The influence of spelling on the production and storage of words with allophonic variants of /h/ in Korean

Abstract

This study examined the role of orthography in the production and storage of spoken words. Korean speakers learned novel Korean words with potential variants of /h/, including [ɦ] and ø. They were provided with the same auditory stimuli but with varying exposure to spelling. One group was presented with the letter for ø (<ㅇ>), the second group, the letter for [ɦ] (<ㅎ>), and the third group, auditory input only. In picture-naming tasks, the participants presented with <ㅇ> produced fewer words with [ɦ] than those presented with <ㅎ>. In a spelling recall task, the participants who were not exposed to spelling displayed various types of spellings for variants, but after exposure to spelling, they began to produce spellings as provided in the task. These results suggest that orthographic information influences the production of words via an offline restructuring of the phonological representation.

To See or Not to See: How Does Seeing Spellings Support Vocabulary Learning?

“…The 23 reviewed studies measured how well orthographic, phonological and semantic information was learned. Three studies were conducted with adult populations (Han & Choi, 2016;Miles et al, 2016;Saletta et al, 2016a) and one with both child and adult populations (Saletta et al, 2016b), while the remaining studies were conducted with child populations (see Table 1). We categorized outcome measures as 'phonological' if participants were required to learn phonological information, produce phonological responses or select between phonological stimuli.…”

“…Of the 23 studies, 11 contained measures of orthographic, phonological and semantic learning (Chambre, Ehri & Ness, 2017;Han & Choi, 2016;Jubenville et al, 2014;Lucas & Norbury, 2014;Miles et al, 2016;Ricketts et al, 2009;Ricketts et al, 2015;Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008;Valentini, Ricketts, Pye & Houston-Price, 2018); three contained measures of semantic and phonological learning (Baron et al, 2018;Hu, 2008;Li et al, 2016); two contained measures of semantic and orthographic learning (Savaiano et al, 2015, Vadasy & Sanders, 2015 and one measured semantic learning To see or not to see / 11 only (Reitsma et al, 1983). The remaining six studies contained measures of only phonological learning (Ehri & Wilce, 1979;Mengoni et al, 2013;Saletta et al, 2016a;Saletta et al, 2016b).…”

“…Regardless of whether exposure to orthography was incidental or explicit, orthographic facilitation for at least one outcome measure was observed on all studies except one (Han & Choi, 2016), where participants were at ceiling. In the study in which explicitness of instructions was manipulated between participants (Chambre et al, 2017), explicit instructions to pay attention to the written form of the word provided no additional benefit to learning and in fact, the mean scores for the implicit group were higher than those in the explicit group (though the differences were not To see or not to see / 19 statistically significant).…”

“…The remaining study did not statistically compare the accuracy of orthography-present over orthography-absent conditions (Han & Choi, 2016) so it is unclear whether there was an orthographic facilitation effect or not. Overall, there is robust evidence that the presence of orthography during learning leads to superior spelling performance for typically developing children and adults.…”

“…Four studies could not calculate statistical comparisons because scores on their measures of semantic learning were at ceiling (Han & Choi, 2016;Jubenville et al, 2014;Miles et al 2016). Of the remaining 11 studies, eight found significant orthographic facilitation effects on at least one measure (Baron et al, 2018;Li et al, 2016;Lucas & Norbury, 2014;Reitsma, 1983;Ricketts et al, 2009;Rosenthal & Ehri, 2008;Valentini et al, 2018) and two found marginal differences between orthography-present and orthography-absent conditions (Ricketts et al, 2015;Vadasy & Sanders, 2015; see Table 4).…”