伪单词拼写:亚词汇表征和词汇互动的洞察

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Cognitive Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2023-10-16 DOI:10.1080/02643294.2023.2270210
Robert W. Wiley, Kristin M. Key, Jeremy J. Purcell
{"title":"伪单词拼写:亚词汇表征和词汇互动的洞察","authors":"Robert W. Wiley, Kristin M. Key, Jeremy J. Purcell","doi":"10.1080/02643294.2023.2270210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTIn this work we introduce a new tool for measuring English spelling-sound consistency, the PG Toolkit, which we use to conduct detailed analyses of pseudoword spellings that provide new insights into the nature of sublexical and lexical representations. There are several key findings: first, sound-spelling consistency measured at two different “grain sizes”, phonographeme and onset/rime, each explained unique variance in pseudoword spelling. Second, lexical skill was more related to pseudoword accuracy at the onset/rime level than at the phonographeme level, and individuals who chose more consistent mappings to spell pseudowords tended to have better lexical skill. Finally, no unique contribution of consistency in the reading direction (“feedback”) was found after controlling for consistency in the spelling direction. Taken together, the results validate the various measures provided by the PG Toolkit and establish new evidence that supports an interpretation of sublexical processes as operations over hierarchically-structured representations.KEYWORDS: SublexicalspellingpseudowordsPG Toolkitconsistencydual-route Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In some literatures, the spelling “rhyme” is used to refer to the phonological representation and “rime” to the orthographic. Here we use “rime” throughout to refer to the mapping between the two, and phonographeme to refer to the mapping of individual phonemes to graphemes (note that graphemes include multi-letter units such as the digraph CH).2 For example, the six-letter word THRIFT decomposes to three units when measured as onset, nucleus, and coda (THR, I, and FT respectively), compared to five units when measured at the phonographeme level (TH, R, I, F, and T).3 Specifically, word-initial /æ/ is spelled A_E in AXE, ANNE, and the two-syllable pronunciation of AVERAGE (i.e., AVE-RAGE). Word-initial /æ/ is spelled AU in AUNT/AUNTIE (the common American pronunciation /ænt/ rather than /ɑnt/).4 Irregular segments were defined as those with ≤ 18% P→G consistency per the PG Toolkit (i.e., given the phoneme in that position, it is spelled with those letters no more than 18% of the time).5 Given that a participant may correctly spell regular segments using sublexical processes (e.g., the G in “gauche”), accuracy on those segments was not used in analyses because it would be a less valid measure of lexical knowledge.6 For example, in Experiment 1 the dispersion ratio ≈ 9.2, indicating significant overdispersion p < 0.001, when including random intercepts only by-phonological target. When nesting spellings within phonological targets, the dispersion ratio was ≈ 0.2, no significant overdispersion.7 VIF were even higher if the mean probabilities, instead of the minimum, were used. Even without adding in the G→P variables, the P→G variables had VIFs > 17 when using the means, compared to <6 when using the minimums.8 We also ran the stepwise regression with entering the lexical variables last, in Step Three. Those results are presented in Supplementary Materials, Tables S3 and S4. The relative importance of the lexical predictors was diminished, but importantly they still explained significant amounts of variance even after first controlling for sublexical measures.Additional informationFundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.","PeriodicalId":50670,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pseudoword spelling: insights into sublexical representations and lexical interactions\",\"authors\":\"Robert W. Wiley, Kristin M. Key, Jeremy J. Purcell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02643294.2023.2270210\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTIn this work we introduce a new tool for measuring English spelling-sound consistency, the PG Toolkit, which we use to conduct detailed analyses of pseudoword spellings that provide new insights into the nature of sublexical and lexical representations. There are several key findings: first, sound-spelling consistency measured at two different “grain sizes”, phonographeme and onset/rime, each explained unique variance in pseudoword spelling. Second, lexical skill was more related to pseudoword accuracy at the onset/rime level than at the phonographeme level, and individuals who chose more consistent mappings to spell pseudowords tended to have better lexical skill. Finally, no unique contribution of consistency in the reading direction (“feedback”) was found after controlling for consistency in the spelling direction. Taken together, the results validate the various measures provided by the PG Toolkit and establish new evidence that supports an interpretation of sublexical processes as operations over hierarchically-structured representations.KEYWORDS: SublexicalspellingpseudowordsPG Toolkitconsistencydual-route Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In some literatures, the spelling “rhyme” is used to refer to the phonological representation and “rime” to the orthographic. Here we use “rime” throughout to refer to the mapping between the two, and phonographeme to refer to the mapping of individual phonemes to graphemes (note that graphemes include multi-letter units such as the digraph CH).2 For example, the six-letter word THRIFT decomposes to three units when measured as onset, nucleus, and coda (THR, I, and FT respectively), compared to five units when measured at the phonographeme level (TH, R, I, F, and T).3 Specifically, word-initial /æ/ is spelled A_E in AXE, ANNE, and the two-syllable pronunciation of AVERAGE (i.e., AVE-RAGE). Word-initial /æ/ is spelled AU in AUNT/AUNTIE (the common American pronunciation /ænt/ rather than /ɑnt/).4 Irregular segments were defined as those with ≤ 18% P→G consistency per the PG Toolkit (i.e., given the phoneme in that position, it is spelled with those letters no more than 18% of the time).5 Given that a participant may correctly spell regular segments using sublexical processes (e.g., the G in “gauche”), accuracy on those segments was not used in analyses because it would be a less valid measure of lexical knowledge.6 For example, in Experiment 1 the dispersion ratio ≈ 9.2, indicating significant overdispersion p < 0.001, when including random intercepts only by-phonological target. When nesting spellings within phonological targets, the dispersion ratio was ≈ 0.2, no significant overdispersion.7 VIF were even higher if the mean probabilities, instead of the minimum, were used. Even without adding in the G→P variables, the P→G variables had VIFs > 17 when using the means, compared to <6 when using the minimums.8 We also ran the stepwise regression with entering the lexical variables last, in Step Three. Those results are presented in Supplementary Materials, Tables S3 and S4. The relative importance of the lexical predictors was diminished, but importantly they still explained significant amounts of variance even after first controlling for sublexical measures.Additional informationFundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50670,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2023.2270210\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2023.2270210","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这项工作中,我们引入了一个测量英语拼写-发音一致性的新工具,PG工具包,我们使用它来详细分析假单词拼写,为亚词汇和词汇表征的本质提供了新的见解。有几个关键的发现:首先,在两种不同的“粒度”(phonographeme和onset/rime)下测量的语音拼写一致性,每一种都解释了假词拼写的独特差异。第二,词汇技能与假词准确度的关系在起音/时水平大于音素水平,选择更一致的映射来拼写假词的个体往往具有更好的词汇技能。最后,在控制拼写方向的一致性后,没有发现阅读方向(“反馈”)的一致性的独特贡献。综上所述,结果验证了PG Toolkit提供的各种度量,并建立了新的证据,支持将亚词汇过程解释为对分层结构表示的操作。关键词:SublexicalspellingpseudowordsPG Toolkitconsistencydual-route披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。注1在一些文献中,拼法“押韵”指的是音系表面法,“韵”指的是正字法。在这里,我们自始至终使用“rime”来指代两者之间的映射,而使用phonographeme来指代单个音素到字素的映射(注意,字素包括多字母单位,如有向图CH)例如,六个字母的单词THRIFT在作为起始、核和尾(分别为THR、I和FT)测量时分解为三个单位,而在音素水平(TH、R、I、F和T)测量时则分解为五个单位具体来说,单词首字母/æ/在AXE、ANNE和AVERAGE的双音节发音(即AVE-RAGE)中拼写为A_E。单词开头的/æ/在AUNT/AUNTIE中拼写为AU(美国常见的发音是/ænt/而不是/ænt/)不规则音段被定义为PG工具包中P→G一致性≤18%的音段(即给定该位置的音素,其与这些字母的拼写不超过18%的时间)考虑到参与者可以使用亚词汇过程正确拼写规则词段(例如,“gauche”中的G),这些词段的准确性不用于分析,因为它将是一个不太有效的词汇知识衡量标准例如,在实验1中,当只包含语音目标的随机截取时,色散比≈9.2,表明显著的过色散p < 0.001。当在语音目标内嵌套拼写时,分散率为≈0.2,没有明显的过度分散如果使用平均概率而不是最小概率,VIF甚至更高。即使不添加G→P变量,使用均值时P→G变量的vif值为bbb17,而使用最小值时为<6我们还运行逐步回归,最后在步骤3中输入词法变量。这些结果见补充材料表S3和表S4。词汇预测因素的相对重要性降低了,但重要的是,即使在首次控制了亚词汇测量之后,它们仍然解释了大量的差异。其他信息资金作者报告没有与本文所述工作相关的资金。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pseudoword spelling: insights into sublexical representations and lexical interactions
