Что время чтения говорит нам о влиянии орфографической регулярности? Свидетельства английских и итальянских читателей
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33910/2686-9527-2023-5-3-345-365Ключевые слова:
чтение, орфографическая глубина, время реакции, лексическое решение, быстрое визуальное последовательное представлениеАннотация
Введение. Мы исследуем влияние орфографической глубины, сосредоточив внимание на английском и итальянском языках, двух языках с совершенно разной орфографией.
Материалы и методы. Мы рассматриваем ряд исследований, сравнивающих английских и итальянских читателей по показателям времени, в частности, по времени реакции (RTs). Преимущество таких мер заключается в том, что существуют модели обработки, обеспечивающие полезную основу для интерпретации (например, модель скорости и объема, модель оперативной памяти и разностного механизма, DEM). Данные показывают, что английские дети, как правило, менее точны, но не медленнее, чем итальянские дети; кроме того, они более вариативны, чем итальянские читатели, и эта тенденция подтверждается различными парадигмами (например, «быстрое визуальное последовательное представление») и возрастными группами (например, молодежь). В то время как данные итальянских детей очень хорошо согласуются с прогнозами RAM и DEM, данные английских детей показали несколько отклонений от этих моделей. Таким образом, мы исследовали, могут ли различия в стратегии (или критерии реагирования) объяснить такие отклонения. В исследовании принятия лексических решений, основанном на диффузионной модели, английские молодые люди показали более мягкий критерий, т. е. им требовалось меньше доказательств, чтобы принять решение о лексическом качестве стимула. Опираясь на «модель множественного считывания» (MROM), мы предполагаем, что неправильность английской орфографии может способствовать использованию критерия Σ (на основе общих данных), в то время как обычная итальянская орфография может способствовать использованию критерия M (на основе данных для конкретного слова).
Результаты исследования. В целом мы выдвинули две рабочие гипотезы для интерпретации общей картины экспериментальных результатов. Во-первых, особенности английской орфографии (возможно, подчеркнутые используемым методом обучения) способствуют глобальному, лексическому подходу к распознаванию слов. Во-вторых, не все дети могут эффективно полагаться на такую глобальную обработку, и это может быть основным источником больших индивидуальных различий, присутствующих среди английских наблюдателей.
Заключение. Понимание источника этих индивидуальных различий по-прежнему представляет собой сложную задачу для будущих исследований.
Библиографические ссылки
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S. et al. (2001) Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 97–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-001-0007-0 (In English)
Bowers, J. S. (2020) Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09515-y (In English)
Bowers, J. S. (2021) Yes children need to learn their GPCs but there really is little or no evidence that systematic or explicit phonics is effective: A response to Fletcher, Savage, and Sharon (2020). Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1965–1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09602-z (In English)
Braun, M., Jacobs, A. M., Richlan, F. et al. (2015) Many neighbors are not silent. fMRI evidence for global lexical activity in visual word recognition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 9, article 423. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00423 (In English)
Brysbaert, M. (2019) How many words do we read per minute? A review and meta-analysis of reading rate. Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 109, article 104047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104047 (In English)
Buckingham, J. (2020) Systematic phonics instruction belongs in evidence-based reading programs: A response to Bowers. Educational and Developmental Psychologist, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2020.12 (In English)
Burani, C., Thornton, A., Zoccolotti, P. (2017) Learning to read Italian. In: L. Verhoeven, C. Perfetti (eds.). Learning to Read across Languages and Writing Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–242. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316155752.009 (In English)
Carreiras, M., Perea, M., Grainger, J. (1997) Effects of ortho-graphic neighborhood in visual word recognition: Cross-task comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 857–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.4.857 (In English)
Carver, R. P. (1992) Reading rate: Theory, research, and practical implications. Journal of Reading, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 84–95. (In English)
Chateau, D., Lupker, S. J. (2003) Strategic effects in word naming: Examining the route-emphasis versus time-criterion accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.139 (In English)
Ciuffo, M., Myers, J., Ingrassia, M. et al. (2017) How fast can we read in the mind? Developmental trajectories of silent reading fluency. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1667–1686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9744-2 (In English)
Cooper, L. A. (1980) Spatial information processing: Strategies for research. In: R. E. Snow, P. Federico, W. E. Montague (eds.). Aptitude, learning, and instruction. Vol. 1. Cognitive process analyses of aptitude. London: Routledge Publ., pp. 149–176. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003162865 (In English)
Cooper, L. A. (1982) Strategies for visual comparison and representation: Individual differences. In: R. J. Sternberg (ed.). Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence. Vol. 1. Hillsdale; New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publ., pp. 77–124. (In English)
Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Callahan, M. (2009) Starting small: Building preschool teacher knowledge that supports early literacy development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9164-z (In English)
Cunningham, A., O’Donnell, C. (2015) Teachers’ knowledge about beginning reading development and instruction. In: A. Pollatsek, R. Treiman (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 447–462. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2560.6567 (In English)
Daniels, P. T., Share, D. L. (2018) Writing system variation and its consequences for reading and dyslexia. Scientific Studies of Reading, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2017.1379082 (In English)
