Lexical neighborhood effects in pseudoword spelling

Marie-Josèphe Tainturier, Marie-Line Bosse, Daniel J Roberts, Sylviane Valdois, Brenda Rapp, Marie-Josèphe Tainturier, Marie-Line Bosse, Daniel J Roberts, Sylviane Valdois, Brenda Rapp

Abstract

The general aim of this study is to contribute to a better understanding of the cognitive processes that underpin skilled adult spelling. More specifically, it investigates the influence of lexical neighbors on pseudo-word spelling with the goal of providing a more detailed account of the interaction between lexical and sublexical sources of knowledge in spelling. In prior research examining this topic, adult participants typically heard lists composed of both words and pseudo-words and had to make a lexical decision to each stimulus before writing the pseudo-words. However, these priming paradigms are susceptible to strategic influence and may therefore not give a clear picture of the processes normally engaged in spelling unfamiliar words. In our two Experiments involving 71 French-speaking literate adults, only pseudo-words were presented which participants were simply requested to write to dictation using the first spelling that came to mind. Unbeknownst to participants, pseudo-words varied according to whether they did or did not have a phonological word neighbor. Results revealed that low-probability phoneme/grapheme mappings (e.g., /o/ -> aud in French) were used significantly more often in spelling pseudo-words with a close phonological lexical neighbor with that spelling (e.g., /krepo/ derived from "crapaud," /krapo/) than in spelling pseudo-words with no close neighbors (e.g., /frøpo/). In addition, the strength of this lexical influence increased with the lexical frequency of the word neighbors as well as with their degree of phonetic overlap with the pseudo-word targets. These results indicate that information from lexical and sublexical processes is integrated in the course of spelling, and a specific theoretical account as to how such integration may occur is introduced.

Keywords: literacy; neighborhood activation; pseudoword spelling; skilled spelling; spelling models.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
A functional architecture of spelling to dictation. Lexical and sublexical activations are integrated at the abstract grapheme level.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Experiment 1: percentage of low-probability target graphemes produced in each pseudo-word spelling condition.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Experiment 2: percentage of low-probability target graphemes produced in each pseudo-word spelling condition.

