Reading and Writing

, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp 679–695 | Cite as

Orthographic characteristics speed Hindi word naming but slow Urdu naming: evidence from Hindi/Urdu biliterates

  • Chaitra Rao
  • Jyotsna Vaid
  • Narayanan Srinivasan
  • Hsin-Chin Chen
Article

Abstract

Two primed naming experiments tested the orthographic depth hypothesis in skilled biliterate readers of Hindi and Urdu. These languages are very similar on the spoken level but differ greatly in script; Hindi is a highly transparent script, whereas Urdu is more opaque. It was accordingly hypothesized that form-based priming would be greater for Hindi than Urdu, reflecting greater reliance on a phonological assembly route in the more transparent Hindi script. Proficient Hindi/Urdu biliterate readers were presented with primes either in Hindi or Urdu script (Exp. 1), or in Roman transcription (Exp. 2), while targets were always in blocks of Hindi or Urdu. Across both experiments, form-based priming was observed only in Hindi. Additionally, target words were named significantly faster and better in Hindi than in Urdu. The results are taken as support for the hypothesis of differential reliance on phonological assembly as a function of script transparency. Further, the greater graphemic complexity of Urdu script relative to Hindi appears to have contributed to slower and less accurate overall single word reading for Urdu than Hindi, despite the fact that Urdu was the first learned script.

Keywords

Form priming Graphemic complexity Hindi Orthographic depth Phonological assembly Urdu 

References

  1. Ahmad, R. (2008). Scripting a new identity: The battle for Devanagari in nineteenth-century India. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1163–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bentin, S., Bargai, N., & Katz, L. (1984). Graphemic and phonemic coding for lexical access: Evidence from Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentin, S., & Feldman, L. B. (1990). The contribution of morphological and semantic relatedness to repetition priming at short and long lags: Evidence from Hebrew. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42A, 693–711.Google Scholar
  4. Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2005). Discontinuous morphology in time: Incremental masked priming in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 207–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, J. S., Vigliocco, G., & Haan, R. (1998). Orthographic, phonological, and articulatory contributions to masked letter and word priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1705–1719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, H. C., Yamauchi, T., Tamaoka, K., & Vaid, J. (2007). Homophonic and semantic priming of Japanese Kanji words: A time course study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). The DRC model: A model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis, C. J., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Masked inhibitory priming in English: Evidence for lexical inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 668–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Moor, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2000). Neighborhood-frequency effects when primes and targets are of different lengths. Psychological Research, 63, 159–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dijkstra, A. F. J., Grainger, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drews, E., & Zwitserlood, P. (1995). Orthographic and morphological similarity in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1098–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Strategic effects in associative priming with words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 951–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EMILLE/CIIL. (2004). Corpus of South Asian Languages. European Language Resources Association. Retrieved from http://catalog.elra.info/product_info.php?products_id=696.
  15. Eviatar, Z., & Ibrahim, R. (2004). Morphological and orthographic effects on hemispheric processing of nonwords: A cross-linguistic comparison. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eviatar, Z., Ibrahim, R., & Ganayim, D. (2004). Orthography and the hemispheres: Visual and linguistic aspects of letter processing. Neuropsychology, 18, 174–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman, L. B., & Prostko, B. (2002). Graded aspects of morphological processing: Task and processing time. Brain and Language, 81, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1993). The time course of orthographic and phonological activation in the early phases of visual word recognition. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 119–122.Google Scholar
  19. Ferrand, L., & Grainger, J. (1994). Effects of orthography are independent of phonology in masked form priming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 365–382.Google Scholar
  20. Frost, R. (1994). Prelexical and postlexical strategies in reading: Evidence from a deep and a shallow orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frost, R., Forster, K. I., & Deutsch, A. (1997). What can we learn from the morphology of Hebrew? A masked priming investigation of morphological representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 829–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 104–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A., & Forster, K. I. (2005). Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: Principles of lexical organization in a given language. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1293–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frost, R., & Yogev, O. (2001). Orthographic and phonological computation in visual word recognition: Evidence from backward masking in Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gollan, T., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1996). Masked orthographic and phonological priming in visual word recognition and naming: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ibrahim, R. (2009). The cognitive basis of diglossia in Arabic: Evidence from a repetition priming study. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 2, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ibrahim, R., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2005). Is literary Arabic a second language for native Arab speakers?: Evidence from semantic priming study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 51–70.Google Scholar
  29. Ibrahim, R., Eviatar, Z., & Aharon-Peretz, J. (2002). The characteristics of Arabic orthography slow its processing. Neuropsychology, 16, 322–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kachru, Y. (2008). Hindi-Urdu-Hindustani. In B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru, & S. N. Sridhar (Eds.), Language in South Asia (pp. 81–112). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelkar, A. (1968). Studies in Hindi–Urdu I: Introduction and word phonology. Poona: Deccan College.Google Scholar
  32. Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2002). Using Korean to investigate phonological priming effects without the influence of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 569–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 484–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lukatela, G., Carello, C., & Turvey, M. T. (1990). Phonemic priming with words and pseudowords. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lukatela, G., Popadić, D., Ognjenović, P., & Turvey, M. T. (1980). Lexical decision in a phonologically shallow orthography. Memory & Cognition, 8, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1990). Automatic and pre-lexical computation of phonology in visual word identification. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2, 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mirdehghan, M. (2010). Persian, Urdu, and Pashto: A comparative orthographic analysis. Writing Systems Research, 2(1) (in press).Google Scholar
  38. Oney, B., Peter, M., & Katz, L. (1997). Phonological processing in printed word recognition: Effects of age and writing system. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Perfetti, C. A., & Bell, L. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 473–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007). Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pollatsek, A., Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (2005). Does conal prime CANAL more than cinal? Masked phonological priming effects in Spanish with the lexical decision task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rao, C. (2010). Morphology in word recognition: Hindi and Urdu. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
  43. Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (2000). Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time course study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 507–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roman, G., & Pavard, B. (1987). A comparative study: How we read Arabic and French. In J. K. O’Regan & A. Levy-Schoen (Eds.), Eye movements: From physiology to cognition (pp. 431–440). Amsterdam: North Holland Elsevier.Google Scholar
  45. Seguí, J., & Grainger, J. (1990). Priming word recognition with orthographic neighbors: Effects of relative prime-target frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shen, D., & Forster, K. I. (1999). Masked phonological priming in reading Chinese words depends on the task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 429–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. W. (1994). The flexible use of phonological information in word recognition in Korean. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tabossi, P., & Laghi, L. (1992). Semantic priming in the pronunciation of words in two writing systems: Italian and English. Memory & Cognition, 20, 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vaid, J., & Gupta, A. (2002). Exploring word recognition in a semi-alphabetic script: The case of Devanagari. Brain and Language, 81, 679–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vaid, J., Rao, C., & Chen, H.-C. (2010). The role of script: Word recognition in Hindi vs. Urdu. Unpublished manuscript, Texas A&M University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chaitra Rao
    • 1
  • Jyotsna Vaid
    • 2
  • Narayanan Srinivasan
    • 3
  • Hsin-Chin Chen
    • 4
  1. 1.National Brain Research CentreManesarIndia
  2. 2.Psychology DepartmentTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Centre of Behavioural and Cognitive SciencesAllahabad UniversityAllahabadIndia
  4. 4.National Chung Cheng UniversityMinhsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations