眼动追踪作为母语和非母语阅读中组合音韵学的窗口

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Second Language Studies Pub Date : 2021-04-15 DOI:10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR
Katherine I. Martin, Alan Juffs
{"title":"眼动追踪作为母语和非母语阅读中组合音韵学的窗口","authors":"Katherine I. Martin, Alan Juffs","doi":"10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The past 30 years of reading research has confirmed the importance of bottom-up processing. Rather than a\n psycholinguistic guessing game (Goodman, 1967), reading is dependent on rapid, accurate\n recognition of written forms. In fluent first language (L1) readers, this is seen in the automatic activation of a word’s\n phonological form, impacting lexical processing (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995). Although the influence of phonological form\n is well established, less clear is the extent to which readers are sensitive to the possible pronunciations of a\n word (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1998), derived from the varying consistency of\n grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) (e.g., although ‘great’ has only one pronunciation, [ɡɹeɪt], the grapheme \n within it has multiple possible pronunciations: [i] in [plit] ‘pleat’, [ɛ] in [bɹɛθ] ‘breath’; Parkin, 1982). Further, little is known about non-native readers’ sensitivity to such characteristics. Non-native\n readers process text differently from L1 readers (Koda & Zehler, 2008; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong & Li, 2004), with implications for understanding L2\n reading comprehension (Rayner, Chace, Slattery & Ashby, 2006). The goal of this\n study was thus to determine whether native and non-native readers are sensitive to the consistency of a word’s component GPCs\n during lexical processing and to compare this sensitivity among readers from different L1s.","PeriodicalId":29903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eye-tracking as a window into assembled phonology in native and non-native reading\",\"authors\":\"Katherine I. Martin, Alan Juffs\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The past 30 years of reading research has confirmed the importance of bottom-up processing. Rather than a\\n psycholinguistic guessing game (Goodman, 1967), reading is dependent on rapid, accurate\\n recognition of written forms. In fluent first language (L1) readers, this is seen in the automatic activation of a word’s\\n phonological form, impacting lexical processing (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995). Although the influence of phonological form\\n is well established, less clear is the extent to which readers are sensitive to the possible pronunciations of a\\n word (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1998), derived from the varying consistency of\\n grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) (e.g., although ‘great’ has only one pronunciation, [ɡɹeɪt], the grapheme \\n within it has multiple possible pronunciations: [i] in [plit] ‘pleat’, [ɛ] in [bɹɛθ] ‘breath’; Parkin, 1982). Further, little is known about non-native readers’ sensitivity to such characteristics. Non-native\\n readers process text differently from L1 readers (Koda & Zehler, 2008; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong & Li, 2004), with implications for understanding L2\\n reading comprehension (Rayner, Chace, Slattery & Ashby, 2006). The goal of this\\n study was thus to determine whether native and non-native readers are sensitive to the consistency of a word’s component GPCs\\n during lexical processing and to compare this sensitivity among readers from different L1s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Second Language Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Second Language Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Journal of Second Language Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR","RegionNum":4,"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: 4

摘要

过去30年的阅读研究证实了自下而上处理的重要性。阅读不是一种心理语言学的猜谜游戏(Goodman,1967),而是依赖于对书面形式的快速、准确的识别。在流利的第一语言(L1)读者中,这体现在单词语音形式的自动激活中,影响词汇处理(Perfetti&Bell,1991;Rayner、Sereno、Lesch和Pollatsek,1995年)。尽管语音形式的影响已经得到了很好的证实,但不太清楚的是读者对一个单词可能的发音的敏感程度(Lesch&Pollatsek,1998),源自于字形与音素对应关系(GPCs)的不同一致性(例如,尽管“great”只有一个发音,[ɹe \ t],但其中的字形有多种可能的发音:[i]在[plitt]中为“褶皱”,[]在[bθ]中为‘呼吸’;Parkin,1982)。此外,人们对非母语读者对这些特征的敏感性知之甚少。非母语读者处理文本的方式与母语读者不同(Koda&Zehler,2008;McBride Chang,Bialystok,Chong&Li,2004),这对理解二语阅读理解有影响(Rayner,Chace,Slattery&Ashby,2006)。因此,本研究的目的是确定母语和非母语读者在词汇处理过程中是否对单词成分GPC的一致性敏感,并在不同L1的读者中比较这种敏感性。
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
Eye-tracking as a window into assembled phonology in native and non-native reading
The past 30 years of reading research has confirmed the importance of bottom-up processing. Rather than a psycholinguistic guessing game (Goodman, 1967), reading is dependent on rapid, accurate recognition of written forms. In fluent first language (L1) readers, this is seen in the automatic activation of a word’s phonological form, impacting lexical processing (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995). Although the influence of phonological form is well established, less clear is the extent to which readers are sensitive to the possible pronunciations of a word (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1998), derived from the varying consistency of grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) (e.g., although ‘great’ has only one pronunciation, [ɡɹeɪt], the grapheme within it has multiple possible pronunciations: [i] in [plit] ‘pleat’, [ɛ] in [bɹɛθ] ‘breath’; Parkin, 1982). Further, little is known about non-native readers’ sensitivity to such characteristics. Non-native readers process text differently from L1 readers (Koda & Zehler, 2008; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong & Li, 2004), with implications for understanding L2 reading comprehension (Rayner, Chace, Slattery & Ashby, 2006). The goal of this study was thus to determine whether native and non-native readers are sensitive to the consistency of a word’s component GPCs during lexical processing and to compare this sensitivity among readers from different L1s.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Towards cultivating plurilingual selves in early-years foreign language learning Review of Durrant (2023): Measuring L1 Chinese speakers’ anxiety when completing an English as L2 video narration task Measuring L1 Chinese speakers’ anxiety when completing an English as L2 video narration task The role of complexity in the ability to notice incoherent uses of connectives for L2
×
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