In search of the perfect orthography

Written Language and Literacy

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 139-163

  Venezky, Richard L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33644911798     PISSN: 13876732     EISSN: 15706001     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/wll.7.2.02ven     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Abondolo, D. 1998. The Uralic languages. London: Routledge.
2. Andrews, S., & Scaratt, D. 1998. Rule and analogy mechanisms in reading nonwords: Hough dou peapel rede gnew wirds? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24(4):1052-1086.
3. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. 1995. The CELEX lexical database (CDROM). Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
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, and Computers 19(1):1-9.
5. Borgwaldt, S. R., & De Groot, A. M. B. 2002. Beyond the rime — measuring consistencies for monosyllabic and polysyllabic words. In The relation of writing to spoken language, M. Neef, A. Neijt and R. Sproat (eds.), 49-69. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
6. Borgwaldt, S. R., Hellwig, F. M., & De Groot, A. M. B. In revision. Onset entropy matters — Letter-to-phoneme mappings in seven languages. Ms. University of Amsterdam.
7. Carney, E. 1994. A survey of English spelling. London: Routledge.
8. Carney, E. 1997. English spelling. London: Routledge.
9. Coltheart, M. 1978. Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In Strategies of information processing, G. Underwood (ed.), 151-216. New York: Academic Press.
10. Coltheart, M. 2003. Implementation of the French DRC. Unpublished Manuscript. [Online] http://www.maccs.mq.edu.au/˜max/DRC/FrenchDRC.doc.
11. Damper, R., Marchand, Y., Anderson, M., & Gustafson, K. 1999. Evaluating the pronunciation component of text-to-speech systems for English: A performance comparison of different approaches. Computer Speech and Language 13(2):155-176.
12. Dewey, G. 1971. English spelling: Roadblock to reading. New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Eisenberg, P. 1998. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. Das Wort. Stuttgart: Metzler.
14. Erjavec, T. 2001. Harmonised morphosyntactic tagging for seven languages and Orwell’s 1984, 6th Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium, Tokyo, NLPRS’01, 487-492.[Online] http://nl.ijs.si/ME/.
15. Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. 1987. Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographic depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 13:104-115.
16. Gontijo, P. F. D., Gontijo, I., & Shillcock, R. 2003. Grapheme-phoneme probabilities for British English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35(1):136-157.
17. Gottlieb, H. 2001. Hvilke stavefejl er rigtige? Om sikre sprogbrugere og det usikre sprog. Retorikmagasinet 11(41):9-11.
18. Harris, M., & Vincent, N. (eds.). 1990. The Romance languages. London: Routledge.
19. Harris, M., & Giannouli, V. 1999. Learning to read and spell in Greek: The importance of letter knowledge and morphological awareness. In Learning to read and write: A crosslinguistic perspective, M. Harris and G. Hatano (eds.), 51-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Karlsson, F. 1983. Suomen kielen äänne- ja muotorakenne. Juva: WSOY.
21. Kessler, B., & Treiman, R. 2001. Relations between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of Memory and Language 44(4):592-617.
22. König, E., & van der Auwera, J. 2003. The Germanic languages. London: Routledge.
23. Ladefoged, P. 2001. Vowels and consonants. Oxford: Blackwell.
24. Lange, M., & Content, A. 1999. The grapho-phonological system of written French: Statistical analysis and empirical validation. Paper submitted to the 37th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguists. [Online] http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P99/P99-1056.pdf.
25. Lesetar, P. 1997. Say it right! English pronunciation dictionary. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alberta.
26. Maraschio, N. 1993. Grafia e ortografia: evoluzione e codifiazione. In Storia della lingua italiana, Vol. I, L. Seriami and P. Trifone (eds.), 139-227. Turin: Guilio Einaudi Editore.
27. Martensen, H., Maris, E., & Dijkstra, T. 2000. When does inconsistency hurt? On the relation between consistency effects and reliability. Memory & Cognition 28(4):648-656.
28. Martensen, H., Maris, E., & Dijkstra, T. 2003. Phonological ambiguity and context sensivity. On sublexical clustering in visual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (3):375-395.
29. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. 2004. Lexique 2: A New French Lexical Database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36(3):516-624.
30. Nunn, A. M. 1998. Dutch orthography. A systematic investigation of the spelling of Dutch words. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
31. Posner, R. 1996. The Romance languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. 2003. Foundation literary acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology 94(2):143-174.
33. Shannon, C. E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379-423 and 623-656.
34. Siptar, P., & Törkenczy, M. 2000. The phonology of Hungarian. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Smith, J., & Silverberg, N. In revision. Frequency and correspondences of initial letter/pho-neme combinations for English words. [Online] http://www.public.asu.edu/˜jfsmit1/pages/letrpho.html.
36. Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., 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.
37. Van den Bosch, A., Content, A., Daelemans, W, & de Gelder, B. 1995. Measuring the complexity of writing systems. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1(3):178-188.
38. Vago, R. M. 1980. The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
39. Venezky, R. L. 1970. The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
40. Venezky, R. L. 1999. The American way of spelling. New York: Guilford.
41. Véronis, J. 1986. Etude quantitative sur le système graphique et phonologique de français. Cahier de Psychologie Cognitive 6:501-531.
42. Wijk, A. 1966. Rules of pronunciation for the English language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Ziegler, J. C., Jacobs, A. M., & Stone, G. O. 1996. Statistical analysis of the bidirectional inconsistency of spelling and sound in French. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 28(4):504-515.
44. Ziegler, J. C., Stone, G. O., & Jacobs, A. M. 1997. What’s the pronunciation for -ough and the spelling for /u/? A database for computing feedforward and feedback inconsistency in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 29(4):600-618.
45. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. 2000. The DRC model of visual word recognition and reading aloud: An extension to German. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12 (3):413-430.