PSYC3331 Lecture Notes - Affix, Morphological Derivation, Noun
However one gets from print to sound, there is the further important issue of whether it is possible to
go directly from the orthographic system to meaning, or is there mediation via phonology? That is, is an
O
-
P
-
S route more important than an O
-
S route?
Van Orden (1987) supports the importance of O
-
P
-
S (i.e., phonological mediation in silent reading).
Harder to say that ROWS is not a "flower" than to say RODS is not a "flower". Suggests that P is activated
in getting to S.
But maybe this is only when O
-
S does not give a positive answer. That is, maybe O
-
P
-
S is used as a
backup for O
-
S, and hence is less important.
In fact, maybe P
-
S is not even used during silent reading. Taft (1982) showed that the orthographic
similarity between a pseudohomophone and its base word has an impact on Pseudohomophone
Judgement responses: e.g., SCAIR < SKAIR and SKAIT < SCAIT. If P is available in silent reading, then O
-
P
should be used for Pseudohomophone Judgment with the orthography of the base word being
irrelevant. The fact that the orthography of the base word is actually relevant implies that phonological
word units are not involved in the task.
If a P
-
S pathway were available, why is it so hard to give the meaning of the pronunciation of a
pseudohomophone that is orthographically very different to its base word (e.g., CEEJ)? Why can't the
sublexically generated phonology simple be recognised as the word
siege
.
Phonology might be automatically activated when reading silently, but not in order to gain access to
meaning, but rather, to help hold the information in working memory (which requires phonological
coding)
ORTHOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE
How is orthography processed in order to gain access to the lexical representation when reading?
One way to examine orthographic processing is to use masked priming with a manipulation of the visual
similarity between the prime and target.
The first thing to note is the importance of the position of the first letter (and possibly the last), relative
to the medial letters.
Also, interference to nonword judgement in lexical decision
But it doesn't seem particularly difficult to understand text even when the first two letters are
transposed. Which is rather surprising given the single
-
word results. Looks like sentence context helps
considerably.
Words are recognised via adjacent and non
-
adjacent ordered letter pairs (open bigrams).
(e.g., Grainger & Whitney 2004)
○
So,
stamp
is activated through the bigrams
st, sa, sm, ta, m, tp, am, ap
and
mp
(if open
bigrams do not straddle more than two letter positions). The TL nonword
satmp
activates all
of these as well, except for
ta.
Therefore, the "base
-
word" is sufficiently activated by the TL
○
Open Bigram Coding.
-
Models of letter processing that handle the transposed letter (TL) effect:
Phonological mediation
Sunday, 17 June 2018 11:58 PM
Lecture 8 Page 1
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
of these as well, except for
ta.
Therefore, the "base
-
word" is sufficiently activated by the TL
nonword for either priming to occur or for lexical decision responses to the TL nonword to
be inhibited.
The activation levels for letter representations are graded decreasingly in weight from left to
right, and the word representation is sensitive to the pattern of activation appropriate to it.
The activation levels for
s, m
and
p
are the same for
stamp
and
satmp,
while those for
t
and
a
are only slightly different (e.g., Davis 2010)
○
Spatial Coding
-
Consonants need to be assigned to their correct subsyllabic slot (i.e., onset or coda), and are
tried out in all possible slots. When the
t
of
satmp
is tried in the 2nd position of the onset
slot, the representation for
stamp
is activated (e.g., Taft & Krebs
-
Lazendic, 2013)
○
Sub
-
Syllabic Processing (SSP)
-
These three models address the question of how letter information might activate whole
-
word
information. In addition to examining the nature of TL effects, this issue can be explored by looking at
the impact of embedded words:
For example, what would it mean if a nonword that starts with a word (e.g.,
furb
) takes longer to classify
as a nonword than a control nonword that does not (e.g.,
lurb
), while a nonword that ends in a word
(e.g.,
clid
) does not take longer than a control (eg.,
clig
)?
Suggests left
-
to
-
right bias in parsing the letter
-
string.
However, outer embedding also creates interference: e.g.,
nimp
vs
fimp
, so not pure left
-
to
-
right
parsing.
Open Bigram can handle interference arising from initial, final and outer embedding because the open
bigrams that activate the embedded word are found in the nonword stimulus. However, it needs extra
assumptions to explain why a final embedding creates weaker interference than an initial embedding.
The same is true of the Spatial Coding model, where the relative activation pattern of the letters of the
embedded word remains intact (or close to intact) within the nonword stimulus.
The SSP account can explain the interference from the embedded word in terms of competition
between the body of the embedded word (e.g., the
ur
of
furb
) and that of the nonword stimulus (
urb
),
as well as the coda of the embedded word (the
r
of
fur
) and the coda of the nonword stimulus (
rb
).
Lecture 8 Page 2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Van orden (1987) supports the importance of o-p-s (i. e. , phonological mediation in silent reading). Harder to say that rows is not a flower than to say rods is not a flower. Suggests that p is activated in getting to s. But maybe this is only when o-s does not give a positive answer. That is, maybe o-p-s is used as a backup for o-s, and hence is less important. In fact, maybe p-s is not even used during silent reading. Taft (1982) showed that the orthographic similarity between a pseudohomophone and its base word has an impact on pseudohomophone. Judgement responses: e. g. , scair < skair and skait < scait. If p is available in silent reading, then o-p should be used for pseudohomophone judgment with the orthography of the base word being irrelevant. The fact that the orthography of the base word is actually relevant implies that phonological word units are not involved in the task.
