Lexical-Memory Retrieval Based on Graphemic and Phonemic Representations of Printed Words

Meyer, David E.; Ruddy, Margaret G.

doi:10.1037/e665992011-074

Cited by 23 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And "search" is equated with the simultaneous accumulation in a number of different logogens of the information that they can accept. In the logogen view, lexical search is parallel in contrast to the serial search that characterizes the model of Meyer and Ruddy (1973) (and that of Forster, 1976).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical decision in a phonologically shallow orthography

Lukatela¹,

Popadić²,

Ognjenović³

et al. 1980

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Serbo-Croatian language is written in two alphabets, Roman and Cyrillic. Both orthographies transcribe the sounds of the language in a regular and straightforward fashion and may, therefore, be referred to as phonologically shallow in contrast to English orthography, which is phonologically deep. Most of the alphabet characters are unique to one alphabet or the other. There are, however, a number of shared characters, some of which receive the same reading and some of which receive a different reading, in the two alphabets. It is possible, therefore, to construct a variety of types of letter strings. Some of these can be read in only one way and can be either a word or nonsense. Other letter strings can be pronounced one way if read as Roman and in a distinctively different way if read as Cyrillic and can be words in both alphabets-but different words; or they can be nonsense in both alphabets or nonsense in one alphabet and a word in the other. In a lexical decision task conducted with bialphabetical readers, it was shown that words that can be read in two different ways are accepted more slowly and with greater error than words that can be read only one way. It was concluded that for the phonologically shallow writing systems of Serbo-Croatian, lexical decision proceeds with reference to the phonology.A case can be made for distinguishing among alphabetic writing systems in terms of the derivational complexity that relates the spelling to the underlying phonological form (Liberman, Liberman, Mattingly, & Shankweiler, in press). English orthography is the notorious example of a "phonologically deep" writing system; but it is a truly phonographic orthography in spite of its depth because each spelled English word contains strong hints as to its pronunciation. Nevertheless, the opaqueness of the link between English script and phonology is seen by many as a barrier to phonological involvement in fluent reading (Goodman, 1973;Kolers, 1970; Smith, 1971). The argument runs as follows: Given the difficulty of deriving the phonology , readers of English would be considerably better off if they had the option of bypassing the phonology and of relating to their alphabetic orthography much in the same way that the readers of Chinese, say, are thought to relate to their logographic orthography, that is, of proceeding directly from script to meaning. The latter point of view receives some measure of support from analyses that purportedly reveal a closer fit of English

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexical decision in a phonologically shallow orthography

Lukatela¹,

Popadić²,

Ognjenović³

et al. 1980

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Meyer and Gutschera (1975) and Meyer and Ruddy (1973) reported that subjects in this task take more time to correctly reject PAIR for the category FRUIT than to reject other nonexemplars such as TAIL. Unfortunately, the authors failed to include spelling controls, which confounded homophony with spelling similarity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading

1987

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Nevertheless, the conservative researcher would be advised to regard the present data as a way of providing constraints on future specifications of how orthographic information is used. It is hoped that the failure of this study to provide explicit evidence for direct visual access that is distinguishable from other processes will encourage the shifting away from theories that postulate independent mechanisms of lexical access (e.g., Coltheart, 1978Coltheart, , 1980Coltheart, , 1985Coltheart et al, 1977;Davelaar et al, 1978;Meyer & Ruddy, 1973;Norris & Brown, 1985;Seidenberg, 1985;Seidenberg et aI., 1984;Stanovich & Bauer, 1978;Waters et al, 1984). It is hoped that the present effort will motivate further development of theories in which multiple and varied levels of lexical representations or substructures are activated through a common matrix of connection weights (see Carello et al, 1992;Carr & Pollatsek, 1985;Lukatela et aI., 1993;Van Orden, 1987;Van Orden et al, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When a phonological manipulation fails to affect word recognition, it is interpreted as support that word recognition proceeds primarily by the direct visual route (see Fleming, 1993;Jared & Seidenberg, 1991;Seidenberg, 1992). But when a phonological manipulation succeeds in affecting word recognition, it is interpreted as support for dual-access routes (see Coltheart, 1978;Coltheart et al, 1977;Davelaar et al, 1978;McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981;Meyer & Ruddy, 1973;Norris & Brown, 1985;Seidenberg, 1985;Seidenberg et al, 1984;Stanovich & Bauer, 1978;Waters et al, 1984). This suggests that the direct-access model is, more often than not, supported by default rather than by direct empirical evidence.…”

