Abstract
AbstractTests of nonword reading have been instrumental in adjudicating between theories of reading and in assessing individuals’ reading skill in educational and clinical practice. It is generally assumed that the way in which readers pronounce nonwords reflects their long-term knowledge of spelling–sound correspondences that exist in the writing system. The present study found considerable variability in how the same adults read the same 50 nonwords across five sessions. This variability was not all random: Nonwords that consisted of graphemes that had multiple possible pronunciations in English elicited more intraparticipant variation. Furthermore, over time, shifts in participants’ responses occurred such that some pronunciations became used more frequently, while others were pruned. We discuss possible mechanisms by which session-to-session variability arises and implications that our findings have for interpreting snapshot-based studies of nonword reading. We argue that it is essential to understand mechanisms underpinning this session-to-session variability in order to interpret differences across individuals in how they read nonwords aloud on a single occasion.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Reference28 articles.
1. Andrews, S., & Scarratt, D. R. (1998). Rule and analogy mechanisms in reading nonwords: Hough dou peapel rede gnew wirds? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(4), 1052–1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.4.1052
2. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX lexical database [CD-ROM]. Linguistic Data Consortium.
3. Barton, K. (2009). MuMIn: Multi-model inference (R Package Version 1.43.17). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn
4. Bates, D. M., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5. Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., McCormick, S. F., & Keuleers, E. (2019). Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1077-9
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献