conversion rules? - CiteSeerX

Memory & Cognition I 982, Vol. 10(5), 465-474

An alternative to grapheme-phoneme

conversionrules? MARCUS TAFT Uniyersitt o! New South Wsles,Kentingto4 Nev South lfoles 2033,Au*rslia

[ I I

When orthographic factors wcro tightly controlled in a lerical decision task, it wae obg€rvod that orthog?aphic similarity rather than honophony with a word led to increased r€action timos to nonwords. This result suggested that the pseudohomophone eff€ct is not a phonological effect. Inst€ad, a convugion of the graphemee of a stimulus itsn into different graphemeo via a eet of graphemegrapheme conversion rulee was eupported. When phonological factora were tightly controlled and orthographic similarity varied, evidence for the eristance of grapheme-grapheme rules was provided in both a lerical decision task and a tack in rhich were required to say whether an it€m wa8 pronounced in the same way as a word. "objecte Even in the lattar task, in which the likelihood of phouological recoding was optimized, it appeared that graphemephonene rules were rarely, if ever, used.

I

The finding that nonwords are classifiedin a lexical decisiontask more slowly when they are pronouncedin the sameway as a real word (e.g.,BRANE) than when they are not (e.9.,BRATE), has been taken as evidence that nonwords are convertedinto a phonologicalrepresentation via grapheme-phoneme rule conversionwhen they are processed(Coltheart, Davelaar,Jonasson,& Besner, 1977; Gough & Cosky, 1977; Patterson & Marcel, 1977; Rubenstein,Lewis, & Rubenstein,l97l). This has been called the pseudohomophoneeffect. On the other hand, the failure to consistently find such a homophone effect for word items has been taken as evidence that words arc nolmally processedon the basis of their orthography rather than their phonology (Coltheart, 1978;Coltheartet al., 1977). Takentogether, the presenceof a pseudohomophoneeffect and the general lack of a homophone effect for words implies that there are two accessroutes to the lexicon. one visual and one phonological, and that both are used when processingprinted material. However,the phonological route is slower than the visual one and exerts an influence on responsetimes only when the visual route fails to find a lexical entry, that is, when the item presentedis a nonword. Following from this, the pseudohomophoneeffect has been used as a diagnosticto test the extent to which a readerusesphonologicalrules.For example,Patterson and Marcel (1977) report two dyslexic patientswhose failure to produce a pseudohomophoneeffect (along with their inability to read nonwords) was taken to mean that these patients had a deficit in their ability to convert the printed word into its phonologicalform by rule. Related to the pseudohomophoneeffect is a task that requires subjects to explicitly report whether a nonword is pronounced in the sameway as a proper word (e.9., BRANE) or not (e.9., BRATE). Again, the ability to perform this task hasbeenusedasa diagnostic

Copyright1982Psychonomic Society,Inc.

of a reader'sability to use grapheme-phoneme rules. For example, Saffran and Marin (1977) examined the pattern of errors made on this task by a dyslexic patient and concludedthat the patientwasunableto usephonological conversionrules. Ability to perform this task was also used by Baron and Strawson(1976) to determine whether a group of normal readerswas phonologically oriented or visually oriented. The assumptionthat is made in explainingboth the pseudohomophoneeffect and the ability to saywhether or not a nonword is pronounced like a word is that a phonologicalrepresentationof the nonword is generated by a set of grapheme-phoneme conversionrules and that this is then matched with a phonologically represented lexical entry. In order to be certain that this assumption is correct, however, it must be shown that pseudohomophonesdo not show their effects simply because they are orthographically more similar to real words than are nonhomophonic nonwords. For this reason, Coltheartet al.(1977) attemptedto match their pseudohomophones and their nonhomophonic nonwords on orthographic similarity to English. They did this by changingonly one letter of each pseudohomophoneto form a nonhomophone. For example, the pseudohomophone ILE was matched with the nonhomophone IFE, and FRAZE was matched with FRUZE. Coltheart et al. supposed that the changing of only one letter meant that the nonhomophoneswere just as orthographicallysimilar to real words as were the pseudohomophones.But that is not really true. For example, ILE is orthographically more similar to a word (ISLE) than IFE is and FRAZE is orthographicallymore similar to a word (PHRASE) than FRUZE is. To be sure that orthographic similarity is not confounded with homophony, then, one must use pseudohomophones and nonhomophonesthat are matched exactly on their similarity to real words. This can be achievedin the following way.

