Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 60, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 530-542

  Lee, Chang H ^a   Taft, Marcus ^b  

^a Sogang University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Korean lexical processing; Letter position; Onsets and codas; Orthographic processing; Subsyllabic processing; Transposed letter effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 62949092689     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Andrews S. Lexical retrieval and selection processes: Effects of transposed-letter confusability. Journal of Memory and Language 35 (1996) 775-800
2. Andrews S., and Scarratt D.R. Rule and analogy mechanisms in reading nonwords: Hough Dou peapel rede gnew wirds?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24 (1998) 1052-1086
3. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., and van Rijn H. The CELEX lexical database. Release 2 (CD-ROM) (1995), Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
4. Berent I., Bouissa R., and Tuller B. The effect of shared structure and content on reading nonwords: Evidence for a CV skeleton. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27 (2001) 1042-1057
5. Bowey J.A. Orthographic onsets and rimes are functional units of reading. Memory & Cognition 18 (1990) 419-427
6. Carreiras M., Álavarez C., and de-Vega M. Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 32 (1993) 766-780
7. Chambers S.M. Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979) 225-241
8. Christianson K., Johnson R.L., and Rayner K. Letter transpositions within and across morphemes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31 (2005) 1327-1339
9. Davis C.J. N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods 37 (2005) 65-70
10. Davis C.J. Orthographic input coding: A review of behavioural evidence and current models. In: Andrews S.M. (Ed). From inkmarks to ideas: Current issues in lexical processing (2006), Psychology Press, Hove, UK 180-206
11. Davis, C. J. (2006b) MatchCalculator software. .
12. Davis C.J., and Bowers J.S. What do letter migration errors reveal about letter position coding in visual word recognition?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30 (2004) 923-941
13. Davis C.J., and Bowers J.S. Contrasting five different theories of letter position coding: Evidence from orthographic similarity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 32 (2006) 535-557
14. Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2002). DMDX display software. .
15. Forster K.I., and Taft M. Bodies, antibodies, and neighborhood density effects in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20 (1994) 844-863
16. Frankish C., and Turner E. SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams. Journal of Memory and Language 56 (2007) 189-211
17. Gómez P., Ratcliff R., and Perea M. The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review 115 (2008) 577-601
18. Grainger J., and van Heuven W.J.B. Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In: Bonin P. (Ed). Mental lexicon: "Some words to talk about words" (2003), Nova Science, New York 1-23
19. Grainger J., and Whitney C. Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (2004) 58-59
20. Guerrera C., and Forster K.I. Masked form priming with extreme transposition. Language and Cognitive Processes 23 (2007) 117-142
21. Kay J., and Marcel A.J. One process, not two, in reading aloud: Lexical analogies do the work of nonlexical rules. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 33A (1981) 397-414
22. Kim J., Taft M., and Davis C. Orthographic and phonological links in the lexicon: When lexical and sublexical information conflict. Reading and Writing 17 (2004) 187-218
23. Korean Word Database (2001). 21th century Seiong project corpus. The National Institute of the Korean Language, Seoul, Korea.
24. O'Connor R.E., and Forster K.I. Criterion bias and search sequence bias in word recognition. Memory & Cognition 9 (1981) 78-92
25. Perea M., and Carreiras M. Effects of syllable frequency and syllable neighborhood frequency in visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 24 (1998) 134-144
26. Perea M., and Carreiras M. Do transposed-letter effects occur across lexeme boundaries?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13 (2006) 418-422
27. Perea M., and Carreiras M. Do transposed-letter similarity effects occur at a syllable level?. Experimental Psychology 53 (2006) 308-315
28. Perea M., and Carreiras M. Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect?. Language and Cognitive Processes 23 (2008) 69-92
29. Perea M., and Lupker S.J. Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with non-adjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language 51 (2004) 231-246
30. Perea M., Rosa E., and Gómez C. The frequency effect for pseudowords in the lexical decision task. Perception & Psychophysics 67 (2005) 301-314
31. Plaut D.C., McClelland J.L., Seidenberg M.S., and Patterson K. Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review 103 (1996) 56-115
32. Schoonbaert S., and Grainger J. Letter position coding in printed word perception: Effects of repeated and transposed letters. Language and Cognitive Processes 19 (2004) 333-367
33. Simpson G., and Kang H. Syllable processing in alphabetic Korean. Reading and Writing 17 (2004) 137-151
34. Taft M. Lexical access via an orthographic code: The basic orthographic syllabic structure (BOSS). Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18 (1979) 21-39
35. Taft M. Reading and the mental lexicon (1991), Erlbaum, Hove, UK
36. Taft M. The body of the BOSS: Subsyllabic units in the lexical processing of polysyllabic words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 18 (1992) 1004-1014
37. Taft M. Morphological representation as a correlation between form and meaning. In: Assink E., and Sandra D. (Eds). Reading complex words (2003), Kluwer, Amsterdam
38. Taft M., and Forster K.I. Lexical storage and retrieval of polymorphemic and polysyllabic words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15 (1976) 607-620
39. Taraban R., and McClelland J.L. Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language 26 (1987) 608-631
40. Treiman, R., & Chafetz, J. (1987). Are there onset- and rime-like units in printed words. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance (Vol. XII). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Limited.
41. Treiman R., Mullennix J., Bijeljac-Babic R., and Richmond-Welty E.D. The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124 (1995) 107-136
42. Treiman R., and Zukowski A. Units in reading and spelling. Journal of Memory and Language 27 (1988) 466-477
43. Velan H., and Frost R. Cambridge University versus Hebrew University: Impact of letter transposition on reading English and Hebrew. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14 (2007) 913-918
44. Whitney C. How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8 (2001) 221-243
45. Whitney C. Comparison of the SERIOL and SOLAR theories of letter-position encoding. Brain & Language 107 (2008) 170-178
46. Whitney C., and Cornelissen P. SERIOL reading. Language and Cognitive Processes 23 (2008) 143-164
47. Yi K. The internal structure of Kulja and its relation to syllable in Korean. Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology 7 (1995) 57-69
48. Yi K. The internal structure of Korean syllables: Rhyme or body?. Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology 10 (1998) 67-83