Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T14:43:19.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shallow Versus Deep Footprints in Pseudo-Word Grapheme-to-Phoneme Conversion: Dutch and English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2010

Susanne R. Borgwaldt ,
Patrick Bolger  and
Emőke Jakab
Susanne R. Borgwaldt*
Affiliation:
University of Braunschweig
Patrick Bolger*
Affiliation:
The University of Alberta
Emőke Jakab*
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam
*
Department of German Linguistics University of Braunschweig Bienroder Weg 80 D—38106 Braunschweig Germany [[email protected]]
Department of Linguistics 4-32 Assiniboia Hall The University of Alberta Edmonton AB Canada T6G 2E7 [[email protected]]
Department of Psychology University of Amsterdam Roetersstraat 15 NL—1018 WB Amsterdam The Netherlands [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our study is concerned with reading processes. Using a letter-detection paradigm with masked priming, we tested for the existence and time course of vowel digraph effects in Dutch and English. Whereas Dutch readers showed digraph effects with 67-ms primes, English readers showed only letter effects at 67 ms and merely a weak digraph trend at 83 ms. These findings are consistent with the PSYCHOLOGICAL GRAIN SIZE THEORY, a model of reading development that predicts that grapheme-phoneme conversion proceeds faster in shallow than in deep orthographies. This also demonstrates that similar language structures can be processed differently if they are modulated by different inter-faces, in this case, orthography.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 22 , Special Issue 4: SPECIAL ISSUE: DUTCH BETWEEN ENGLISH AND GERMAN , December 2010 , pp. 425 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2010

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

Aro, Mikko, & Wimmer, Heinz. 2003. Learning to read: English in comparison to six more regular orthographies. Applied Psycholinguistics 24. 621-635.Google Scholar
Berent, Iris, & Perfetti, Charles. 1995. A rose is a reez: The two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review 102. 146-184.Google Scholar
Bolger, Patrick, Borgwaldt, Susanne, & Jakab, Emőke. 2009. Letter and grapheme perception in English and Dutch. Written Language & Literacy 12. 116-139.Google Scholar
Borgwaldt, Susanne, Hellwig, Frauke, & de Groot, Annette. 2004. Word-initial entropy in five languages—letter to sound, and sound to letter. Written Language & Literacy 7. 165-184.Google Scholar
Borgwaldt, Susanne, Hellwig, Frauke, & de Groot, Annette. 2005. Onset entropy matters-letter-to-phoneme mappings in seven languages. Reading and Writing 18. 211-230.Google Scholar
Braun, Mario, Hutzler, Florian, Ziegler, Johannes, Dambacher, Michael, & Jacobs, Arthur. 2009. Pseudohomophone effects provide evidence of early lexico-phonological processing in visual word recognition. Human Brain Mapping 30. 1977-1989.Google Scholar
Coulmas, Florian. 2003. Writing systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferrand, Ludovic, & Grainger, Jonathan. 1993. The time course of orthographic and phonological code activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 31. 119-122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Kenneth. 1999. The microgenesis of priming effects in lexical access. Brain and Language 68. 5-15.Google Scholar
Forster, Kenneth, & Forster, Jonathan. 2003. DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods Instruments and Computers 35. 116-124.Google Scholar
Haeringen, Coenraad Bernadus van. 1956. Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.Google Scholar
Katz, Leonard, & Frost, Ram. 1992. The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning, ed. by Frost, Ram & Katz, Leonard, 45–66. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lukatela, Georgije, & Turvey, Michael. 1994. Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123. 331-353.Google Scholar
Martensen, Heike, Maris, Eric, & Dijkstra, Ton. 2000. When does inconsistency hurt? On the relation between consistency effects and reliability. Memory & Cognition 28. 648-656.Google Scholar
Nunn, Anneke. 1998. Dutch orthography. A systematic investigation of the spelling of Dutch words. Den Haag: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Perfetti, Charles, & Bell, Laura. 1991. Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language 30. 473-485.Google Scholar
Rastle, Kathleen, & Brysbaert, Marc. 2006. Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter? Cognitive Psychology 53. 97-145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rey, Arnaud, Ziegler, Johannes, & Jacobs, Arthur. 2000. Graphemes are perceptual reading units. Cognition 75. B1-B12.Google Scholar
Rogers, Henry. 2005. Writing systems. A linguistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Seymour, Phillip, Aro, Mikko, & Erskine, Jane. 2003. Foundation of literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology 94. 143-174.Google Scholar
Treiman, Rebecca, Mullennix, John, Bijeljac-Babic, Ranka, & Daylene Richmond-Welty, E.. 1995. The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124. 107-136.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, Antal, Content, Alain, Daelemans, Walter, & de Gelder, Beatrice. 1995. Measuring the complexity of writing systems. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1. 178-188.Google Scholar
Van Orden, Guy. 1987. A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory and Cognition 15. 181-198.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Heinz, & Goswami, Usha. 1994. The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development: Word recognition in English and German children. Cognition 51. 91-103.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Johannes, & Goswami, Usha. 2005. Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin 131. 3-29.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Johannes, Perry, Conrad, Jacobs, Arthur, & Braun, Mario. 2001. Identical words are read differently in different languages. Psychological Science 12. 379-384.Google Scholar