Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 513–530 | Cite as

Phonological Assimilation and Visual Word Recognition

  • Yang LeeEmail author
  • Miguel A. Moreno
  • Hyeongsaeng Park
  • Claudia Carello
  • Michael T. Turvey
OriginalPaper

Abstract

Are the visual word-processing tasks of naming and lexical decision sensitive to systematic phonological properties that may or may not be specified in the spelling? Two experiments with Hangul, the alphabetic orthography of Korea, were directed at the effects of the phonological process of assimilation whereby one articulation changes to conform to a neighboring articulation. Disyllabic words were responded to more quickly when (a) the final letter of the first syllable and the initial letter of the second syllable specified phonemes that satisfied rather than violated consonant assimilation, and (b) the vowel letters specified harmonious as opposed to disharmonious vowel phonemes. Discussion addressed the possible mediation of assimilation effects by consistency differences and theories that predict broad phonological influences on visual word recognition.

Keywords

Assimilation Phonology Korean word recognition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Archangeli, D. (1984). Underspecification in Yawelmani phonology and morphology. Doctoral dissertation, MITGoogle Scholar
  2. Berent I., Shimron J., Vaknin V. (2001). Phonological constraints on reading: Evidence from the obligatory contour principle. Journal of Memory and Language 44, 644–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borowsky, T. (1986). Topics in the lexical phonology of English. Doctoral dissertation, University of MassachussettsGoogle Scholar
  4. Browman C., Goldstein L. (1995). Dynamics and articulatory phonology. In: Port R., van Gelder T.(eds) Mind as motion. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, pp. 175–194Google Scholar
  5. Chateau D., Jared D. (2003). Spelling-sound consistency effects in disyllabic word naming. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 255–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clements G.N., Hume E.V. (1995). The internal organization of speech sounds. In: Goldsmith J.A.(ed) Handbook of phonological theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, pp. 245–306Google Scholar
  7. Frost R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 71–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gafos A. (2002). A grammar of gestural coordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 20, 269–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glushko R.J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5: 674–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldsmith J.A. (1990). Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Cambridge, MA: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottlob L.R., Goldinger S.D., Stone G.O., Van Orden G.C. (1999). Reading homographs: Orthographic, phonologic, and semantic dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25: 561–574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossberg S. (1982). Studies of mind and brain. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: ReidelGoogle Scholar
  13. Grossberg S., Stone G.O. (1986). Neural dynamics of word recognition and recall: Priming, learning, and resonance. Psychological Review 93, 46–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jared D. (1997). Spelling-sound consistency affects the naming of high-frequency words. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 505–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jared D., McRae K., Seidenberg M.S. (1990). The basis of consistency effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language 29, 687–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. KAIST (1999). Kaist Concordance Program [On-line]. Available: http://www.csfive.kaist.ac.kr/kcp/.Google Scholar
  17. Liberman I., Liberman A. (1990). Whole language vs. code emphasis: Underlying assumptions and their implications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia 40, 51–76Google Scholar
  18. Lukatela G., Carello C., Savić M., Urošević Z., Turvey M.T. (1998a). When nonwords activate semantics better than words. Cognition 68: B31–B40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lukatela G., Eaton T., Sabadini L., Turvey M.T. (2004). Vowel duration affects visual word identification: Evidence that the mediating phonology is phonetically informed. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30: 151–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lukatela G., Frost S.J., Turvey M.T. (1998). Phonological priming by masked nonword primes in the lexical decision task. Journal of Memory and Language 39, 666–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lukatela G., Frost S.J., Turvey M.T. (1999). Identity priming in English is compromised by phonological ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 25: 775–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lukatela G., Turvey M.T. (1998). Reading in two alphabets. American Psychologist 53, 1057–1072PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy J. (1986). OCP effects: Gemination and antigemination. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 207–263Google Scholar
  24. Perfetti C.A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In: Gough P., Ehri L., Treiman R.(eds) Reading acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 145–174Google Scholar
  25. Perfetti C.A., Tan L.H. (1998). Visual Chinese character recognition: Does phonological information mediate access to meaning?. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 41–57Google Scholar
  26. Perfetti C.A., Zhang S. (1995). The universal word identification reflex. The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol 33. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 159–189Google Scholar
  27. Perfetti C.A., Zhang S., Berent I. (1992). Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence for a “universal” phonological principle. In: Frost R., Katz L.(eds) Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning. Amsterdam, North Holland, pp. 227–248Google Scholar
  28. Raaijmakers J.G.W., Schrijnemakers J.M.C., Gremmen F. (1999). How to deal with “The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saltzman E., Munhall K. (1989). A dynamical approach to gestural patterning in speech production. Ecological Psychology 1, 333–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stone G.O., Vanhoy M.D., Van Orden G.C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 36, 337–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tan L.H., Perfetti C.A. (1998). Phonological codes as early sources of constraint in Chinese word identification: A review of current discoveries and theoretical accounts. Reading and Writing 10: 165–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Taft M. (1979). The body of the BOSS: Subsyllabic units in the lexical processing of polysyllabic words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18: 1004–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor I., Taylor M.M. (1983). The psychology of reading. New York, Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Orden G.C., Goldinger S.D. (1994). Interdependence of orm and function in cognitive systems explains perception of rinted words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human erception and Performance. 20: 1269–1291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Orden G.C., Pennington B.F., Stone G.O. (1990). Word dentification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic sycholinguistics. Psychological Review 97, 488–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ziegler J.C., Montant M., Jacobs A.M. (1997). The feedback consistency effect in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 533–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yang Lee
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Miguel A. Moreno
    • 2
    • 3
  • Hyeongsaeng Park
    • 2
    • 3
  • Claudia Carello
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael T. Turvey
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Gyeongsang National UniversityJinjuSouth Korea
  2. 2.Haskins LaboratoriesNew HavenUSA
  3. 3.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations