Use of orthographic structure by deaf adults: Recognition of fingerspelled words

Hanson, Vicki L.

doi:10.1017/s0142716400004276

Cited by 22 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are indications that syllables, in some form, influence deaf performance, either from syllable counting (Sterne & Goswami, 2000) or from segmentation tasks (Olson & Nickerson, 2001;Transler, Leybaert, & Gombert, 1999). More directly related to our hypotheses, several studies have found that deaf students are worse at perceiving or remembering illegal nonwords 388 OLSON AND CARAMAZZA than legal nonwords in reading, writing, or fingerspelling tasks (Aaron, Keetay, Boyd, Palmatier, & Wacks, 1998;Gibson, Shurcliff, & Yonas, 1970;Hanson, 1982bHanson, , 1986. In a previous study of deaf spelling errors, Hanson, Shankweiler, and Fischer (1983) noted that the overwhelming majority of deaf spelling errors did not violate orthographic constraints (91.7% of the hearing responses and 96% of the deaf spellings were orthographically legal-although deaf spelling may not always conform to this pattern, see Sutcliffe, Dowker, & Campbell, 1999).…”

mentioning

confidence: 64%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Orthographic structure and deaf spelling errors: Syllables, letter frequency, and speech

Olson

Caramazza

2004

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Syllable structure influences hearing students' reading and spelling (e.g., Badecker, 1996; Caramazza & Miceli, 1990; Prinzmetal, Treiman, & Rho, 1986; Rapp, 1992; Treiman & Zukowski, 1988). This may seem unsurprising since hearers closely associate written and spoken words. We analysed a corpus of spelling errors made by deaf students. They would have learned English orthography with an attenuated experience of speech. We found that the majority of their errors were phonologically implausible but orthographically legal. A tendency to replace uncommon letter sequences with common sequences could not account for this pattern, nor could residual influence from speech. Since syllabically defined constraints are required to keep sequences orthographically legal, the deaf data are marked by an influence of syllable structure. Two main conclusions follow: (1) Our results contribute to evidence that abstract constraints, not derived from peripheral speech or hearing mechanisms, govern the organization of linguistic knowledge; and (2) statistical redundancy could not explain the deaf results. It does not offer a general alternative to suprasegmental structure.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Previous studies of the deaf have not been able to explain effects of orthographic regularity using letter frequency (Gibson et al, 1970;Hanson, 1982bHanson, , 1986, but a limited range of frequency measures has been considered, and frequency has not been central to these studies. We test a wider variety of measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthographic structure and deaf spelling errors: Syllables, letter frequency, and speech

Olson

Caramazza

2004

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This interpretation would be in line with the data obtained by Hanson. This author systematically observed that deaf adults were sensitive to orthographic structure during spelling (Hanson, Shankweiler, & Fisher, 1983), during a letter report (Hanson, 1982), and during letter detection and word-like judgment (Hanson, 1986). She observed that even deaf adults with poor speech were sensitive to orthographic structure, and that their use of positional frequency information was the same as in hearing people (Hanson, 1986).…”

Section: Sensitivity To Syllabic Structure and Syllabic Boundariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological decoding in severely and profoundly deaf children: Similarity judgment between written pseudowords

Transler¹,

Gombert

Leybaert

2001

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study attempted to determine whether phonological decoding could be observed among severely and profoundly deaf children during reading. For this purpose, the ability of 20 deaf children to detect phonological similarities between three written pseudowords (a model item and two test items) was investigated. In the first condition, one of the test items was a homophone of the model (e.g., kise, kyse, kine). In the second condition, one of the test items had the same first syllable as the model item, as defined by its structure or by nasalization (e.g., lan.jier, lan.du, la.nud). The results demonstrated that deaf children with good speech levels, as well as hearing children matched on word reading level, were sensitive to homophony when visual proximity between the model and test items were controlled. They were also sensitive to syllabic structure when the first syllables were CV and in the nasalization condition. By contrast, deaf children with poor speech abilities did not show this pattern of results in all conditions. The possibility that the latter results could be explained by deaf children's sensitivity to orthographic frequency phenomena is discussed. A link between sensitivity to phonology in written language and speech skills is suggested, and the implications of those results for a general understanding of the reading processes of deaf children are presented.For beginning readers, the decoding mechanism, consisting of applying correspondences between visuo-orthographic forms and phonological forms, represents a key step in literacy development (Ehri, 1998;Frith, 1985;Goswami & Bryant, 1990). When children possess some mastering of decoding skills at the grapho-phonemic level, they develop the use of infralexical reading units that

show abstract

“…), they can elicit information indirectly through conversation, they can look it up in textbooks and grammars, and they can acquire it from experience with the language, not only listening experience, but also reading, whatever the topic or material. Written language contains a wealth of information about segmental phonological regularities (and in English, this information is certainly of use to L1 users who have been deaf for their entire life; Hanson, 1982; Hanson, Shankweiler, & Fischer, 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Representation of second language phonology

Cutler

2015

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orthographies encode phonological information only at the level of words (chiefly, the information encoded concerns phonetic segments; in some cases, tonal information or default stress may be encoded). Of primary interest to second language (L2) learners is whether orthography can assist in clarifying L2 phonological distinctions that are particularly difficult to perceive (e.g., where one native-language phonemic category captures two L2 categories). A review of spoken-word recognition evidence suggests that orthographic information can install knowledge of such a distinction in lexical representations but that this does not affect learners’ ability to perceive the phonemic distinction in speech. Words containing the difficult phonemes become even harder for L2 listeners to recognize, because perception maps less accurately to lexical content

show abstract

Use of orthographic structure by deaf adults: Recognition of fingerspelled words

Cited by 22 publications

References 22 publications

Orthographic structure and deaf spelling errors: Syllables, letter frequency, and speech

Orthographic structure and deaf spelling errors: Syllables, letter frequency, and speech

Phonological decoding in severely and profoundly deaf children: Similarity judgment between written pseudowords

Representation of second language phonology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About