465

I 0$0r .2slo 0090-s02x | 821os046s-

466

TAFT

There are orthographic structuresin English that can be pronounced in more than one way (e'g', O-STin GHOST and FROST). If one constructsa pseudohomophone by changing such an orthographic structure appropriately(e.g., GHOAST)' then one can also consiruct- a nonhomophone by making exactly the same change (e.g., FROAST). In this way, the nonhomophoric nonword is related orthographically to a_real word in exactly the sameway asthe pseudohomophone is. Therefote, if the pseudohomophonefindings results from phonological recoding rather than orthographic similarity, then pseudohomophones like GHOAST should i.kr lottger to classify as nonwords than should nonhomophoneslike FROAST. If, on the other !*d' the effect is an orthographic one, then GHOAST and FROAST should take equally longer to classify iN non' words than a nonword like PLOAST, which is not orthographically related to a real word. Experiment I was carriedout to test thesepredictions. EXPERIMENT I Method Materials.Threetypesofnonwordwereconsttucted:pseudo. that homophones (H-nonword condition), nonhomophones. were orthographically similar to a word (o-nonword condition), to a and nonhoirophon"r that were not orthographically similar word (N-nonword condition). There were 20 nonwords in each In condition, matched in triplets on their orthographic structureand addition, the words from which the H-condition nonwords theo-conditionnonwordswerederivedwerematchedoverall items on log frequency according to Carroll, Davies, and Richman ( I 97 1). Eximples of iiem tripleti were : GHOAST (from GHOST)' (from FROST), PLOAST; PLEED (from PLEAD), inOaSr (fiom GERM)' DREED (from DREAD), CLEED; and JERM preJIFT (from GIFT), JILK. All of the nonword items are sented in the aPPendix. The word items used in the experiment were also set up in order to look at the effects of orthographic similarity to other words. Fifteen H-condition words (i'e', homophonic words' like PANE) were compared to 15 nonhomophonic control and words matched on frequency and length (e'g" fE\K)' were 15 Ocondition words (i.e., nonhomophonic words that orthographically similar to another word; like GREET, which is similar io GREAT) were compared to 15 matched control words (e.g., CREST). The H-condition words could not be the compared- directly to the o-condition words because of difficultyoffindingappropriatelymatcheditems.Thegraphemic ending of each n-ionOition word was always a less frequently ending than that of the word with which it was homoo"",rring "Fot -ANE is a less common ending than is .tu*ple, phonic. -RtN. ltr addition, each H-condition word was always less frequent than the word with which it was homophonic (e'g'' iANO is less frequent than PAIN). The same principles were -EET is a followed with thJ Ocondition words. For example, -EAT and GREET is a less frequent less frequent ending than is word than is GREAT. Procedure. Subjects were presented the stimulus items in one on a of four different iandom orders. Stimuli wele presented item video display unit under computer control, with each b e i n g p-sutjects resentedforS00msec.Theinterstimulusintervalwas were instructed to press a right-hand "yes" + seJ. presented was a word and to press a leftitem if ifre button hand "no" button if ttre item presented was not a word' They were also told to respond as quickly, but as accurately' as they could.

Thirty subjects were used in the experiment, each being given course accre{itation for their participation'

Results Table 1 provides the mean reaction times for the nonword and word items of the first experiment' An analysis of the reaction times to the nonwords revealedthat, while the H nonwords differed from the N nonwords[min F'(1,50)= 8.67, p '051'aswasthedifferencebetween th;-H conditioni and the O conditions [Ft(l ,29)= 8 . 2 8 7 , p 1 . 0 2 ; F z ( l , 5 6 ) =2 . 1 1 5 ,p > . 0 5 1 ' T h e i n t e r action 6etween these two effects was not significant (min F'< l). Analysis of the errorsrevealedno significant differences. Discussion It is apparent from the data that the pseudohomophone efiect may not be a phonological effect at all' Fseudohomophonesdid not differ in the experiment from those nonwords that were not homophonic with but were orthographically similar to words. Therefore, it appearsthat the orthographic similarity of pseudohomophones to real words is sufficient to produce a delay in classificationtimes relativeto nonwordsthat are not similar to real words. Table I Mean Reaction fimes (in Milliseconds) and standard Errors Along with Percentage Error Rate @E) for the Nonword

