Reading and Writing

, 22:687 | Cite as

Lexical expertise and reading skill: bottom-up and top-down processing of lexical ambiguity

Article

Abstract

The lexical quality hypothesis assumes that skilled readers rely on high quality lexical representations that afford autonomous lexical retrieval and reduce the need to rely on top-down context. This experiment investigated this hypothesis by comparing the performance of adults classified on reading comprehension and spelling performance. ‘Lexical experts’, defined by above average performance on both measures, were compared with individuals who are good readers/poor spellers, poor readers/good spellers, or poor on both measures. Sentences finishing with a homograph (e.g., She danced all night at the ball) were followed by a probe word and participants had to decide whether it had occurred in the sentence. Critical probe words were related to either the sentence-congruous or the sentence-incongruous meaning of the homograph (e.g., waltz vs. throw). Lexical experts showed less interference from related probes than the other groups. When the sentences were presented at fast rates, poorer spellers showed interference for sentence-congruous but not sentence-incongruous probes. However, at slower presentation rates, all groups showed equivalent interference for both types of probes. The results support the lexical quality hypothesis by showing that high quality lexical representations, indexed by better spelling, are associated with reduced reliance on sentence context.

Keywords

Reading skill Lexical processing Ambiguity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research reported in this paper was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery grant to Sally Andrews. The research was presented at the Cognitive Science and Text Workshop organised by Dr. Joanne Arciuli and supported by the ARC Human Communication Sciences Network (HCSNET) and Charles Sturt University.

References

  1. Ackerman, P. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 439–461.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, S. (2006). All about words: A lexicalist perspective on reading. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 318–347). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  5. Andrews, S. (2008). Lexical expertise and reading skill. In B. Ross (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 49). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Atkins, A. S., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2008). False working memories? Semantic distortion in a mere 4 seconds. Memory & Cognition, 36, 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marsall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. I. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blachman, B. A. (1997). Early intervention and phonological awareness: A cautionary tale. In B. A. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 409–430). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Bradley, L. (1985). Dissociation of reading and spelling behavior. In D. Drake & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Understanding learning disabilities: International and multidisciplinary views (pp. 65–85). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burt, J. S., & Tate, H. (2002). Does a reading lexicon provide orthographic representations for spelling? Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 518–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carr, T. H. (1999). Trying to understand reading and dyslexia: Mental chronometry, individual differences, cognitive neuroscience, and the impact of instruction as converging sources of evidence. In R. M. Klein & P. A. McMullen (Eds.), Converging methods for understanding reading and dyslexia (pp. 459–491). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Castles, A., Davis, C., Cavalot, P., & Forster, K. (2007). Tracking the acquisition of orthographic skills in developing readers. Masked Priming Effects, 97, 165–182.Google Scholar
  14. Cunningham, A. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Wilson, M. R. (1990). Cognitive variation in adult college students differing in reading ability. In T. H. Carr & B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches (pp. 129–159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ehri, L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Forster, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 27–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Forster, K., Davis, C., Schoknecht, C., & Carter, R. (1987). Masked priming with graphemically related forms: Repetition or partial activation? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39A, 211–251.Google Scholar
  19. Forster, K., & Forster, J. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavioral Research Methods: Instruments & Computers, 35, 116–124.Google Scholar
  20. Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 495–517). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frith, U. (1986). A developmental framework for developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Group differences in suppression skill. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 4, 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Faust, M. E. (1991). The mechanism of suppression: A component of general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gernsbacher, M. A., & Robertson, R. R. (1995). Reading skill and suppression revisited. Psychological Science, 6, 165–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gernsbacher, M. A., & St John, M. F. (2001). Modeling suppression in lexical access. In D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 47–65). Washington: American Psychological Association Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Gernsbacher, M. A., Robertson, R. R., & Werner, N. K. (2001). The costs and benefits of meaning. In D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 119–137). Washington: American Psychological Association Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 16, 430–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language?. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  29. Guttentag, R. E., & Haith, M. M. (1978). Automatic processing as a function of age and reading ability. Child Development, 49, 707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hunt, E. (1980). Intelligence as an information processing concept. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 449–474.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kinoshita, S., & Lupker, S. (Eds.) (2003). Masked priming: The state of the art. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Paap, K. R., & Ogden, W. C. (1981). Letter encoding is an obligatory but capacity-demanding operation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 518–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), reading acquisition (pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skill. In D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 67–86). Washington: American Psychological Association Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Pinker, S. (1997). Foreword. In D. McGuinness (Ed.), Why our children can’t read (pp. ix–x). New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  37. Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Potter, M. C. (1984). Rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP): A method for studying language processing. In D. Kieras & M. A. Just (Eds.), New methods in reading comprehension research (pp. 91–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Potter, M. C. (1993). Very short-term conceptual memory. Memory & Cognition, 21, 156–161.Google Scholar
  40. Potter, M. C. (1999). Understanding sentences and scenes: The role of conceptual short-term memory. In V. Coltheart (Ed.), Fleeting memories: Cognition of brief visual stimuli (pp. 13–46). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Lee, J. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., et al. (2001). Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 240–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Review, 105, 31–74.Google Scholar
  45. Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmental Review, 10, 72–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  49. St. John, M. F. & McClelland, J. L. (1992). Parallel constraint satisfaction as a comprehension mechanism. In R. G. Reilly & N. E. Sharkey (Eds.), Connectionist approaches to natural language processing (pp. 97–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tabossi, P., & Sbisa, F. (2001). Methodological issues in the study of lexical ambiguity resolution. In D. Gorfein (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection (pp. 11–26). Washington: American Psychological Association Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations