Stressing what is important: Orthographic cues and lexical stress assignment

Seva, Nada; Monaghan, Padraic; Arciuli, Joanne

doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.09.002

Cited by 66 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some orthographies, such as French, have entirely predictable stress assignment, but others, such as English (Rastle & Coltheart, 2000;Seva, Monaghan, & Arciuli, 2009), Greek (Protopapas, Gerakaki, & Alexandri, 2006), Russian (Jouravlev & Lupker, 2014, and Italian (Burani & Arduino, 2004;Colombo, 1992), have some ambiguity when it comes to determining the position of the stressed syllable, and lexical-semantic knowledge needs to be recruited to resolve these conflicts. In English, for example, the word Bentrance^a different meaning depending on whether the first or the second syllable is stressed.…”

Section: Limitations and Open Questions For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orthographic depth has been studied intensively as one of the sources of cross-linguistic differences in reading, and yet there has been little detailed analysis of what is meant by orthographic depth. Here we propose that orthographic depth is a conglomerate of two separate constructs: the complexity of print-to-speech correspondences and the unpredictability of the derivation of the pronunciations of words on the basis of their orthography. We show that on a linguistic level, these two concepts can be dissociated. Furthermore, we make different predictions about how the two concepts would affect skilled reading and reading acquisition. We argue that refining the definition of orthographic depth opens up new research questions. Addressing these can provide insights into the specific mechanisms by which language-level orthographic properties affect cognitive processes underlying reading.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Open Questions For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there is currently no strong evidence showing a time-period when the discrimination of words according to their syllabic length occurs, it seems likely that it happens at an early stage of processing, and there is reasonable empirical support for this claim (Ashby & Rayner, 2004;Ashby & Martin, 2008). Further, the assumption that readers consider only those stress patterns that are possible in a word has been made in all previous models of polysyllabic word reading and models of stress assignment (Perry et al, 2010;Ševa et al, 2009). As in the CDP++ model (Perry et al, 2010), a reasonable assumption is that the decision concerning the number of syllables that a word has is most likely based on information about the number of vowel graphemes the word contains.…”

Section: Stress Assignment As a Problem Of Probabilistic Inferencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most of the prior computational studies of the process of stress assignment (Rastle & Coltheart, 2000;Ševa et al, 2009;Perry et al, 2010), the authors compared the stress pattern predictions of their models with the stress patterns that disyllabic words have in the language rather than actual stress assignment performance of readers on those words. The reason that this approach was used was either that these models are unable to simulate stress assignment probabilities across individuals due to the fact that their output is deterministic (i.e., trochaic or iambic stress patterns) rather than probabilistic (Rastle & Coltheart, 2000), or because the modelers (Perry et al, 2010;Ševa et al 2009) preferred to transform their continuous probability values (e.g., activation levels for the various stress patterns in the model) into binary stress outputs (with the stress pattern node achieving the highest level of activation being considered as determining the stress pattern that the model would assign to a word). In either situation, it was, therefore, these binary outputs that were then compared against stress patterns in the relevant corpus.…”

Section: Experiments 1: Word Naming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both of the main computational approaches to reading (i.e., the dual-route view and the connectionist view) have acknowledged that any truly successful model of word reading needs to provide an explanation of the principles of lexical stress assignment. As a result, attempts to model this process have been made within both frameworks (Arciuli, Monaghan, & Ševa, 2010;Perry, Ziegler, & Zorzi, 2010;Rastle & Coltheart, 2000;Ševa, Monaghan, & Arciuli, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lexical stress assignment as a problem of probabilistic inference

Jouravlev

Lupker

2015

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new conceptualization of the process of stress assignment, couched in the principles of (Bayesian) probabilistic inference, is introduced in this paper. According to this approach, in deciding where to place stress in a polysyllabic word, a reader estimates the posterior probabilities of alternative stress patterns. This estimation is accomplished by adjusting a prior belief about the likelihoods of alternative stress patterns (derived from experience with the distribution of stress patterns in the language) by using lexical and nonlexical sources of evidence for stress derived from the orthographic input. The proposed theoretical framework was used to compute probabilities of stress patterns for Russian disyllabic words and nonwords which were then compared with the performance of readers. The results showed that the estimated probabilities of stress patterns were reflective of actual stress assignment performance and of naming latencies, suggesting that the mechanisms that are involved in the process of stress assignment might indeed be inferentially-based.

show abstract

“…In respect of this latter dimension, several factors have been identified as potential predictors of stress assignment. These include the distribution of stress patterns in the language (e.g., Arciuli & Cupples, 2006;Colombo, 1992;Kelly & Bock, 1988;Monsell, Doyle, & Haggard, 1989); orthographic sequences, in particular word beginnings and/or endings (e.g., Burani, Paizi, & Sulpizio, 2014;Cappa, Nespor, Ielasi, & Miozzo, 1997;Colombo, 1992;Seva, Monaghan, & Arciuli, 2009); syllabic weight both at the orthographic (Kelly, 2004;Kelly, Morris, & Verrekia, 1998) and phonological level (Guion et al, 2003); and vowel length (Baker & Smith, 1976;Guion et al, 2003). Of particular importance to the present study is the claim that the morphological structure of a word (i.e., the presence of affixes) also provides important information in determining stress assignment in reading aloud (Rastle & Coltheart, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prefixes repel stress in reading aloud: Evidence from surface dyslexia

Ktori

Tree

Mousikou

et al. 2016

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the importance of prefixes as sublexical cues for stress assignment during reading aloud English disyllabic words. In particular, we tested the hypothesis that prefixes repel stress (Rastle & Coltheart, 2000) by investigating the likelihood with which patients with surface dyslexia assign second-syllable stress to prefixed words. Five such patients were presented with three types of disyllabic words for reading aloud: 'regular' prefixed words with weak-strong stress pattern (e.g., remind); 'irregular' prefixed words with strong-weak stress pattern (e.g., reflex); and non-prefixed words with strong-weak stress pattern (e.g., scandal). Results showed that all five patients frequently regularized the strong-weak prefixed words by pronouncing them with second syllable stress. These regularization errors provide strong evidence for the functional role of prefixes in stress assignment during reading. Additional computational simulations using the rule-based algorithm for pronouncing disyllables developed by Rastle and Coltheart (2000) and the CDP++ model of reading aloud (Perry et al., 2010) allowed us to evaluate how these two opponent approaches to reading aloud fare in respect of the patient data.

show abstract

Stressing what is important: Orthographic cues and lexical stress assignment

Cited by 66 publications

References 19 publications

Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth

Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth

Lexical stress assignment as a problem of probabilistic inference

Prefixes repel stress in reading aloud: Evidence from surface dyslexia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About