References

    1. Barry C. (1988). Modelling assembled spelling: convergence of data from normal subjects and “surface” dysgraphia. Cortex 24 339–34610.1016/S0010-9452(88)80042-X
    1. Barry C, De Bastiani P. (1997). Lexical priming of nonword spelling in the regular orthography of Italian. Read. Writ. 9 499–51710.1023/A:1007907431371
    1. Barry C, Seymour P. H. K. (1988). Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A. 40 5–4010.1080/14640748808402280
    1. Baxter D. M., Warrington E. K. (1987). Transcoding sound to spelling: single or multiple sound unit correspondence? Cortex 23 11–2810.1016/S0010-9452(87)80016-3
    1. Bölte J., Coenen E. (2002). Is phonological information mapped onto semantic information in a one-to-one manner? Brain Lang. 81 384–39710.1006/brln.2001.2532
    1. Bonin P., Collay S., Fayol M., Meot A. (2005). Attentional strategic control over nonlexical and lexical processing in written spelling to dictation in adults. Mem. Cognit. 33 59–7510.3758/BF03195297
    1. Bonin P., Delattre M. (2010). The sublexical conversion procedure in spelling to dictation. Annee Psychol. 110 495–51610.4074/S000350331000401X
    1. Bosse M. L., Valdois S., Tainturier M. J. (2003). Analogy without priming in early spelling development. Read. Writ. 16 693–71610.1023/A:1025883815395
    1. Campbell R. (1983). Writing nonwords to dictation. Brain Lang. 19 153–17810.1016/0093-934X(83)90061-5
    1. Connine C. M., Blasko D. G., Titone D. (1993). Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition? J. Mem. Lang. 32 193–21010.1006/jmla.1993.1011
    1. Dixon M., Kaminska Z. (1994). Casting a spell with witches and broomsticks - direct and associative influences on nonword orthography. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 6 383–39810.1080/09541449408406521
    1. Folk J. R., Jones A. C. (2004). The purpose of lexical/sublexical interaction during spelling: further evidence from dysgraphia and articulatory suppression. Neurocase 10 65–6910.1080/13554790490960512
    1. Folk J. R., Rapp B. (2004). Interaction of lexical and sublexical information in spelling: evidence from nonword priming. Appl. Psycholinguist. 25 565–58510.1017/S0142716404001274
    1. Folk J. R., Rapp B., Goldrick M. (2002). The interaction of lexical and sublexical information in spelling: what’s the point? Cogn. Neuropsychol. 19 653–67110.1080/02643290244000184
    1. Frisch S. A., Large N. R., Pisoni D. B. (2000). Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on the processing of nonwords. J. Mem. Lang. 42 481–49610.1006/jmla.1999.2692
    1. Fry E. (2004). Phonics: a large phoneme – grapheme frequency count revised. J. Lit. Res. 36 85–9810.1207/s15548430jlr3601_5
    1. Gow D. W., Jr. (2012). The cortical organization of lexical knowledge: a dual lexicon model of spoken language processing. Brain Lang. 121 273–28810.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.005
    1. Graham N. L., Patterson K., Hodges J. R. (1997). Progressive dysgraphia: co-occurrence of central and peripheral impairments. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 14 975–100510.1080/026432997381321
    1. Graham N. L., Patterson K., Hodges J. R. (2000). The impact of semantic memory impairment on spelling: evidence from semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia 38 143–16310.1016/S0028-3932(99)00060-3
    1. Hanna P. R., Hanna J. S., Hodges R. E., Rudorf E. A. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme Correspondences as Clues to Spelling Improvement. Washington, DC: United States Office of Education Cooperative Research
    1. Hillis A. E., Caramazza A. (1991). Mechanisms for accessing lexical representations for output: evidence from a category-specific semantic deficit. Brain Lang. 40 106–14410.1016/0093-934X(91)90119-L
    1. Hillis A. E., Rapp B. C., Caramazza A. (1999). When a rose is a rose in speech but a tulip in writing. Cortex 35 337–35610.1016/S0010-9452(08)70804-9
    1. Houghton G., Zorzi M. (2003). Normal and impaired spelling in a connectionist dual-route architecture. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 20 115–16210.1080/02643290242000871
    1. Jefferies E., Sage K, Lambon Ralph M. A. (2007). Do deep dyslexia, dysphasia and dysgraphia share a common phonological impairment? Neuropsychologia 45 1553–157010.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.002
    1. Jones A., Folk J., Rapp B. (2009). All letters are not equal: subgraphemic texture in orthographic working memory. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 35 1389–140210.1037/a0017042
    1. Kreiner D. S., Gough P. B. (1990). Two ideas about spelling: rules and word-specific memory. J. Mem. Lang. 29 103–11810.1016/0749-596X(90)90012-O
    1. Laiacona M., Capitani E., Zonca G., Scola I., Saletta P., Luzzatti C. (2009). Integration of lexical and sublexical processing in the spelling of regular words: a multiple single-case study in Italian dysgraphic patients. Cortex 45 804–81510.1016/j.cortex.2008.10.011
    1. Marslen-Wilson W., Moss H. E., Vanhalen S. (1996). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 22 1376–139210.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1376
    1. Martin D. H., Barry C. (2012). Writing nonsense: the interaction between lexical and sublexical knowledge in the priming of nonword spelling. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19 691–69810.3758/s13423-012-0261-7