Section: Repetition Priming Researchmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These theories describe a process in which the simultaneous activation of phonological and orthographic sources of information results in word recognition. However, according to dual-access theorists, the phonological activation occurs at a slower rate than the orthographic activation (e.g., Coltheart, 1978;Coltheart, Davelaar, Jonasson, & Besner, 1977;Davelaar, Coltheart, Besner, & Jonasson, 1978;McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981;Meyer & Ruddy, 1973;Norris & Brown, 1985;Seidenberg, 1985;Seidenberg, Waters, Barnes, & Tanenhaus, 1984;Stanovich & Bauer, 1978;Waters, Seidenberg, & Bruck, 1984). Some dual-access theorists, such as Carr and Pollatsek (1985), postulate that orthographic and phonological sources of lexical activation are cooperative, rather than independent, so that both sources contribute to the word recognition process.…”

Section: Testing the Direct-access Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

Huntsman

1998

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three repetition priming experiments that employed identical (e.g., DOG-DOG) and reversed repetitions (e.g., GOD-DOG), it was found that relative to controls (e.g., DOG-DOG), GOD-type words did not prime DOG-type words. Also, neither DUT-type nor TUD-type nonwords primed DDT-type nonwords. In Experiments 1 and 2, these results occurred using both long-and short-term repetition priming conditions, respectively. In Experiment 3, the word results held under conditions of short-term priming coupled with stimulus misorientation. However, the nonword results resembled the word results (i.e., identical but not reversed repetitions primed nonwords). The failure to provide explicit evidence for direct visual access (e.g., GOD does not prime DOG while DOG does) irrespective of other sources of lexical activation supports theories of word recognition that postulate multiple and varied lexical representations that are activated through a matrix of connections.Most theories of word recognition agree that the process of reading includes both orthographic (i.e., how words look) and phonological (i.e., how words sound when spoken aloud) sources of lexical activation. However, there is disagreement among these theories with respect to the relative importance, the degree of independence, and the time course of orthographic and phonological sources of lexical activation.According to direct-access theories of word recognition, the orthographic representation of a printed word activates its lexical entry directly with minimal, if any, use of phonology (see, e.g., Aaronson & Ferres, 1983;Baron, 1973;Becker, 1976Becker, , 1980Bower, 1970;Forster & Chambers, 1973;Frederiksen & Kroll, 1976;Goodman, 1969;Green & Shallice, 1976;Huey, 1908;Kolers, 1970;Martin & Jensen, 1988;Smith, 1971). Conversely, phonological activation theories of word recognition contend that printed words are pre lexically recoded into a phonological representation. Because recoding occurs via the application ofspelling-sound conversions oforthographic elements within the words, phonological representations play an early role in activating lexical entries prior to recognition (see, e.g., Bloomfield, 1942;Corcoran, 1966; GibPreparation of this report was supported in part by a San Jose State University Psychology Department Research Grant. Additional support was provided by National Aeronautics and Space Administration Cooperative Agreement NCC 2-327 and NCC 2-798 to Kevin Jordan. I thank Sepideh Dadras and Joseph Tajnai for their assistance with stimulus development, Meredith Brown, Rigoberto Gutierres, Melanie Hein, Todd Moore, Jennifer Skinner, Kenneth Smith, and Juanita Traver for their tireless assistance with data collection, and especially Guy Woffindin for his invaluable programming assistance. I also thank Joanne Miller, Guy Van Orden, and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this report. Correspondence should be addressed to L. A. Huntsman, Department of Psychology, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192-0120 (e-m...

show abstract

Lexical-Memory Retrieval Based on Graphemic and Phonemic Representations of Printed Words

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

Lexical decision in a phonologically shallow orthography

Lexical decision in a phonologically shallow orthography

A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound, and reading

Testing the direct-access model: GOD does not prime DOG

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About