Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T14:08:18.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adults’ sensitivity to graphotactic differences within the English vocabulary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2018

REBECCA TREIMAN ,
KRISTINA DECKER  and
BRETT KESSLER
REBECCA TREIMAN*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
KRISTINA DECKER
Affiliation:
University of Memphis
BRETT KESSLER
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Rebecca Treiman, Campus Box 1125, St. Louis MO 63130. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Linguists have described the English vocabulary as including Latinate and basic subsystems. In three experiments with a total of 93 participants, we asked whether skilled readers are sensitive to graphotactic differences between these systems. Participants saw pairs of nonwords and were asked to choose the item in each pair that appeared more wordlike. Participants were more likely to select an item with an onset and an ending that suggested the same system than an item with a mismatch. Participants also used the presence of a single versus double medial consonant as a marker of the system to which an item belongs. The results suggest that skilled readers have learned about some of the graphotactic differences between Latinate and basic words and do not treat English as a monolithic system.

Keywords

graphotacticsLatinate wordsreadingvocabulary
Type
Original Article
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , January 2019 , pp. 167 - 182
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albrow, K. H. (1972). The English writing system: Notes towards a description. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. (2007). Developing register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45, 1–35. doi:10.1515/LING.2007.001 Google Scholar
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. J., & Walker, S. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 Google Scholar
Berg, K. (2016). Double consonants in English: Graphemic, morphological, prosodic and etymological determinants. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29, 453–474. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9610-z Google Scholar
Carney, E. (1994). Survey of English spelling. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carrillo, M. S., & Alegría, J. (2014). The development of children’s sensitivity to bigram frequencies when spelling in Spanish, a transparent writing system. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 27, 571–590. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9459-y Google Scholar
Cassar, M., & Treiman, R. (1997). The beginnings of orthographic knowledge: Children’s knowledge of double letters in words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 631–644. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.4.631 Google Scholar
Chetail, F. (2017). What do we do with what we learn? Statistical learning of orthographic regularities impacts written word processing. Cognition, 163, 103–120. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.02.015 Google Scholar
Evertz, M., & Primus, B. (2013). The graphematic foot in English and German. Writing Systems Research, 5, 1–23. doi:10.1080/17586801.2013.765356 Google Scholar
Hayes, H., Treiman, R., & Kessler, B. (2006). Children use vowels to help them spell consonants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94, 27–42. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2005.11.001 Google Scholar
Jared, D., Cormier, P., Levy, B. A., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2013). Discrimination of English and French orthographic patterns by biliterate children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 469–488. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2012.11.001 Google Scholar
Kemp, N., Treiman, R., Blackley, H., Svoboda, I., & Kessler, B. (2015). Lexical classification and spelling: Do people use atypical spellings for atypical pseudowords? Reading and Writing: An Interdiscriplinary Journal, 28, 1187–1202. doi:10.1007/s11145-015-9567-y Google Scholar
Levin, H., & Novak, M. (1991). Frequencies of Latinate and Germanic words in English as determinants of formality. Discourse Processes, 14, 389–398. doi:10.1080/01638539109544792 Google Scholar
Mano, Q. R. (2016). Developing sensitivity to subword combinatorial orthographic regularity (SCORe): A two-process framework. Scientific Studies of Reading, 20, 231–247. doi:10.1080/10888438.2016.1141210 Google Scholar
Pacton, S., Perruchet, P., Fayol, M., & Cleeremans, A. (2001). Implicit learning out of the lab: The case of orthographic regularities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 401–426. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.3.401 Google Scholar
Pacton, S., Sobaco, A., Fayol, M., & Treiman, R. (2013). How does graphotactic knowledge influence children’s learning of new spellings? Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 701. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00701 Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/ Google Scholar
Rubin, D. (1978). Word-initial and word-final ngram frequencies. Journal of Literacy Research, 10, 171–183. doi:10.1080/10862967809547266 Google Scholar
Ryan, D. (2018). Principles of English spelling formation (Doctoral dissertation, Trinity College, Dublin).Google Scholar
Samara, A., & Caravolas, M. (2014). Statistical learning of novel graphotactic constraints in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 121, 137–155. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.11.009 Google Scholar
Testolin, A., Stoianov, I., Sperduti, A., & Zorzi, M. (2016). Learning orthographic structure with sequential generative neural networks. Cognitive Science, 40, 579–606. doi:10.1111/cogs.12258 Google Scholar
Treiman, R., & Boland, K. (2017). Graphotactics and spelling: Evidence from consonant doubling. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 254–264. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.001 Google Scholar
Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Evans, R. (2007). Anticipatory conditioning of spelling-to-sound translation. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 229–245. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.001 Google Scholar
Vaid, J., & Frenck-Mestre, C. (2002). Do orthographic cues aid language recognition? A laterality study with French–English bilinguals. Brain and Language, 82, 47–53. doi:10.1016/S0093-934×(02)00008-1 Google Scholar
van Kesteren, R., Dijkstra, T., & de Smedt, K. (2012). Markedness effects in Norwegian–English bilinguals: Task-dependent use of language-specific letters and bigrams. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2129–2154. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.679946 Google Scholar
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT4). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar