| تعداد نشریات | 24 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 859 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,631 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 13,515,240 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 11,637,824 |
Cross-Lingual Analysis of Pseudo-homophone Recognition in Language Learners: Phonological Evidence for Word Recognition | ||
| Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) | ||
| دوره 44، شماره 3، شهریور 2025، صفحه 109-123 اصل مقاله (395.6 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22099/tesl.2025.52604.3387 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad Saber Khaghaninejad* ؛ Rahim Fahandejsaadi؛ Ehsan Askarzade | ||
| Department of foreign languages and linguistics, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| This study aimed to examine the cross-lingual recognition of French and English words and their pseudo-homophones to verify the presence of Grapheme-Phoneme Conversion (GPC) for the word recognition of foreign language learners. Considering the study's purposes, 100 Iranian advanced English and French learners were chosen and recruited for the study through the convenience sampling procedure. The participants' homogeneity and proficiency level were checked with the aid of an English proficiency test (McMillan Placement Test (MPT)) and a French proficiency test (Test d'Évaluation de Français (TEF)) before the examination phase. To investigate the participants' reaction times for recognizing the real words, illegal nonwords, and legal nonwords (pseudo-homophones), a computerized test was designed that sought the participants' judgments about the presented linguistic construct on the screen. The employed words were chosen according to their morphological complexity, frequency, and length from the learners' course books. Data analysis revealed that pseudo-homophones were more challenging for both English and French learners to recognize; this was shown by their higher reaction time needed for recognizing pseudo-homophones compared with the real words and the illegal nonwords. Although the occurrence of GPC for both groups was attested, it was significantly stronger for the French learners. These findings suggest that word recognition is inherently a phonological process (not an orthographic one) among foreign language learners. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Reaction-time؛ Pseudo-homophones؛ Word Recognition؛ Grapheme-phoneme Conversion (GPC) | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Alario, F. X., & Ferrand, L. (2009). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 531-552.
Amenta, S., & Crepaldi, D. (2012). Morphological processing as we know it: An analytical review of morphological effects in visual word identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 232.
Bialystok, E., Luk, G., Peets, K. F., & Yang, S. (2010). Receptive vocabulary differences in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(4), 525-531.
Binder, J. R., Medler, D. A., Westbury, C. F., Liebenthal, E., & Buchanan, L. (2005). Tuning of the human left fusiform gyrus to sublexical orthographic structure. NeuroImage, 24(3), 914-921.
Brysbaert, M., Rastle, K., & Fréderic, F. (2009). The inertia of lexical selection: How frequent neighbors can slow down selection of target words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 138(4), 529-559.
Carreiras, M., & Perea, M. (2002). Masked priming effects with syllabic neighbors in the lexical decision task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1228-1242.
Cattel, J. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11, 63-65.
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review,100, 589–608.
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Locus of semantic interference in picture–word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 111-117.
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175-197.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18(1), 5-21.
Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47(2), 164-203.
French Institute Alliance Francaise (FIAF) (2022). https://fiaf.org/exams/tef-study/
Hawkey, R. & Milanovic, M. (2013). Cambridge English Exams. Cambridge University Press.
Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2006). On the time course of visual word recognition: An event-related potential investigation using masked repetition priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1631-1643.
Huntsman, L. A. (2007). Looks aren't Everything: Pseudo-homophones Prime Words but Nonwords do not. Journal of Psycholinguist Research 36, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9032-9
Jiang, N. & Pae, H. K. (2020). The Pseudo-homophone Effect in Visual Word Recognition in a Second Language. Rutledge.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Khaghaninejad, M., Saadabadi, H. & Chamacham, R. (2016). How does Mozart's music affect the reading comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners of both genders? International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 12, 488-499
Larionova, E & Garakh, Z. (2024). Spelling principles matter: An ERP study investigating the processing of different types of pseudo-homophones. Brain research, 15, 1839-1856.
Larionova, E., Garakh, Z. & Martynova, O. (2023). Top-down modulation of brain responses in spelling error recognition. Acta Psychologica, 23(5), 103-126.
Larionova, E., Rebreikina, A. & Martynova, O. (2024). Electrophysiological signatures of spelling sensitivity development from primary school age to adulthood. Scientific reports, 14(1), 75-85.
Lupker, S. & Pexman, P. (2010). Making Things Difficult in Lexical Decision: The Impact of Pseudo-homophones and Transposed-Letter Nonwords on Frequency and Semantic Priming Effects. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning memory and cognition, 36(5), 1267-1287.
Macmillan straight forward Placement Tests (2022). Language Hub. WWW.Macmillan.pl/files/Langiage_Hub_Placement_Test_with_key.PDF
Mechelli, A., Crinion, J. T., Noppeney, U., O'Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Price, C. J. (2003). Neurolinguistics: Structural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431(10), 757-768.
Nation, P. (2003). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge
New, B., ferrand, L., pallier, C. (2006). Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: New evidence from the English Lexicon Project. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 45–52 (2006).
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional literacy (pp. 189-213). John Benjamins Publishing.
Perry, C., Ziegler, J. C., & Zorzi, M. (2007) Nesting Incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: The CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychological Review, 114, 273-315.
Pinson, C. (2019). Edito. Diddier publications.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103(1), 56-115.
Pugh, K. R., Sandak, R., Frost, S. J., Moore, D., & Mencl, W. E. (2005). Examining reading development and reading disabilities in English language learners: Potential contributions from functional neuroimaging. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 24–30. Rastle, K. (2013). Visual Word Recognition. Neurobiology of Language, 24, 255-263.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.
Rueckl J. G. (2010). Connectionism and the Role of Morphology in Visual Word Recognition. Mental Lexicon, 5(3), 371-400.
Shojayee, S., Khaghaninejad, M. S., Najafi, M. (2018). Family communication patterns of individuals with and without learning disabilities. Health psychology research, 6, 16-21.
Snowling & C. Hulme (2006). The science of reading: A handbook. Blackwell Publishing.
Spieler, D. H., Watson, J. M., & Zirnstein, P. C. (2016). Pseudo-homophones: Lexical ambiguity challenges reading fluency in adults. Reading Psychology, 37(3), 236-257.
Spivey, J. M., McRae, K., Joanisse, F. M. (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Warren, P. (2013). Introducing to Psycholinguistics (1st edition). Cambridge University Press.
Yap, M. J., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Visual word recognition. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 26–43). Oxford University Press.
Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading development and dyslexia. Oxford University Press. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 48 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 35 |
||