![]() ![]() ![]() below), it is important in psychological science to make sure that experimental findings are replicable ( Earp & Trafimow, 2015 Ioannidis, 2005). Although several studies have provided evidence for this claim (discussed in Section 1.2. The theory depends critically on the assumption that there is an interaction between orthographic depth and reliance on large sublexical units, as we will discuss below. It has been a highly influential theory for explaining the results of cross-linguistic studies, with over 1000 citations of the Ziegler and Goswami ( 2005) review paper (Google Scholar see Goodwin, August, & Calderon, 2015 Rau, Moll, Snowling, & Landerl, 2015, for some recent examples). This main claim of the psycholinguistic grain size theory is intuitively very appealing. In contrast, readers of shallow orthographies can rely on smaller units, such as letters or graphemes, and still achieve high reading accuracy. As a result, the psycholinguistic grain size theory proposes that readers of deep orthographies such as English develop routine reliance on larger units. For example, the word “talk” cannot be read aloud correctly using grapheme-phoneme correspondences (which would predict the pronunciation/tælk/), but can be read aloud correctly based on the body-rime correspondence “-alk” à /o:k/, as in “walk” and “stalk”. In the case of English, linguistic analyses have shown that reliance on bodies, which consist of the vowel and coda of a monosyllabic word, reduces the unpredictability of vowel pronunciation ( Peereman & Content, 1998 Treiman, Mullennix, Bijeljac-Babic, & Richmond-Welty, 1995). The psycholinguistic grain size theory ( Ziegler & Goswami, 2005) proposes one possible solution to this problem for the reader: the ambiguity associated with sublexical information can be reduced by relying on larger sublexical units and print-to-speech correspondences. The major problem for children learning to read in a deep orthography is deriving the pronunciation of unfamiliar words, because the sublexical information of deep orthographies is, by definition, incomplete, inconsistent, and/or complex ( Katz & Frost, 1992). Where we do find evidence for a body-N effect (lexical decision for nonwords), we find evidence against an interaction with language. Using Bayesian analysis techniques, we find little evidence of the body-N effect in most tasks and conditions. Re-analysis of a key study ( Ziegler et al., 2001), analysis of data from the English Lexicon Project ( Balota et al., 2007), and a large-scale analysis of nine new experiments all support this conclusion. Here we re-examine the evidence for this pattern and find that there is no reliable evidence for such a cross-linguistic difference. ![]() Such findings support the psycholinguistic grain size theory, which proposes that readers of English rely on large orthographic units to reduce ambiguity of print-to-speech correspondences in their orthography. This body-N effect has been explored in the context of cross-linguistic differences in reading where it has been reported that the size of the effect differs as a function of orthographic depth: readers of English, a deep orthography, show stronger facilitation than readers of German, a shallow orthography. Previous studies have found that words and nonwords with many body neighbours (i.e., words with the same orthographic body, e.g., cat, brat, at) are read faster than items with fewer body neighbours. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |