonological lexical representations. The goal of the present study was to investigate these issues further by exploiting the alphabetic characteristics of Italian to create PSHs that should minimally activate orthographic lexical representations.The most widely accepted models of visual word recognition and reading aloud postulate that skilled readers have two procedures available for translating print into phonology: a lexical route and a nonlexical route (see Fig. 1). There are currently two computational instantiations of this class of models for English: Coltheart and colleagues' dual-route cascaded model (DRC; Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Zeigler, 2001) and Zorzi and colleagues' connectionist dualprocess model (CDP: Zorzi, Houghton, & Butterworth, 1998; CDP+: Perry, Ziegler, & Zorzi, 2007). These two models are very similar, using a "nested" approach to computational modeling in which subsequent models build upon the success of previous ones. Consequently, both models have had tremendous success in simulating a wide range of empirical findings in the literature.In the DRC and CDP + models, the lexical route consists of an orthographic lexicon, which contains our memories for word spellings, and a phonological lexicon, which contains our memories for wor...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Reading aloud pseudohomophones in Italian: Always an advantage

Peressotti

Colombo

2011

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An inspection of the literature on the pseudohomophone effect reveals a crucial difference between our experiment and other experiments concerned with the pseudohomophone effect. Specifically, the researchers in past studies have presented both pseudohomophones and pseudowords in mixed blocks (Besner & Davelaar, 1983;Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2001;Mayall & Humphreys, 1996;McCann et al, 1988;Pring, 1981;Seidenberg et al, 1996;Underwood, Roberts, & Thomason, 1988;Vanhoy & Van Orden, 2001). That is, pseudohomophones and pseudowords were intermixed and both were seen by the participants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the area of visual word recognition, one of the most debated topics concerns the degree to which phonological codes play a role in the recognition of letter strings. As evidence that phonology does play a role in the lexical decision task, researchers have shown that nonword response latencies are longer to pseudohomophones (e.g., nale) than to orthographically matched pseudowords (e.g., nalp; Coltheart, Davelaar, Jonasson, & Besner, 1977;Fera & Besner, 1992;McCann, Besner, & Davelaar, 1988;Rubenstein, Lewis, & Rubenstein, 1971;Seidenberg, Petersen, MacDonald, & Plaut, 1996), implying that the pseudohomophone accesses the representation of its base word (e.g., nail ), and that this base word representation slows the processing of the pseudohomophone. Because the pseudohomophone effect has become central to models of word recognition (Ziegler, Jacobs, & Klüppel, 2001), it is critical that we understand fully the processes underlying the effect.It is not clear, however, exactly what properties of the base word affect processing of pseudohomophones. Two potential representations are usually implicated. The first and most obvious candidate is simply the phonological representation itself. According to this account, pseudohomophones activate the phonological representation of their base words, and because the phonological representation of a pseudohomophone perfectly matches the phonologyof an actual word, "no" latencies toward pseudohomophones are increased. Thus, on this account, it is simply the phonological form of the pseudohomophone that slows processing. This purely phonological account of the pseudohomophoneeffect is the most common ). However, another possibility is that a pseudohomophone activates the semantic representation of its base word. On this account, a pseudohomophone activates the phonological representation of its base word, which in turn activates the word's semantic representation. Thus, "no" latencies to a pseudohomophone are longer because the semantic activation associated with the base word incorrectly indicates that the pseudohomophone is a word. The difference between these two accounts is that the latter posits an extra step (i.e., from phonology to semantics).One can understand the semantic account of the pseudohomophone effect by considering a framework within which the orthographic, phonological, and semantic levels are fully interactive (see, e.g., Pexman & Lupker, 1999;Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989). In this framework, the phonological representation of a pseudohomophone activates the semantic representation of its base word because of the match between the phonology of the pseudohomophone and that of the base word. With this increased semantic activation,a pseudohomophonewill appear more wordlike, and the "no" latency will increase. Of course, these accounts of the pseudohomophone effect (i.e., the phonological and the semantic accounts) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible that the processing of pseudohomophones is affected by both factors (i.e., by both the p...

show abstract

“…The PGS model instead predicts that restructuring only creates a progression from syllable to rime awareness and that further progression to the phoneme level does not occur until reading begins (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). A further claim is that this process will be slower in deeper orthographies due to the inconsistency of grapheme-to-phoneme links (e.g., Goswami, Porpodas, & Wheelwright, 1997;Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2001). The ML model makes no direct Dauer (1983).…”

Section: The Influence Of Orthographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological development in relation to native language and literacy: Variations on a theme in six alphabetic orthographies

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. b s t r a c tPhonological development was assessed in six alphabetic orthographies (English, French, Greek, Icelandic, Portuguese and Spanish) at the beginning and end of the first year of reading instruction. The aim was to explore contrasting theoretical views regarding: the question of the availability of phonology at the outset of learning to read (Study 1); the influence of orthographic depth on the pace of phonological development during the transition to literacy (Study 2); and the impact of literacy instruction (Study 3). Results from 242 children did not reveal a consistent sequence of development as performance varied according to task demands and language. Phonics instruction appeared more influential than orthographic depth in the emergence of an early meta-phonological capacity to manipulate phonemes, and preliminary indications were that cross-linguistic variation was associated with speech rhythm more than factors such as syllable complexity. The implications of the outcome for current models of phonological development are discussed.

show abstract

Pseudohomophone Effects and Phonological Recoding Procedures in Reading Development in English and German

Cited by 147 publications

References 57 publications

Reading aloud pseudohomophones in Italian: Always an advantage

Reading aloud pseudohomophones in Italian: Always an advantage

Semantic and phonological influences on the processing of words and pseudohomophones

Phonological development in relation to native language and literacy: Variations on a theme in six alphabetic orthographies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About