De Luca, M., Burani, C., Paizi, D. et al. (2010) Letter and letter-string processing in developmental dyslexia. Cortex, vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1272–1283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2009.06.007 (In English)
De Moor, W., Verguts, T., Brysbaert, M. (2005) Testing the multiple in the multiple read-out model of visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1502–1508. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1502 (In English)
Dufau, S., Grainger, J., Ziegler, J. C. (2012) How to say “no” to a nonword: A leaky competing accumulator model of lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 1117–1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026948 (In English)
Ellis, N. C., Hooper, A. M. (2002) Why learning to read is easier in Welsh than in English: Orthographic transparency effects evinced with frequency-matched tests. Applied Psycholinguistics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 571–599. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401004052 (In English)
Ellis, N. C., Natsume, M., Stavropoulou, K. et al. (2004) The effects of orthographic depth on learning to read alphabetic, syllabic, and logographic scripts. Reading Research Quarterly, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 438–468. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.39.4.5 (In English)
Faust, M. E., Balota, D. A., Spieler, D. H., Ferraro, F. R. (1999) Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 125, no. 6, pp. 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777 (In English)
Fletcher, J. M., Savage, R., Vaughn, S. (2021) A commentary on Bowers (2020) and the role of phonics instruction in reading. Educational Psychology Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 1249–1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09580-8 (In English)
Frost, R. (2012) Towards a universal model of reading. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001841 (In English)
Grainger, J. (2018) Orthographic processing: A ‘mid-level’ vision of reading: The 44th Sir Frederic Bartlett Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1314515 (In English)
Grainger, J., Jacobs, A. M. (1996) Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 518–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518 (In English)
Hanley, R., Masterson, J., Spencer, L., Evans, D. (2004) How long do the advantages of learning to read a transparent orthography last? An investigation of the reading skills and reading impairment of Welsh children at 10 years of age. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 1393–1410. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000819 (In English)
Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C. (2000) Strategic control in word reading: Evidence from speeded responding in the tempo-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 719–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.3.719 (In English)
Kello, C. T., Plaut, D. C. (2003) Strategic control over rate of processing in word reading: A computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00512-0 (In English)
Kinoshita, S., Lupker, S. J. (2002) Effects of filler type in naming: Change in time criterion or attentional control of pathways? Memory & Cognition, vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1277–1287. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213409 (In English)
Kinoshita, S., Lupker, S. J. (2003) Priming and attentional control of lexical and sublexical pathways in naming: A reevaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 405–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.405 (In English)
Landerl, K. (2000) Influences of orthographic consistency and reading instruction on the development of nonword reading skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 239–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03173177 (In English)
Levene, H. (1960) Robust Tests for equality of variances. In: I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding et al. (eds.). Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 278–292. (In English)
Los, S. A. (1996) On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 145–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00050-X (In English)
Lupker, S. J., Brown, P., Colombo, L. (1997) Strategic control in a naming task: Changing routes or changing deadlines? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 570–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.3.570 (In English)
Lupker, S. J., Kinoshita, S., Coltheart, M., Taylor, T. E. (2003) Mixing costs and mixing benefits in naming words, pictures, and sums. Journal of Memory and Language, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 556–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00094-9 (In English)
Marinelli, C., Horne, J., McGeown, S. et al. (2014) Does the mean adequately represent reading performance? Evidence from a cross-linguistic study. Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 5, article 903. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00903 (In English)
Marinelli, C. V., Romani, C., Burani, C. et al. (2016) Costs and benefits of orthographic inconsistency in reading: Evidence from a cross-linguistic comparison. PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 6, article e0157457. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157457 (In English)
Marinelli, C. V., Zoccolotti, P., Romani, C. (2020) The ability to learn new written words is modulated by language orthographic consistency. PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 2, article e0228129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228129 (In English)
Marinelli, C. V., Romani, C., McGowan, V. A. et al. (2022) Characterization of reading errors in languages with different orthographic regularity: an Italian-English comparison. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science. Special Issue on “Dyslexia and Culture”. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1828524/v1 (accessed 17.04.2023). (In English)
Monsell, S., Patterson, K. E., Graham, A. et al. (1992) Lexical and sublexical translation of spelling to sound: Strategic anticipation of lexical status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.3.452 (In English)
Mauti, M., Marinelli, C. V., O’Connor, R. et. al. (2023) Decision times in reading and face-gender tasks: A cross linguistic study. Experimental Brain Research, vol. 241, no. 2, pp. 585–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-022-06542-0 (In English)