ABSTRACTIn this work we introduce a new tool for measuring English spelling-sound consistency, the PG Toolkit, which we use to conduct detailed analyses of pseudoword spellings that provide new insights into the nature of sublexical and lexical representations. There are several key findings: first, sound-spelling consistency measured at two different “grain sizes”, phonographeme and onset/rime, each explained unique variance in pseudoword spelling. Second, lexical skill was more related to pseudoword accuracy at the onset/rime level than at the phonographeme level, and individuals who chose more consistent mappings to spell pseudowords tended to have better lexical skill. Finally, no unique contribution of consistency in the reading direction (“feedback”) was found after controlling for consistency in the spelling direction. Taken together, the results validate the various measures provided by the PG Toolkit and establish new evidence that supports an interpretation of sublexical processes as operations over hierarchically-structured representations.KEYWORDS: SublexicalspellingpseudowordsPG Toolkitconsistencydual-route Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1 In some literatures, the spelling “rhyme” is used to refer to the phonological representation and “rime” to the orthographic. Here we use “rime” throughout to refer to the mapping between the two, and phonographeme to refer to the mapping of individual phonemes to graphemes (note that graphemes include multi-letter units such as the digraph CH).2 For example, the six-letter word THRIFT decomposes to three units when measured as onset, nucleus, and coda (THR, I, and FT respectively), compared to five units when measured at the phonographeme level (TH, R, I, F, and T).3 Specifically, word-initial /æ/ is spelled A_E in AXE, ANNE, and the two-syllable pronunciation of AVERAGE (i.e., AVE-RAGE). Word-initial /æ/ is spelled AU in AUNT/AUNTIE (the common American pronunciation /ænt/ rather than /ɑnt/).4 Irregular segments were defined as those with ≤ 18% P→G consistency per the PG Toolkit (i.e., given the phoneme in that position, it is spelled with those letters no more than 18% of the time).5 Given that a participant may correctly spell regular segments using sublexical processes (e.g., the G in “gauche”), accuracy on those segments was not used in analyses because it would be a less valid measure of lexical knowledge.6 For example, in Experiment 1 the dispersion ratio ≈ 9.2, indicating significant overdispersion p < 0.001, when including random intercepts only by-phonological target. When nesting spellings within phonological targets, the dispersion ratio was ≈ 0.2, no significant overdispersion.7 VIF were even higher if the mean probabilities, instead of the minimum, were used. Even without adding in the G→P variables, the P→G variables had VIFs > 17 when using the means, compared to <6 when using the minimums.8 We also ran the stepwise regression with entering the lexical variables last, in Step Three. Those results are presented in Supplementary Materials, Tables S3 and S4. The relative importance of the lexical predictors was diminished, but importantly they still explained significant amounts of variance even after first controlling for sublexical measures.Additional informationFundingThe author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Neuropsychology
Cognitive Neuropsychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychology is of interest to cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, psycholinguists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, and psychiatrists.
期刊最新文献
The localization of coma. Does the procedural deficit hypothesis of dyslexia account for the lack of automatization and the comorbidity among developmental disorders? Atypical emotion sharing in individuals with mirror sensory synaesthesia. Developmental surface dyslexia and dysgraphia in a child with corpus callosum agenesis: an approach to diagnosis and treatment. The heterogeneity of holistic processing profiles in developmental prosopagnosia: holistic processing is impaired but not absent.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1