Do Phonological Codes Constrain the Selection of Orthographic Codes in Written Picture Naming?

Bonin, Patrick; Peereman, Ronald; Fayol, Michel

doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2786

Cited by 114 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 67 publications

(87 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, here we report evidence supporting the idea that this two-phase route is functional in the course of normal adult copying. Although some handwriting models could easily be adapted to accommodate the effects reported here (Bonin et al, 2001;Tainturier & Rapp, 2001), it is important to notice that neither of these models has been proposed to account for the copying task, and that the route that we have just described has only been assumed explicitly by Cuetos (1991). This author has pointed out the possibility of a phonologically mediated route for copying in which the individual graphemes of the visual input activate their corresponding phonemes by means of the application of the orthography-to-phonology correspondences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies have shown that sublexical information mediates several types of writing tasks (Afonso & Álvarez, 2011;Bonin, Peereman, & Fayol, 2001;Delattre, Bonin, & Barry, 2006;Qu, Damian, Zhang, & Zhu, 2011), and theoretical models have been proposed to describe the relative involvement of the lexical and the sublexical route during spelling to dictation (Tainturier & Rapp, 2001; see also Folk & Rapp, 2004;Folk, Rapp, & Goldrick, 2002;Rapp, Epstein, & Tainturier, 2002) and/or written picture naming (Bonin et al, 2001;Roux & Bonin, 2012). However, the involvement of sublexical correspondences during copying has been investigated less than in other writing tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of grapheme-to-phoneme probability on writing durations

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relative involvement of the lexical and sublexical routes across different writing tasks remains a controversial topic in the field of handwriting production research. The present article reports two experiments examining whether or not the probability of a grapheme-to-phoneme (G-P) mapping affected production during copy of polyvalent graphemes embedded in French (Exps. 1a and 1b) and Spanish (Exp. 2) known words. The relative probabilities of two different G-P mappings associated with the same polyvalent grapheme were manipulated (higher vs. lower probability). In Experiment 1a, we used the polyvalent French grapheme E. Writing durations revealed that the interletter intervals (ILIs) located before and after this letter were shorter and that the letter itself was executed faster in the condition of higher probability of the G-P mapping (e.g., SERVICE, "service") than in the lower-probability condition (e.g., SEMAINE, "week"). In Experiment 1b, we used the sequence TI (e.g., VICTIME-MARTIEN, "victim-Martian"), which is less frequent. In this case, we failed to observe significant differences between the conditions. In Experiment 2, effects similar to those obtained in Experiment 1a were found with Spanish words using different pronunciations of the letter C (e.g., DESCANSO-DESCENSO, "rest-descent"). Altogether, these results reveal that the link between a grapheme and a phoneme is weighted according to its probability in the language. Moreover, they suggest that a two-phase route linking graphemes to phonemes and phonemes to graphemes is functional during copy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of grapheme-to-phoneme probability on writing durations

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Supporting the dualroute spelling framework are also numerous reports about the influence of lexical (e.g. word frequency) and sublexical (e.g., sound-spelling consistency) variables on handwriting latencies across multiple task settings (Bonin, Chalard, Méot, & Fayol, 2002;Bonin, et al, 2015;Bonin, Peereman, & Fayol, 2001;Delattre, Bonin, & Barry, 2006; although see Roux, McKeeff, Grosjacques, Afonso, & Kandel, 2013). However, lexical and sublexical factors also affect whole word durations (lexicality in Roux et al, 2013;regularity in Delattre et al, 2006) and finer measures of response execution (inter-letter intervals and stroke durations; e.g., bigram frequency in Afonso, Álvarez, & Kandel, 2015;Kandel, Peereman, Grosjacques, & Fayol, 2011;Roux et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Typing is writing: Linguistic properties modulate typing execution

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typing is becoming our preferred way of writing. Perhaps because of the relative recency of this change, very few studies have investigated typing from a psycholinguistic perspective. In addition, and despite obvious similarities between typing and handwriting, typing research has remained rather disconnected from handwriting research. The current study aimed at bridging this gap by evaluating how typing is affected by a number of psycholinguistic variables defined at the word, syllable, and letter levels. In a writing-to-dictation task, we assessed typing performance by measuring response accuracy, onset latencies -an index of response preparation and initiation -and interkeystroke intervals (IKIs) -an index of response execution processes. The lexical and sublexical factors revealed a composite pattern of effects. Lexical frequency improved response latencies and accuracy, while bigram frequency speeded up IKIs. Sound-spelling consistency improved latencies, but had an inhibitory effect on IKI. IKIs were also longer at syllable boundaries. Together, our findings can be fit within a framework for typed production that combines the previously developed theories of spelling and typing execution. At their interface, we highlight the need for an intermediate hierarchical stage, perhaps in the form of a graphemic buffer for typing.

show abstract

“…PO consistency is a notion that captures a statistical relationship between sublexical phonological and orthographic units (Peereman & Content, 1999): An inconsistent word is one for which the number of alternative spellings for a given phonological unit (e.g., onset, vowel, rime) is relatively high, whereas a consistent word is one for which the mappings between phonological and orthographic units are more systematic. PO consistency effects have been found on both written spelling-to-dictation latencies and spelling errors in adults (e.g., Bonin & Méot, 2002;Bonin, Peereman, & Fayol, 2001;Peereman, Content, & Bonin, 1998), and the effects are stronger on low-frequency words than on high-frequency words (Bonin & Méot, 2002). In contrast to consistency, regularity is a categorical notion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%