Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 991–1008 | Cite as

A comparative quantitative analysis of Greek orthographic transparency

  • Athanassios ProtopapasEmail author
  • Eleni L. Vlahou
Article

Abstract

Orthographic transparency refers to the systematicity in the mapping between orthographic letter sequences and phonological phoneme sequences in both directions, for reading and spelling. Measures of transparency previously used in the analysis of orthographies of other languages include regularity, consistency, and entropy. However, previous reports have typically been hampered by severe restrictions, such as using only monosyllables or only word-initial phonemes. Greek is sufficiently transparent to allow complete sequential alignment between graphemes and phonemes, therefore permitting full analyses at both letter and grapheme levels, using every word in its entirety. Here, we report multiple alternative measures of transparency, using both type and token counts, and compare these with estimates for other languages. We discuss the problems stemming from restricted analysis sets and the implications for psycholinguistic experimentation and computational modeling of reading and spelling.

Keywords

Feedback Direction Orthographic Transparency Syllable Frequency Token Count Phoneme Level 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. Y., & Cortese, M. J. (2006). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning (a travel update). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 285–375). London: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012369374-7/50010-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2004). Word-initial entropy in five languages: Letter to sound and sound to letter. Written Language & Literacy, 7, 165–184. doi:10.1075/ wll.7.2.03borCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M., & De Groot, A. M. B. (2005). Onset entropy matters—Letter-to-phoneme mappings in seven languages. Reading & Writing, 18, 211–229. doi:10.1007/s11145-005-3001-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burani, C., Barca, L., & Ellis, A. W. (2006). Orthographic complexity and word naming in Italian: Some words are more transparent than others. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt, J. S., & Blackwell, P. (2008). Sound-spelling consistency in adults’ orthographic learning. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 77–96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00362.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalamandaris, A., Raptis, S., & Tsiakoulis, P. (2005, September). Rule-based grapheme-to-phoneme method for the Greek. In Inter-speech 2005: 9th European conference on speech communication and technology (pp. 2937–2940). Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  7. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. Inc G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151–216). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. 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. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conrad, M., Carreiras, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2008). Contrasting effects of token and type syllable frequency in lexical decision. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 296–326. doi:10.1080/01690960701571570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0902_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goswami, U., Porpodas, C., & Wheelwright, S. (1997). Children’s orthographic representations in English and Greek. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 3, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grainger, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2008). Cross-code consistency in a functional architecture for word recognition. In E. L. Grigorenko & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 129–158). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., & Hodges, R. E. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.Google Scholar
  15. Hatzigeorgiu, N., Gavrilidou, M., Piperidis, S., Carayannis, G., Papakostopoulou, A., Spiliotopoulou, A., et al. (2000). Design and implementation of the online ILSP corpus. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference of Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (Vol. 3, pp. 1737–1740). Athens.Google Scholar
  16. Hofmann, M. J., Stenneken, P., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M. (2007). Sublexical frequency measures for orthographic and phonological units in German. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 620–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jared, D. (2002). Spelling-sound consistency and regularity effects in word naming. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 723–750. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. (2001). Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 592–617. doi:10.1006/jmla.2000.2745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kessler, B., Treiman, R., & Mullennix, J. (2008). Feedback-consistency effects in single-word reading. In E. L. Grigorenko & A. J. Naples (Eds.), Single-word reading: Behavioral and biological perspectives (pp. 159–174). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Lété, B., Peereman, R., & Fayol, M. (2008). Consistency and word-frequency effects on spelling among first- to fifth-grade French children: A regression-based study. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 952–977. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189–256. doi:10.1006/cogp.1995.1015PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McKague, M., Davis, C., Pratt, C., & Johnston, M. B. (2008). The role of feedback from phonology to orthography in orthographic learning: An extension of item-based accounts. Journal of Research in Reading, 31, 55–76. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00361.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Do type and token effects reflect different mechanisms? Connectionist modeling of Dutch past-tense formation and final devoicing. Brain & Language, 90, 287–298. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2003.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Peereman, R., & Content, A. (n.d.). Quantitative analyses of orthography to phonology mapping in English and French. Retrieved September 22, 2008, from http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~acontent/OPMapping.html.Google Scholar
  25. Perry, C., Ziegler, J., & Coltheart, M. (2002). How predictable is spelling? Developing and testing metrics of phoneme-grapheme contingency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 897–915. doi:10.1080/02724980143000640Google Scholar
  26. Petrounias, E. V. (2002). Neoellinikí grammatikí kai sigkritikí análisi: Tómos A. Fonitikí kai eisagogí sti fonología [Modern Greek grammar and comparative analysis: Vol. A. Phonetics and introduction to phonology]. Thessaloniki: Ziti.Google Scholar
  27. Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90032-7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Porpodas, C. D. (1999). Patterns of phonological and memory processing in beginning readers and spellers of Greek. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 406–416. doi:10.1177/002221949903200506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Porpodas, C. D. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Greek: Research review of the role of phonological and cognitive factors. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 189–199). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Porpodas, C. D., Pantelis, S. N., & Hantziou, E. (1990). Phonological and lexical encoding processes in beginning readers: Effects of age and word characteristics. Reading & Writing, 2, 197–208. doi:10.1007/ BF00257971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 143–174. doi:10.1348/000712603321661859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423 and 623–656.Google Scholar
  33. Shannon, C. E. (1950). Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell System Technical Journal, 30, 50–64.Google Scholar
  34. Spencer, K. A. (2007). Predicting children’s word-spelling difficulty for common English words from measures of orthographic transparency, phonemic and graphemic length and word frequency. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 305–338. doi:10.1348/000712606X123002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spencer, K. A. (2009). Feedforward, -backward, and neutral transparency measures for British English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 220–227. doi:10.3758/BRM.41.1.220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spencer, K. A. (in press). Predicting children’s word-reading difficulty for common English words: The effect of complexity and transparency. British Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar
  37. Stathis, C., & Carayannis, G. (1999). Emploutismós morfologikón lexikón me órous kai ipostíriksi kiménon entáseos óron se diadikasíes diórthosis lathón [Enriching morphological dictionaries with terms and supporting term-intensive texts in error correction procedures]. In Praktika 2ou sinedriou “Elliniki Glossa kai Orologia” (pp. 157-165). Athens.Google Scholar
  38. Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 107–136. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Simulating consistency effects and individual differences in nonword naming: A comparison of current models. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 145–160. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. (1996). Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 504–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. (2000). The DRC model of visual word recognition and reading aloud: An extension to German. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 413–430. doi:10.1080/09541440050114570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. (2003). Speed of lexical and nonlexical processing in French: The case of the regularity effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 947–953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 600–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Language and Speech ProcessingMaroussiGreece
  2. 2.University of CreteRethymnoGreece

Personalised recommendations