One Process,Not Two,in Reading Aloud: Lexical Analogies Do the Work of Non-Lexical Rules

Abstract

It is widely held that there are two (non-semantic) processes by which oral reading may be achieved: (a) by known words visually addressing lexical storage of their complete orthography and phonology; (b) by parsing a letter string into graphemes which are translated by rule into phonemes. Irregular words (HAVE) rely on the former, new and non-words rely on the latter. Recent evidence casts doubt on this view; to meet some of this data a revised version is presented. An alternative view is that the phonology of both words and non-words, at each encounter, is retrieved by analogy with all known words having matching segments.

In a mixed list of words and non-words, presented singly for pronunciation, phonologically ambiguous non-words (NOUCH) were preceded critically by words with the same ambiguous segments, either pronounced regularly (COUCH) or irregularly (TOUCH). Standard (and revised) dual-process theory predicts that preceding words will not affect pronunciation of non-words; analogy theory predicts that they will. Significant biasing effects, compared to control conditions, support analogy theory, but a further modification to dual-process theory enables it to deal with these results. However the presence in critical non-words of morphemes pronounced consistently or inconsistently with the biased pronunciations significantly affected biasing. This makes the case for lexical analogy theory even stronger.

Formal knowledge (descriptive spelling-sound rules) may be used consciously, but does not reflect tacit processes in oral reading, which are better described by a single-process lexical analogy model.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baron

(1977). Mechanisms for pronouncing printed words: use and acquisition. In Laberge

Samuels

(Eds), Basic Processes in Reading: Perception and Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Bradshaw

Nettleton

(1974). Articulatory interference and the mown-down heterophone effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology 102, 88–94.

Butterworth

(1979). Hesitation in jargon aphasia. Brain and Language 8, 133–61.

Campbell

Besner

(1981). This and thap: constraints on the pronunciations of new written words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A, 33, 375–396.

Coltheart

(1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In Underwood

(Ed.), Strategies of Information Processing. London: Academic Press.

Coltheart

(1980). Reading, phonological recoding and deep dyslexia. In Coltheart

Patterson

Marshall

J. C.

(Eds), Deep Dyslexia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Coltheart

Patterson

Marshall

J. C.

(1980). Deep Dyslexia London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Evans

T. G.

(1968). Program for the solution of a class of geometric-analogy intelligence test questions. In Minsky

(Ed.), Semantic Information Processing. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Glushko

R. J.

(1979). The organisation and activation of lexical knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5, 674–91.

10.

Gough

Cosky

(1977). One second of reading again. In Castellan

Pisoni

Potts

G. R.

(Eds), Cognitive Theory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum Volume 2.

11.

Henderson

Orthography and Word Recognition in Reading London: Academic Press(forthcoming).

12.

International Phonetic Association (1949). The Principles of the International Phonetic Association University College, London: International Phonetic Association.

13.

Kučera

Francis

W. N.

(1967). Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English Providence: Brown University Press.

14.

Marcel

A. J.

(1980). Surface dyslexia and beginning reading: a revised hypothesis of the pronunciation of print and its impairments. In Coltheart

Patterson

Marshall

J. C.

(Eds), Deep Dyslexia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

15.

McClelland

(1976). Preliminary letter identification in the perception of words and non-words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2, 80–91.

16.

Meyer

D. E.

Schvaneveldt

R. W.

Ruddy

M. G.

(1974). Functions of graphemic and phonemic codes in visual word recognition. Memory and Cognition 2, 309–21.

17.

Patterson

Marcel

A. J.

(1977). Aphasia, dyslexia and phonological coding of written words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 307–18.

18.

Patterson

(in press). The relation between reading and phonological coding: further neurological observations. To appear in Ellis

A. W.

(Ed.), Normality and Pathology in Cognitive Function.

19.

Saffran

E. M.

(1980). Reading in Deep Dyslexia is not Ideographic. Neuropsychologia 18, 219–23.

20.

Schwartz

M. F.

Saffran

E. M.

Marin

O. S. M.

(1980). Fractionating the reading process in dementia: evidence for word-specific print-to-sound associations. In Coltheart

Patterson

Marshall

J. C.

(Eds), Deep Dyslexia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

21.

Shallice

Warrington

E. K.

(1980). Single and multiple component dyslexic syndromes. In Coltheart

Patterson

Marshall

J. C.

(Eds), Deep Dyslexia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

22.

Stanovich

K. E.

Bauer

D. W.

(1978). Experiments on the spelling-to-sound regularity effect in word recognition. Memory and Cognition 6, 410–15.

23.

Sternberg

(1977). Intelligence, information processing and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

24.

Wertheimer

(1959). Productive Thinking New York: Harper and Row.

25.

Whorf

B. L.

(1956). A linguistic consideration of thinking in primitive communities. In Carroll

J. B.

(Ed.), Language, Thought and Reality. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.