Reading and Lexicalization in Opaque and Transparent Orthographies: Word Naming and Word Learning in English and Spanish

Abstract

Do skilled readers of opaque and transparent orthographies make differential use of lexical and sublexical processes when converting words from print to sound? Two experiments are reported, which address that question, using effects of letter length on naming latencies as an index of the involvement of sublexical letter-sound conversion. Adult native speakers of English (Experiment 1) and Spanish (Experiment 2) read aloud four- and seven-letter high-frequency words, low-frequency words, and nonwords in their native language. The stimuli were interleaved and presented 10 times in a first testing session and 10 more times in a second session 28 days later. Effects of lexicality were observed in both languages, indicating the deployment of lexical representations in word naming. Naming latencies to both words and nonwords reduced across repetitions on Day 1, with those savings being retained to Day 28. Length effects were, however, greater for Spanish than English word naming. Reaction times to long and short nonwords converged with repeated presentations in both languages, but less in Spanish than in English. The results support the hypothesis that reading in opaque orthographies favours the rapid creation and use of lexical representations, while reading in transparent orthographies makes more use of a combination of lexical and sublexical processing.

Body–object interaction ratings for 750 Spanish words

“…One reason for this pattern of results can be that Spanish (like Italian or Finnish) has a highly transparent orthography, allowing for a greater role of a orthography (a nonsemantic factor), on the phonological activation leading to fast word naming. The effects of semantic variables on single-word reading are still a matter of debate (see Bates, Burani, D’Amico, & Barca, 2001; Kwok, Cuetos, Avdyli, & Ellis, 2017), and definitive conclusions about the contributions of semantic, lexical, and sublexical factors to word naming can be premature in the absence of more exhaustive and theoretically guided analyses.…”

Brain Signatures of New (Pseudo-) Words: Visual Repetition in Associative and Non-associative Contexts

“…On the one hand, some behavioral studies suggest that lexical representations might be formed after simple visual training in a relatively fast process. For instance, reductions in the length effect have been described after a few repetitions of new word-like stimuli – pseudowords – a process that has been interpreted as reflecting reading automatization due to pseudoword incorporation into the reader’s lexicon ( Maloney et al, 2009 ; Kwok and Ellis, 2015 ; Kwok et al, 2016 ; Suárez-Coalla et al, 2016 ). In this sense, visual repetition is thought to be enough to promote the mental representation of new words and consequently its direct visual recognition, instead of the serial processing that is generally modulated by stimulus length.…”

Sensory experience ratings for 5,500 Spanish words

“…Step 4: Sensory experience ratings combination of lexical and sublexical processes (Kwok, Cuetos, Avdyli, & Ellis, 2017). Besides the correlations described above, moderate correlations were found between SER and other subjective variables of common use in psycholinguistics.…”