Julia Muschalik, Dominic Schmitz, Akhilesh Kakolu Ramarao, Dinah Baer-Henney
{"title":"在按键之间输入 /s/-形态?","authors":"Julia Muschalik, Dominic Schmitz, Akhilesh Kakolu Ramarao, Dinah Baer-Henney","doi":"10.1007/s11145-024-10586-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Morphological structure exerts an influence on acoustic duration. But does it also influence typing duration? The present article reports an experimental study that tests for the influence of morphological structure on typing timing. It is also a first of its kind comparison between spoken and written language production within the same paradigm, which explores the extent to which a pattern that has been found for speech production may have an analogue in written language production. In an online typing study using the experimental design of Schmitz et al. (Phonetica 78:571–616, 2021a), we test their results from the spoken domain for transferability to the written domain. Specifically, our study investigates whether language users type word-final < s > in English pseudowords at different word-internal boundaries—non-morphemic, plural, auxiliary <i>has</i>-clitic and <i>is</i>-clitic—with differing speeds and how our results compare to those found by Schmitz et al. (Phonetica 78:571–616, 2021a) for articulation. We find that the influence of morphological structure on articulation and typing timing does not follow an identical principle. While durational differences are found for the different morphological categories in articulation, participants in our experiment type non-morphemic < s > and plural < s > at almost identical speed. A significant difference emerges, however, for the typing of auxiliary clitics. Our results suggest that processing units other than morphemes might be dominant in written language production.</p>","PeriodicalId":48204,"journal":{"name":"Reading and Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Typing /s/—morphology between the keys?\",\"authors\":\"Julia Muschalik, Dominic Schmitz, Akhilesh Kakolu Ramarao, Dinah Baer-Henney\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11145-024-10586-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Morphological structure exerts an influence on acoustic duration. But does it also influence typing duration? The present article reports an experimental study that tests for the influence of morphological structure on typing timing. It is also a first of its kind comparison between spoken and written language production within the same paradigm, which explores the extent to which a pattern that has been found for speech production may have an analogue in written language production. In an online typing study using the experimental design of Schmitz et al. (Phonetica 78:571–616, 2021a), we test their results from the spoken domain for transferability to the written domain. Specifically, our study investigates whether language users type word-final < s > in English pseudowords at different word-internal boundaries—non-morphemic, plural, auxiliary <i>has</i>-clitic and <i>is</i>-clitic—with differing speeds and how our results compare to those found by Schmitz et al. (Phonetica 78:571–616, 2021a) for articulation. We find that the influence of morphological structure on articulation and typing timing does not follow an identical principle. While durational differences are found for the different morphological categories in articulation, participants in our experiment type non-morphemic < s > and plural < s > at almost identical speed. A significant difference emerges, however, for the typing of auxiliary clitics. Our results suggest that processing units other than morphemes might be dominant in written language production.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48204,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reading and Writing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reading and Writing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10586-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reading and Writing","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-024-10586-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
语音结构对发音持续时间有影响。但它是否也会影响打字时长呢?本文报告了一项实验研究,测试形态结构对打字时长的影响。这也是首次在同一范式下对口语和书面语的生成进行比较,探讨了在语音生成中发现的模式在书面语生成中的类似程度。在一项采用 Schmitz 等人的实验设计(Phonetica 78:571-616, 2021a)进行的在线打字研究中,我们检验了他们在口语领域的研究结果是否可以移植到书面语领域。具体来说,我们的研究调查了语言使用者是否在不同的词内边界--非词素、复数、助词has-clitic和is-clitic--以不同的速度键入英语假词的词尾< s >,以及我们的结果与Schmitz等人(Phonetica 78:571-616,2021a)的发音结果的比较。我们发现,形态结构对发音和打字定时的影响并不遵循相同的原则。虽然不同词形类别在衔接上存在时长差异,但我们实验中的参与者输入非词形< s >和复数< s >的速度几乎相同。然而,在输入助动词时却出现了明显的差异。我们的结果表明,在书面语言生产中,语素以外的处理单元可能占主导地位。
Morphological structure exerts an influence on acoustic duration. But does it also influence typing duration? The present article reports an experimental study that tests for the influence of morphological structure on typing timing. It is also a first of its kind comparison between spoken and written language production within the same paradigm, which explores the extent to which a pattern that has been found for speech production may have an analogue in written language production. In an online typing study using the experimental design of Schmitz et al. (Phonetica 78:571–616, 2021a), we test their results from the spoken domain for transferability to the written domain. Specifically, our study investigates whether language users type word-final < s > in English pseudowords at different word-internal boundaries—non-morphemic, plural, auxiliary has-clitic and is-clitic—with differing speeds and how our results compare to those found by Schmitz et al. (Phonetica 78:571–616, 2021a) for articulation. We find that the influence of morphological structure on articulation and typing timing does not follow an identical principle. While durational differences are found for the different morphological categories in articulation, participants in our experiment type non-morphemic < s > and plural < s > at almost identical speed. A significant difference emerges, however, for the typing of auxiliary clitics. Our results suggest that processing units other than morphemes might be dominant in written language production.
期刊介绍:
Reading and writing skills are fundamental to literacy. Consequently, the processes involved in reading and writing and the failure to acquire these skills, as well as the loss of once well-developed reading and writing abilities have been the targets of intense research activity involving professionals from a variety of disciplines, such as neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics and education. The findings that have emanated from this research are most often written up in a lingua that is specific to the particular discipline involved, and are published in specialized journals. This generally leaves the expert in one area almost totally unaware of what may be taking place in any area other than their own. Reading and Writing cuts through this fog of jargon, breaking down the artificial boundaries between disciplines. The journal focuses on the interaction among various fields, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Reading and Writing publishes high-quality, scientific articles pertaining to the processes, acquisition, and loss of reading and writing skills. The journal fully represents the necessarily interdisciplinary nature of research in the field, focusing on the interaction among various disciplines, such as linguistics, information processing, neuropsychology, cognitive psychology, speech and hearing science and education. Coverage in Reading and Writing includes models of reading, writing and spelling at all age levels; orthography and its relation to reading and writing; computer literacy; cross-cultural studies; and developmental and acquired disorders of reading and writing. It publishes research articles, critical reviews, theoretical papers, and case studies. Reading and Writing is one of the most highly cited journals in Education, Educational Research, and Educational Psychology.