1 / 14

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories. Shallow Orthography. Deep Orthography. Phonetic Form. Phonetic Form. Morphophonological ‘like’ phonetic. Morphophonological ‘unlike’ phonetic. Reader needs little phonology.

ginata
Download Presentation

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories

  2. Shallow Orthography Deep Orthography Phonetic Form Phonetic Form Morphophonological ‘like’ phonetic Morphophonological ‘unlike’ phonetic Reader needs little phonology Reader needs lots of phonology The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (Mattingly and colleagues, 1980) Part I: Lexical representation of written words Linguistic (not visual) Morphophonological (not phonetic) Part II: Remoteness of orthography from phonetic form

  3. WORD Reaction Time about 6/10 second YORD Reaction Time about 7/10 second Coltheart et al., 1979 “YES” RT:HAVE (phonologically irregular) = MUST (phonologically regular) “NO” RT:MAVE (phonologically irregular) >>FUST (phonologically regular) ‘Deep’ Lexical Decision (“Is this a word?”) Yes! No!

  4. Phonology Lexicon O RTHOGRAPHY WORD Occasionally (e.g., nonwords, rare words) Routinely Dual Route Theory In a deep orthography, perhaps, the reader avoids the “lots of phonology”. Lexical access is routinely visual.

  5. Cyrillic Roman common C C D D F GI L A E O Lj Nj Dz J T K SU ZZ M V S N B R H C P Vuk Karadzic ´ ˇ Bialphabetic Readers of a Shallow Orthography ambiguous “Write as you speak and read as it is written”

  6. RT RT “Unequivocal evidence for phonological code would be demonstration of its use in YES RT.” BETAP VETAR HAVE MUST RT RT Lukatela at al. 1978, 1980 YES RT: Phonemically ambiguous BETAP >> phonemically unique VETAR NO RT: phonemically ambiguous BEMAP >> phonemically unique VEMAR BEMAP VEMAR MAVE FUST English Lexical Decision Serbo-Croatian Lexical Decision with Fluent Bialphabetic readers

  7. Serbo-Croatian Orthography English Orthography Hebrew Orthography Phonetic Form Phonetic Form Phonetic Form RT RT RT N LD N N LD LD Frost, Katz, and Bentin (1987) Hypothesis More shallow means smaller lexical role in naming relative to lexical decision OR Magnitude of [Lexical Decision RT - Naming RT] decreases with depth

  8. 600 575 550 525 500 W-W PW-W W-PW PW-PW Latency (ms) Similar Dissimilar Phonemic Relation Can Naming a ‘Shallow’ Serbo-Croatian Letter String Benefit from a Visually Dissimilar but Phonemically Similar Prime? (Lukatela & Turvey, 1990; Lukatela et al., 1990) Prime and Target Differ in Alphabet, Differ in Case Effect of Phonemic Similarity is Indifferent to Lexical Composition of Prime-Target Sequence and to Visual Similarity.

  9. ***** ***** AUTOMAT time appropriate W prime: ROBOT ambiguous PW prime: POBOT unique PW prime: RO OT F b ROBOT or F 40 30 20 10 0 ROOT Degree of Priming (ms) 70 250 SOA (ms) In ‘Shallow’ Serbo-Croatian can (Phonologically Unique) Nonwords Activate Semantics Better than (Phonologically Ambiguous) Words?

  10. Deep Dual Route Theory Shallow Dual Route Theory Lexicon Phonology Lexicon Phonology Orthography Orthography Phonological Coherence Theory WORD WORD WORD Semantics Phonology Orthography

  11. XXXX frog TODR XXXX TODR XXXX TODE XXXX XXXX TODE XXXX XXXX XXXX frog Reaction Time Reaction Time 1st mask 1st mask 2nd prime 2nd prime 3rd mask 3rd mask 4th target 4th target Masked Semantic Priming of Naming in ‘Deep’ English “frog” “frog” TODE-frog RT < TODR-frog RT

  12. BOWL XXXX BOWL XXXX bowl XXXX bend BEND Yes! XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX BEND Reaction Time Reaction Time 1st mask 1st mask 2nd prime 2nd prime 3rd mask 3rd mask 4th target 4th target Phonological Ambiguity Affects Identity Priming in English Yes! BEND-bend priming occurs at shorter time scales than BOWL-bowl priming

  13. Shallow Orthography Deep Orthography Phonetic Form Phonetic Form Morphophonological ‘like’ phonetic Morphophonological ‘unlike’ phonetic Reader needs little phonology Reader needs lots of phonology Orthographic Depth: Remoteness of Orthography from Phonetic Form Then:Orthographic Depth contributes to the formation of two different processing devices, one rule-based, one word-specific Now:Orthographic Depth modulates a single (connectionist) device. Processing differences more quantitative than qualitative. Phonology is significant in reading via deep and shallow orthographies.

  14. RT KBLN NZIR The Very Deep Unpointed Hebrew Naming Lexically Unequivocal Words that Differ in Phonological Ambiguity (in respect to ‘filling in’ missing vowels) Frost (1995) High Ambiguity: KBLN (“contractor”) read as /kablan/ Low Ambiguity: NZIR (“monk”) read as /nazir/ “Phonology is always assembled and always lexically shaped, but not holistically addressed.”

More Related