    1. Martinet C., Valdois S., Fayol M. (2004). Lexical orthographic knowledge develops from the beginning of literacy acquisition. Cognition 91 B11-2210.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.002
    1. McCloskey M., Macaruso P., Rapp B. (2006). Grapheme-to-lexeme feedback in the spelling system: evidence from a dysgraphic patient. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 23 278–30710.1080/02643290442000518
    1. Miceli G., Capasso R., Caramazza A. (1994). The interaction of lexical and sublexical processes in reading, writing and repetition. Neuropsychologia 32 317–33310.1016/0028-3932(94)90134-1
    1. Miceli G., Capasso R., Caramazza A. (1999). Sublexical conversion procedures and the interaction of phonological and orthographic lexical forms. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 16 557–57210.1080/026432999380726
    1. Milberg W., Blumstein S., Dworetzky B. (1988). Phonological factors in lexical access – evidence from an auditory lexical decision task. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 26 305–308
    1. New B. (2006). “Lexique 3: une nouvelle base de données lexicales,” in Actes de la Conférence Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN 2006), avril 2006, Louvain, Belgique.
    1. Patterson K, Lambon Ralph M. A. (1999). Selective disorders of reading? Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 9 235–23910.1016/S0959-4388(99)80033-6
    1. Perry C. (2003). Priming the rules of spelling. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A. 56 515–53010.1080/02724980244000512
    1. Perry C., Ziegler J. C. (2004). Beyond the two-strategy model of skilled spelling: effects of consistency, grain size, and orthographic redundancy. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A. 57 325–35610.1080/02724980343000323
    1. Perry C., Ziegler J. C., Coltheart M. (2002a). A dissociation between orthographic awareness and spelling production. Appl. Psycholinguist. 23 43–7310.1017/S0142716402000036
    1. Perry C., Ziegler J. C., Coltheart M. (2002b). How predictable is spelling? Developing and testing metrics of phoneme-grapheme contingency. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. A. 55 897–91510.1080/02724980143000640
    1. Purcell J. J., Turkeltaub P. E., Eden G. F., Rapp B. (2011). Examining the central and peripheral processes of written word production through meta-analysis. Front. Psychol. 2:239.10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00239
    1. Raettig T., Kotz S. A. (2008). Auditory processing of different types of pseudo-words: an event-related fMRI study. Neuroimage 39 1420–142810.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.09.030
    1. Rapcsak S. Z., Henry M. L., Teague S. L., Carnahan S. D., Beeson P. M. (2007). Do dual-route models accurately predict reading and spelling performance in individuals with acquired alexia and agraphia? Neuropsychologia 45 2519–252410.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.03.019
    1. Rapp B., Epstein C., Tainturier M. J. (2002). The integration of information across lexical and sublexical processes in spelling. Cogn. Neuropsychol. 19 1–2910.1080/0264329014300060
    1. Roux S., Mckeeff T. J., Grosjacques G., Afonso O., Kandel S. (2013). The interaction between central and peripheral processes in handwriting production. Cognition 127 235–24110.1016/j.cognition.2012.12.009
    1. Sage K., Ellis A. W. (2006). Using orthographic neighbours to treat a case of graphemic buffer disorder. Aphasiology 20 851–87010.1080/02687030600738945
    1. Saito A., Yoshimura T., Itakura T, Lambon Ralph M. A. (2003). Demonstrating a wordlikeness effect on nonword repetition performance in a conduction aphasic patient. Brain Lang. 85 222–23010.1016/S0093-934X(02)00589-8
    1. Sanders R. J., Caramazza A. (1990). Operation of the phoneme-to-grapheme conversion mechanism in a brain injured patient. Read. Writ. 2 61–8210.1007/BF00383374
    1. Seymour P. H. K., Dargie A. (1990). Associative priming and orthographic choice in nonword spelling. Eur. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2 395–41010.1080/09541449008406215
    1. Tainturier M. J., Rapp B. (2001). “The spelling process,” in The Handbook of Cognitive Neuropsychology: What Deficits Reveal About the Human Mind ed. Rapp B. (Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press)
    1. Tainturier M. J., Rapp B. (2003). Is a single graphemic buffer used in reading and spelling? Aphasiology 17 537–56210.1080/02687030344000021
    1. Tainturier M. J., Rapp B. (2004). Complex graphemes as functional spelling units: evidence from acquired dysgraphia. Neurocase 10 122–13110.1080/13554790409609943
    1. Treiman R., Kessler B., Bick S. (2002). Context sensitivity in the spelling of English vowels. J. Mem. Lang. 47 448–46810.1016/S0749-596X(02)00010-4
    1. Ventura P., Morais J., Pattamadilok C., Kolinsky R. (2004). The locus of the orthographic consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Lang. Cogn. Process. 19 57–9510.1080/01690960344000134
    1. Whatmough C., Arguin M., Bub D. (1999). Cross-modal priming evidence for phonology-to-orthography activation in visual word recognition. Brain Lang. 66 275–29310.1006/brln.1998.1996
    1. Ziegler J. C., Muneaux M., Grainger J. (2003). Neighborhood effects in auditory word recognition: phonological competition and orthographic facilitation. J. Mem. Lang. 48 779–79310.1016/S0749-596X(03)00006-8

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner