Grapheme-phoneme probabilities in British English

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 136-157

  Gontijo, P F D ^a,c   Gontijo, I ^b,c   Shillcock, R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b HERIOT WATT UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FACTUAL DATABASE; LANGUAGE;

ALGORITHMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; LANGUAGE; SOFTWARE;

EID: 0038134975     PISSN: 07433808     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03195506     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. AHO, A. V., KERNIGHAN, B. W., & WEINBERGER, P. J. (1988). The AWK programming language. New York: Addison-Wesley.
2. BAAYEN, R. H., PIEPENBROCK, R., & GULIKERS, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (Release 2, English Version 2.5) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
3. BERNDT, R. S., D'AUTRECHY, C. L., & REGGIA J. A. (1994). Functional pronunciation units in English words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 977-991.
4. BERNDT, R. S., REGGIA, J. A., & MITCHUM, C. C. (1987). Empirically derived probabilities for grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 19, 1-9.
5. GLUSHKO, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 674-691.
6. GONTIJO, P. F. D. (1998). Familiarity effects in visual work recognition. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
7. GOUGH, P., & COSKY, M. (1977). One second of reading again. In N. Castellan, D. Pisoni, & G. Potts (Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 2, pp. 271-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. HANNA, J. S., & HANNA, P. R. (1959). Spelling as school subject: A brief history. National Elementary Principal, 38, 8-23.
9. HANNA, P. R., HANNA, J. S., HODGES, R. E., & RUDORF, E. H. (1966). Phoneme-grapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
10. HARLAND, M. (1987). Collins Gem Portuguese dictionary. London: Collins.
11. HENDERSON, L. (1982). Orthography and word recognition in reading. London: Academic Press.
12. KATZ, L., & FELDMAN, L. B. (1981). Linguistic coding in word recognition: Comparisons between a deep and shallow orthography. In A. M. Lesgold & C. A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive processing in reading (pp. 85-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. KATZ, L., & FROST, R. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 67-84). New York: North-Holland.
14. RAVID, D. (2001). Learning to spell in Hebrew: Phonological and morphological factors. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 459-485.
15. SCHEERER, E. (1986). Orthography and lexical access. In G. Augst (Ed.), New trends in graphemics and orthography (pp. 262-286). Berlin: De Gruyter.
16. SEIDENBERG, M. S. (1992). Beyond orthographic depth in reading: Equitable division of labor. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 85-118). New York: North-Holland.
17. TREIMAN, R., BIJELJAC-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, 107-136.
18. VENEZKY, R. L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
19. WIJIK, A. (1966). Rules of pronunciation for the English language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. ZIEGLER, J. C., STONE, G. O., & JACOBS, A. M. (1997). What is the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback consistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 29, 600-618.