The Science of Reading. Группа авторов
Читать онлайн книгу.
M. S., Cooper Borkenhagen, M., & Kearns, D. (2020). Lost in translation? Challenges in connecting reading science and educational practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 55(S1), S119–S130. doi: 10.1002/rrq.341.
70 Seidenberg, M. S., & Gonnerman, L. (2000). Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 353–361. doi: org/10.1016/S1364‐6613(00)01515‐1.
71 Seidenberg, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2018). The impact of language experience on language and reading: A statistical learning approach. Topics in Language Disorders, 38, 66–83. doi: 10.1097/TLD.0000000000000144.
72 Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523–568. doi: 10.1037/0033‐295x.96.4.523.
73 Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2006). Progress in understanding word reading: Data fitting vs. theory building. In S. Andrews (Ed.), From ink marks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (pp. 25–49). Psychology Press.
74 Seidenberg, M. S., & Plaut, D. C. (2014). Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science, 38, 1190–1228. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12147.
75 Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(3), 383–404. doi: 10.1016/S0022‐5371(84)90270‐6.
76 Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self‐teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55(2), 151–218. doi: 10.1016/0010‐0277(94)00645‐2.
77 Shibahara, N., Shibahara, N., Zorzi, M., Zorzi, M., Hill, M. P., Wydell, T., & Butterworth, B. (2003). Semantic effects in word naming: Evidence from English and Japanese Kanji. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 56(2), 263–286. doi: 10.1080/02724980244000369.
78 Siegelman, N., Kearns, D. M., & Rueckl, J. G. (2020). Using information‐theoretic measures to characterize the structure of the writing system: The case of orthographic‐phonological regularities in English. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 1292–1312. doi: 10.3758/s13428‐019‐01317‐y.
79 Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False‐positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. doi: 10.1177/0956797611417632.
80 Smith, A. C., Monaghan, P., & Huettig, F. (2021). The effect of orthographic systems on the developing reading system: Typological and computational analyses. Psychological Review, 128(1), 125–159 doi: 10.1037/rev0000257.
81 Snowling, M. J., & Hayiou‐Thomas, M. E. (2006). The dyslexia spectrum: Continuities between reading, speech, and language impairments. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(2), 110–126. doi: 10.1097/00011363‐200604000‐00004.
82 Strain, E., & Herdman, C. M. (1999). Imageability effects in word naming: An individual differences analysis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 347–359. doi: 10.1037/h0087322.
83 Strain, E., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single‐word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1140–1154. doi: 10.1037//0278‐7393.21.5.1140.
84 Taraban, R., & McClelland, J.L. (1987). Conspiracy effects in word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 26, 608–631. doi: 10.1016/0749‐596X(87)90105‐7.
85 Taylor, J. S. H., Duff, F. J., Woollams, A. M., Monaghan, P., & Ricketts, J. (2015). How word meaning influences word reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 322–328. doi: 10.1177/0963721415574980.
86 Thomas, M. S. C., & McClelland, J. L. (2008). Connectionist models of cognition. In R. Sun (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of computational psychology (pp. 23–58). Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816772.005.
87 Treiman, R., Kessler, B., & Bick, S. (2003). Influence of consonantal context on the pronunciation of vowels: A comparison of human readers and computational models. Cognition, 88(1), 49–78. doi: 10.1016/s0010‐0277(03)00003‐9.
88 Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijelac‐Babic, R., & Richmond‐Welty, E. D. (1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 107–136. doi: 10.1037//0096‐3445.124.2.107.
89 Waters, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., and Bruck, M. (1984). Children's and adults' use of spelling‐sound information in three reading tasks. Memory and Cognition, 12(3), 293–305. doi: 10.3758/bf03197678.
90 Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(2), 439–456. doi: 10.3758/bf03197678.
91 Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1999). Influences on infant speech processing: Toward a new synthesis. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 509–535. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.509.
92 Woollams, A. M. (2005). Imageability and ambiguity effects in speeded naming: Convergence and divergence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31 (5), 878–890. doi: 10.1037/0278‐7393.31.5.878.
93 Woollams, A.M., Lambon Ralph, M.A., & Patterson, K.E. Acquired disorders of reading and writing. This volume.
94 Yang, J., McCandliss, B. D., Shu, H., & Zevin, J. D. (2009). Simulating language‐specific and language–general effects in a statistical learning model of Chinese reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 61 (2), 238–257. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.05.001.
95 Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Simulating consistency effects and individual differences in nonword naming: A comparison of current models. Journal of Memory and Language, 54 (2), 145–160.doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.08.002
96 Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Modelling reading development through phonological decoding and self‐teaching: Implications for dyslexia. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120397. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0397.
CHAPTER THREE Word Recognition I : Visual and Orthographic Processing
Jonathan Grainger
Reading is both a visual and a linguistic skill, and orthographic processing occupies the key interface between vision and language (Grainger, 2018). From this perspective, single‐word reading is a combination of visual object identification processes and linguistic processing, with orthographic processing connecting the two. My aim in this chapter is to review the visual and orthographic processes involved in identifying letters, dealing with letter strings and identifying individual words. Recognizing that words are rarely processed in isolation, I end the chapter by describing more recent work that considers orthographic processing in the context of multiple words and in doing so, attempts to bridge the gap between research on single‐word reading and research on sentence reading. Throughout, my focus is on the processes involved in skilled reading in languages that use an alphabetic script.
Written words present a special class of stimuli, distinct from visual objects more generally. Orthographic processing allows generic visual processing mechanisms to make contact with the linguistic processes that are specific to word stimuli. As shown in Figure 3.1, the contact is established via orthographic processing across three types of mapping: 1) orthography‐to‐semantics via whole‐word orthographic representations (orthographic words); 2) orthography to morpho‐semantics via morpho‐orthographic representations; and 3) orthography‐to‐phonology via sublexical spelling‐sound correspondences.