and Word Items of ExPeriment I

Condition

H Nonwords O Nonwords N Nonwords H H O O

Words Control Words Words Control Words

PE

Example

RT

Nonwords GHOAST FROAST PLOAST

750 7s2 7t5

26 29 25

9

664

26

6s7 6s0

2r 24

617

20

I2 11 8 4

Words PANE JERK GREET CREST

n J

GRAPHEME-PHONEMERULES

467

Such a conclusionhasmajor implicationsfor theories Jonasson (1978) have found that the homophone of word recognition that cite the pseudohomophone effect is also open to strategic control, thus implying effect as evidencefor the use of grapheme-phoneme the use of rules. Davelaaret al. obtaineda homophone were not included conversionrules. According to the presentresults,the for words when pseudohomophones pseudohomophoneeffect should be seeninstead as the in the experiment, but no effect when they were. result of confusionsresulting from visual access(that is, Possibly, then, the lack of any effects significant by accessthat is not mediated by a phonologicalcode). min F' for the word items in the presentexperiment Similarly, when a dyslexic patient fails to produce a was a result of there being nonwords in the experipseudohomophoneeffect (Patterson& Marcel, 1977), ment that were orthographically similar to real words. the resultspresentedhere would imply that the patient If there had been no such nonwords, then significant is simply not being influencedby orthographicsimilarity. effects on the word items might have been observed. If the pseudohomophoneeffect and the homophone This, however, seemsto be untrue. On the contrary, Saffran and Marin (1977) have demonstratedthat such effect are under strategiccontrol and if the explanation dyslexic patients are very much influenced by ortho- for these effects is in terms of orthographic similarity graphic similarity when required to make a response (as suggestedby Experiment1), then that impliesthat about the pronunciation of an item. For example, a the orthographic similarity involved is rule governed. The purposeof the secondexperiment,therefore,is to patient might say that MANOR is homophonic with look more directly at the question of the existenceof MINOR, rather than with MANNER, or that RAYNE is pronouncedas RAYON, rather than RAIN. How can rule-governedorthographic similarity, that is, the existconversionrules. enceof grapheme-grapheme this fact be reconcilablewith the presentresults? It is possible that there are in fact two types of EXPERJI\{ENT 2 orthographic similarity: gross graphemic similarity and rule-governedsimilarity. The former is a matter of the In Experiment 1, it was found that nonwords that similarity of the overall graphemicpattern of the pre(e.g.,RAYNE were orthographically similar to words took longer to senteditem with the word that is accessed and RAYON are orthographically similar in this way). classify than those that were nott It is unclearfrom this The latter refers to the interchanging of particular experiment, however, what type of orthographicsimigraphemeswith other graphemesthat can be pro- larity was involved. The O nonwords were more similar nounced identically and that do not violate laws of to words than were the N nonwords, both on gross basis. orthographic cooccurrence(called orthotactic rules by graphemiccharacteristicsand on a rule-governed In order to separatethesetwo types of orthographic Taft, 1979a).For example,EA, and EE are interchangeable in this way, but EA and OA are not. Hence,NEAT similarity, two nonword conditions were designed so and NEET are orthographically similar in this sense, that they were matched on their general graphemic but NEAT and NOAT are not. Similarly, DREAD and similarity to other words (and phonemic similarity) DREED are orthographically similar, even though they but varied in the nature of this similarity. For example, are not homophonic with each other. G and J can be CHEECE is as graphemically(and phonemically)similar interchangeablealso,but not in every environment.For to CHEESEas BREECEis to BREEZE.Yet C and S are example,they can be interchangedin GIMP, but not in interchangeablein the sense that they both can be GRIMP or LING, since JR and NJ are orthotactic pronounced in the sameway, whereasC and Z cannot. violations. Possibly,then, normal subjectsare influenced Hence, if lexical decision items are slowed by orthoby the rule-governedtype of orthographic similarity graphic similarity of a grossgraphemictype only, then when performing the lexical decision task, whereas CHEECE (O condition) should not differ from BREECE dyslexic subjects are unable to apply these grapheme- (G condition). If, on the other hand, they are slowedby grapheme conversion rules and are influenced solely the fact that the application of grapheme-grapheme rules leadsto the erroneousaccessing of a lexicalentry, by grossgraphemicsimilarity. McQuade(1981) has reported that the size of the then O-condition nonwords should take longer to pseudohomophoneeffect is variable, depending upon classify as nonwords than G-condition nonwords. Note rules are applied, rather the strategiesadopted by the subjects.This impliesthat also that if grapheme-phoneme rules, then the two conditions the pseudohomophone effect must be explained in than grapheme-grapheme terms of someprocedureover which subjectshavesome should not differ either, since /Ui:s/ (the pronunciation control (either conscious or unconscious).Delay in of CHEECE) is as similar to lti'zl (the pronunciation reaction time through gross graphemic confusions of CHEESE)as /bri:s/ (the pronunciationof BREECE) between nonwords and words is unlikely to be under is to /bri:z/ (the pronunciationof BREEZE). strategic control. Application of rules, on the other hand, could easily be open to strategiccontrol: But Method Materials. Twenty O-condition nonwords were matched with rather than grapheme-phonemerules, as McQuade 20 G-condition nonwords on orthographic structure. An item proposes, these rules could be grapheme-graphemewas considered to be an O . 0 5 1. pronunciation cannot be carried out and, hence, the error is maintained. Normal readersmay also generate Discussion RAYON from RAYNE but reject it when the"phono_ Looking at the pseudohomophonesfirst, it can be logical check fails. on the othei hand, the word RerN, seen that a decision about th; pronunciation of an generatedby grapheme-grapheme conversion,would be item is influenced by orthographiciactors. If pronunciaacceptedafter the phonologicalcheckis made. tion were determined primarily by grapheme_phoneme The main problem with the view expressedin this rules (even as a_backupto failed diieci visuj access), paper is, of course,the counterintuitivenature of the then. the only factor influencing performance shourd existence of grapheme-graphemerules. Graphemebe the difficulty of applying such-rules. This experi_ phoneme rules have been rationarizedby assumiigirr.t ment holds constantthis factor of rure difficulty and yet beginning readers make use of their already Jxtant tinds that the more orthographically similar ih. non- phonologically accessiblelexicon by simply ,on*rtrng word is to the word, the more difficurt is the response. the written word into a phonological fbrm. The eviIf. grapheme-phonemerules are used at all, the|cer_ dence presented here, however, suggeststhat adult tainly appear to play very much a secondaryrole to readersno longer do this, at least ., tli. primary means visual access.Together with the findings of'the preof vious experiment,it can be said that, evenin a task .word recognition. lnstead, phonoiogi.j u...r, that might be seenas a backup for visuil u...rr-*hen visual optimizes the likelihood that grapheme-phoneme rules accessfails (as also suggestedby coltheart). But when will be used,the applicationof graptremr_g.upt e.e rules doesvisualaccessfail in everydayreading? appearsto be the preferredmethod of periorming the One encounters nonwords in norm-al reading only task. when one reads new words, proper narnes,misprints, _ The finding of a delay in reactiontimes to nonhomo_ misspellings. Application of grapheme_phoneme phones for which grapheme-graphemerules can be rules will be of use in understandingn.w *o.ds o, applied further supports this view. with items like proper namesonly if thosewords havebeen encountered RAWL, there is a needto try out a numberof grapheme_ before verbally and if they have a regularpronunciation. graphemeconversionsbefore a ..no', ,.rponi, ,an U, Even then, it is possiblefor there to havetrrr, * ortho_ made. With items like TARL, subjects can respond graphic representationset up when the word was first more rapidly becausethe absenceof any appropriut. encountered verbally (cf. Tanenhaus, Flanigan, & grapheme-grapheme rules means that tho item clrnot S.eid enberg, 1980), hencerenderingphonologi..ll onurrbe homophonicwith a word. sion unnecessary.Grapheme-phoneme conversionwourd be of use in understandinga misprint or a misspelling GENERAL DISCUSSION only if the error wete phonologicaflyidentical toln, intended word. If it were not, only gross graphemic -However, - Taken together, the four experimentsreported raise approximation would lead to recognition. doubts about the existenceof i phonologicalroute to when grapheme-phoneme conversion could be used.

