What and where is the word?

McBride‐Chang, Catherine; Chen, Hsuan-Chih; Kasisopa, Benjawan; Burnham, Denis K; Reilly, Ronan G.; Leppänen, P.H.T.

doi:10.1017/s0140525x1200009x

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This provides evidence that there exist some aspects that are specific to reading Chinese (Perfetti et al, 2013). This further reinforces the idea that developing a universal model of reading is theoretically appealing, but may not be practically possible (McBride-Chang, Chen, et al, 2012). Also, the existence of a poor Chinese reading only group may indicate that L1 difficulties do not necessarily lead to L2 reading difficulties, as assumed by interactive modes of L2 reading (Cummins, 1981, 1984; Koda, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

A Tale of Two Writing Systems

Tong

McBride‐Chang

2013

J Learn Disabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the rate of school-aged Chinese-English language learners at risk for reading difficulties in either Chinese or English only, or both, among second and fifth graders in Hong Kong. In addition, we examined the metalinguistic skills that distinguished those who were poor in reading Chinese from those who were poor in reading English. The prevalence of poor English readers among children identified to be poor in Chinese word recognition across the five participating schools was approximately 42% at Grade 2 and 57% at Grade 5. Across grades, children who were poor readers of both languages tended to have difficulties in phonological and morphological awareness. Poor readers of English only were found to manifest significantly poorer phonological awareness, compared to those who were poor readers of Chinese only; their average tone awareness score was also lower relative to normally developing controls. Apart from indicating possible dissociations between Chinese first language (L1) word reading and English second language (L2) word reading, these findings suggested that the degree to which different metalinguistic skills are important for reading in different writing systems may depend on the linguistic features of the particular writing system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

A Tale of Two Writing Systems

Tong

McBride‐Chang

2013

J Learn Disabil

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this is not the case in a number of alphabetic scripts. For example, there are no spaces to define words in Thai [36], and there is often ambiguity as word segmentation in Thai relies heavily on sentential context [37]. Even in a spaced language like Finnish, a highly agglutinative language, a word might be comprised of multiple constituent sub-words that appear together without spacing.…”

Section: The Current Challenge: the Concept Of A Word And Its Role Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Perspectives on Serialism and Parallelism in Oculomotor Control During Reading: The Multi-Constituent Unit Hypothesis

Zang

2019

Vision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently there are several computational models of eye movement control that provide a good account of oculomotor behavior during reading of English and other alphabetic languages. I will provide an overview of two dominant models: E-Z Reader and SWIFT, as well as a recently proposed model: OB1-Reader. I will evaluate a critical issue of controversy among models, namely, whether words are lexically processed serially or in parallel. I will then consider reading in Chinese, a character-based, unspaced language with ambiguous word boundaries. Finally, I will evaluate the concepts of serialism and parallelism of process central to these models, and how these models might function in relation to lexical processing that is operationalized over parafoveal multi-constituent units.

show abstract

“…In addition to differences in the nature of the process by which speech is computed from print, nonalphabetic orthographies may differ in terms of the visual complexity, morphological principles, and even definitions of word boundaries (Chang, Maries, & Perfetti, 2014;Cui et al, 2012;Huang & Hanley, 1995;McBride-Chang et al, 2012).…”

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

What and where is the word?

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

A Tale of Two Writing Systems

A Tale of Two Writing Systems

New Perspectives on Serialism and Parallelism in Oculomotor Control During Reading: The Multi-Constituent Unit Hypothesis

Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About