Moats, L. C. (1994) The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02648156 (In English)
Moats, L. (2007) Whole-Language High Jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Institute Publ., 33 p. (In English)
Myerson, J., Hale, S., Zheng, Y. et al. (2003) The difference engine: A model of diversity in speeded cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 262–288. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196491 (In English)
National Reading Panel. (2000) Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington: National Institutes of Health Publ. [Online]. Available at: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf (accessed 20.12.2022). (In English)
Paizi, D., Burani, C., Zoccolotti, P. (2010) List context effects in reading words and pseudo-words in Italian: Can word frequency effects be eliminated? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 1039–1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440903216492 (In English)
Patel, T. K., Snowling, M. J., de Jong, P. F. (2004) A cross-linguistic comparison of children learning to read in English and Dutch. Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 785–797. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.785 (In English)
Ratcliff, R. (1978) A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59 (In English)
Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G. (2008) The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 873–922. https://doi.org/10.1162/neco.2008.12-06-420 (In English)
Rose, J. (2006) Independent review of the teaching of early reading final report. London: UK Department for Education and Skills Publ. [Online]. Available at: https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5551/2/report.pdf (accessed 16.02.2023). (In English)
Rubin, G. S., Turano, K. (1992) Reading without saccadic eye movements. Vision Research, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 895–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(92)90032-E (In English)
Schmalz, X., Marinus, E., Coltheart, M., Castles, A. (2015) Getting to the bottom of orthographic depth. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 1614–1629. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0835-2 (In English)
Schmalz, X., Mulatti, C., Schulte-Korne, G., Moll, K. (2022) Effects of complexity and unpredictability on the learning of an artificial orthography. Cortex, vol. 152, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2022.03.014 (In English)
Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., Erskine, J. M. (2003) Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 143–174. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661859 (In English)
Share, D. L. (2008) On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 134, no. 4, pp. 584–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.584 (In English)
Spencer, L. H., Hanley, J. R. (2003) Effects of orthographic transparency on reading and phoneme awareness in children learning to read in Wales. British Journal of Psychology, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842075 (In English)
Spieler, D. H. (2001) Modelling age-related changes in information processing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, vol. 13, no. 1-2, pp. 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440125907 (In English)
Taylor, T. E., Lupker, S. J. (2001) Sequential effects in naming: A time-criterion account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 117–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.117 (In English)
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., Richmond-Welty, E. D. (1995) The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, vol. 124, no. 2, pp. 107–136. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.124.2.107 (In English)
Yap, M. J., Balota, D. A., Sibley, D. E., Ratcliff, R. (2012) Individual differences in visual word recognition: Insights from the English Lexicon Project. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024177 (In English)
Verhaeghen, P., Cerella, J. (2002) Aging, executive control, and attention: A review of meta-analyses. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 849–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(02)00071-4 (In English)
Wagenmakers, E.-J., Brown, S. (2007) On the linear relation between the mean and the standard deviation of a response time distribution. Psychological Review, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 830–841. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.830 (In English)
Wimmer, H., Goswami, U. (1994) The influence of orthographic consistency on reading development: Word recognition in English and German children. Cognition, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90010-8 (In English)
Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Ma-Wyatt, A. et al. (2003) Developmental dyslexia in different languages: Language-specific or universal? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00139-5 (In English)
Ziegler, J. C., Goswami, U. (2005) Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 131, no. 1, pp. 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.3 (In English)
Zoccolotti, P., de Luca, M., Judica, A., Spinelli, D. (2008) Isolating global and specific factors in developmental dyslexia: A study based on the rate and amount model (RAM). Experimental Brain Research, vol. 186, no. 4, pp. 551–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-007-1257-9 (In English)
Zoccolotti, P., de Luca, M., di Filippo, G. et al. (2018) Reading and lexical decision tasks generate different patterns of individual variability as a function of condition difficulty. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1161–1169. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1335-3 (In English)
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2023 Кьяра Валерия Маринелли, Мариалуиза Мартелли, Эмилиано Пицциканнелла, Пьерлуиджи Дзокколотти
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0 Всемирная.
Автор предоставляет материалы на условиях публичной оферты и лицензии CC BY-NC 4.0. Эта лицензия позволяет неограниченному кругу лиц копировать и распространять материал на любом носителе и в любом формате, но с обязательным указанием авторства и только в некоммерческих целях.
Авторы сохраняют авторские права на статью и могут использовать материалы опубликованной статьи при подготовке других публикаций, а также пользоваться печатными или электронными копиями статьи в научных, образовательных и иных целях. Право на номер журнала как составное произведение принадлежит издателю.
