Three profoundly deaf individuals undertook a low-frequency backward lexical translation task (French/English), where morphological structure was manipulated and orthographic distance between test items was measured. Conditions included monomorphemic items (simplex), polymorphemic items (complex), items whose French morphological structure exceeded their English counterpart (mismatch), and a control. Order of translation success was uniform: control > mismatch > simplex > complex, as was order for false-cognate errors: complex > simplex > mismatch, patterning precisely with hearing participants (Janke and Kolokonte, 2014). We discuss how these results highlight a route for future studies to disentangle phonology and orthography further from morphology in first-language interference.
BélangerNBaumSMayberryR (2012) Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: phonological codes, not guilty!Scientific Studies of Reading16: 263–85.
2.
BertheleR (2011) On abduction in receptive multilingualism: Evidence from cognate guessing tasks. Applied Linguistics Review2: 191–220.
3.
BrowneR (1982) Aural and visual recognition of cognates and their implications for the teaching of cognate languages. Unpublished PhD thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
4.
BrysbaertMNewB (2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods41: 977–90.
5.
ClarkMGilbertGAndersonM (2012) Morphological knowledge and decoding skills of deaf readers. Psychology2: 109–16.
6.
CristoffaniniPKirsnerKMilechD (1986) Bilingual lexical representation: The status of Spanish–English cognates. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A38: 367–93.
7.
DijkstraTGraingerJvan HeuvenW (1999) Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language41: 496–518.
8.
DijkstraTTimmermansMSchriefersH (2000) On being blinded by your other language: Effects of task demands on interlingual homograph recognition. Journal of Memory and Language42: 445–64.
9.
Goldin-MeadowSMayberryR (2001) How do deaf children learn to read?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice16: 222–29.
10.
GordonP (1989) Levels of affixation in the acquisition of English morphology. Journal of Memory and Language28: 519–30.
11.
HaastrupK (1989) The learner as word processor. In: NationPCarterR (eds) AILA Review: Volume 6: Vocabulary Acquisition. Amsterdam: Free University Press, 34–46.
12.
IzzoA (2002) Phonemic awareness and reading ability: An investigation with young readers who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf147: 18–28.
13.
JankeVKolokonteM (2014) False cognates: The effect of mismatch in morphological complexity on a backward lexical translation task. Second Language Research30: 1–20.
14.
KellermanE (1979) Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now?Studies in Second Language Acquisition2: 37–58.
15.
KiparskyP (1982) From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology.In: Van der HulstHSmithN (eds) The structure of phonological representations. Dordrecht: Foris, 131–75.
LemhöferKDijkstraT (2004) Recognizing cognates and interlingual homographs: Effects of code similarity in language-specific and generalized lexical decision. Memory and Cognition32: 533–50.
18.
LevenshteinVI (1966) Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady10: 707–10.
19.
LongtinCMMeunierF (2005) Morphological decomposition in early visual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language53: 26–41.
20.
Marslen-WilsonWDKeithB (2006) Morphology and language processing. In: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 295–300.
21.
MayberryR (2007) When timing is everything: age of first-language acquisition effects on second-language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics28: 537–49.
22.
MayberryRdel GiudiceALiebermanA (2011) Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education16: 164–88.
23.
McQuarrieLParrilaR (2009) Phonological representations in deaf children: Rethinking the ‘‘functional equivalence’’ hypothesis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education14: 137–54.
24.
McQueenJMCutlerA (1998) Morphology in word recognition. In: ZwickyAMSpencerA (eds). The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell, 406–427.
25.
MeiselJM (1983) Transfer as a second-language strategy. Language and Communication3: 11–46.
26.
MillerPClarkM (2011) Phonemic awareness is not necessary to become a skilled readerJournal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities23: 459–76.
27.
MillerPKarginTGuldenogluB. (2012) Factors distinguishing skilled and less skilled deaf readers: Evidence from four orthographies. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education17: 439–62.
28.
PiñarPDussiasPMorfordJ (2011) Deaf readers as bilinguals: An examination of deaf readers’ print comprehension in light of current advances in bilingualism and second language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass5: 691–704.
29.
SiegelD (1977) Topics in English morphology. Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.
30.
SmithNTsimpliI (1995) The mind of a savant: Language learning and modularity. Oxford: Blackwell.
31.
SterneAGoswamiU (2000) Phonological awareness of syllables, on-set rime units and phonemes in deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry41: 609–26.
