slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 174 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories. Shallow Orthography. Deep Orthography. Phonetic Form. Phonetic Form. Morphophonological ‘like’ phonetic. Morphophonological ‘unlike’ phonetic. Reader needs little phonology.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later M. T. Turvey University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories' - ginata


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis: 25 Years Later

M. T. Turvey

University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories

slide2

Shallow Orthography

Deep Orthography

Phonetic Form

Phonetic Form

Morphophonological ‘like’ phonetic

Morphophonological ‘unlike’ phonetic

Reader needs little phonology

Reader needs lots of phonology

The Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (Mattingly and colleagues, 1980)

Part I: Lexical representation of written words

Linguistic (not visual)

Morphophonological (not phonetic)

Part II: Remoteness of orthography from phonetic form

slide3

WORD

Reaction Time

about 6/10 second

YORD

Reaction Time

about 7/10 second

Coltheart et al., 1979

“YES” RT:HAVE (phonologically irregular) = MUST (phonologically regular)

“NO” RT:MAVE (phonologically irregular) >>FUST (phonologically regular)

‘Deep’ Lexical Decision (“Is this a word?”)

Yes!

No!

slide4

Phonology

Lexicon

O

RTHOGRAPHY

WORD

Occasionally

(e.g., nonwords, rare words)

Routinely

Dual Route Theory

In a deep orthography, perhaps, the reader avoids the “lots of phonology”. Lexical access is routinely visual.

slide5

Cyrillic

Roman

common

C C D D

F GI L

A E O

Lj Nj Dz

J T K

SU ZZ

M

V

S

N

B

R

H

C

P

Vuk Karadzic

´

ˇ

Bialphabetic Readers of a Shallow Orthography

ambiguous

“Write as you speak and read as it is written”

slide6

RT

RT

“Unequivocal evidence for phonological code would be demonstration of its use in YES RT.”

BETAP

VETAR

HAVE

MUST

RT

RT

Lukatela at al. 1978, 1980

YES RT: Phonemically ambiguous BETAP >> phonemically unique VETAR

NO RT: phonemically ambiguous BEMAP >> phonemically unique VEMAR

BEMAP

VEMAR

MAVE

FUST

English Lexical Decision

Serbo-Croatian Lexical Decision with Fluent Bialphabetic readers

slide7

Serbo-Croatian Orthography

English Orthography

Hebrew Orthography

Phonetic Form

Phonetic Form

Phonetic Form

RT

RT

RT

N

LD

N

N

LD

LD

Frost, Katz, and Bentin (1987) Hypothesis

More shallow means smaller lexical role in naming relative to lexical decision

OR

Magnitude of [Lexical Decision RT - Naming RT] decreases with depth

slide8

600

575

550

525

500

W-W

PW-W

W-PW

PW-PW

Latency (ms)

Similar Dissimilar

Phonemic Relation

Can Naming a ‘Shallow’ Serbo-Croatian Letter String Benefit from a Visually Dissimilar but Phonemically Similar Prime? (Lukatela & Turvey, 1990; Lukatela et al., 1990)

Prime and Target Differ in Alphabet, Differ in Case

Effect of Phonemic Similarity is Indifferent to Lexical Composition of Prime-Target Sequence and to Visual Similarity.

slide9

*****

*****

AUTOMAT

time

appropriate W prime: ROBOT

ambiguous PW prime: POBOT

unique PW prime: RO OT

F

b

ROBOT

or

F

40

30

20

10

0

ROOT

Degree of Priming (ms)

70 250

SOA (ms)

In ‘Shallow’ Serbo-Croatian can (Phonologically Unique) Nonwords Activate Semantics Better than (Phonologically Ambiguous) Words?

slide10

Deep Dual Route Theory

Shallow Dual Route Theory

Lexicon

Phonology

Lexicon

Phonology

Orthography

Orthography

Phonological Coherence Theory

WORD

WORD

WORD

Semantics

Phonology

Orthography

slide11

XXXX

frog

TODR

XXXX

TODR

XXXX

TODE

XXXX

XXXX

TODE

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

frog

Reaction Time

Reaction Time

1st

mask

1st

mask

2nd

prime

2nd

prime

3rd

mask

3rd

mask

4th

target

4th

target

Masked Semantic Priming of Naming in ‘Deep’ English

“frog”

“frog”

TODE-frog RT < TODR-frog RT

slide12

BOWL

XXXX

BOWL

XXXX

bowl

XXXX

bend

BEND

Yes!

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

XXXX

BEND

Reaction Time

Reaction Time

1st

mask

1st

mask

2nd

prime

2nd

prime

3rd

mask

3rd

mask

4th

target

4th

target

Phonological Ambiguity Affects Identity Priming in English

Yes!

BEND-bend priming occurs at shorter time scales than BOWL-bowl priming

slide13

Shallow Orthography

Deep Orthography

Phonetic Form

Phonetic Form

Morphophonological ‘like’ phonetic

Morphophonological ‘unlike’ phonetic

Reader needs little phonology

Reader needs lots of phonology

Orthographic Depth: Remoteness of Orthography from Phonetic Form

Then:Orthographic Depth contributes to the formation of two different processing devices, one rule-based, one word-specific

Now:Orthographic Depth modulates a single (connectionist) device. Processing differences more quantitative than qualitative. Phonology is significant in reading via deep and shallow orthographies.

slide14

RT

KBLN

NZIR

The Very Deep Unpointed Hebrew

Naming Lexically Unequivocal Words that Differ in Phonological Ambiguity (in respect to ‘filling in’ missing vowels)

Frost (1995)

High Ambiguity: KBLN (“contractor”) read as /kablan/

Low Ambiguity: NZIR (“monk”) read as /nazir/

“Phonology is always assembled and always lexically shaped, but not holistically addressed.”