472

TAFT of orthographic

equally GlusHxo, R. J. The organizationand activation P:y' grapheme-graphemeconversion could be as knowledge in readini aloud' Journal of Expe!m9nt-?!. as there 614'691' 5' 1919' P-erformonce' .is Efiectivet/ used. It seems,therefore, that iiotogl: numon Perciption-and B., & cosiv, M. J' one secondof readingagain' much of a rationale in postulating grapheme-grapheme G;;;;:i. -i; grapheme-phoneme D- B. Pisoni,& G' R' Potts (Eds')' Cognitive postulating n.'Castelian, of is conversionas there ' N'J: Erlbaum,1977 Hillsdale, 2). ii*ry(Vol. conversionin normal adult word recognition'aystexiaand beginningreading:A revised Surfa.. J. frf^*"r",'e. ^'--h;;ili.ris conbe In Grapheme-phonemerules, however' mght of the pronunciationof print and its impairments' beginning (Eds')' Deep sidered important in word recognition for the tri. Cottt."rt, K. E. Patterson,& J' C' Marshall a iytirio. London: Routledge& KeganPaul' 1980' iiua.t. Tlie child enters the reading situation with information basis' M;6-;;;;, b. v. variable .ili"n.. bn phonological lexicon that is accessibleonly on a phonologicalLanguogeand Speech'lg8l' 24' recognition' word visual in phonological a into word can be converted If the printed -on 99-109. and the the basis of rules, then the already extant pirrr*ron, form K.E., & Mlncrl, A. J. Aphasia,dyslex-ia -';h;;ldical of need used Journal rules the However, written^I"-t9:' Quarterlv coding-oi lexicon can be accessed. I 8' the 307-3 be 22, gv, 7 may 127 rulesbut, rather' Exie rimZntal PsvchoIo : nol U. grapheme'phoneme u., it*ttl-S. s', & Runrxstntn' M' A' Evidence grapheme-ptonuniiation rules that adults possibly use R;;;;t;;;", Journol of for phonemi. ,..oainj in visual word recognition. this 645-657. In betermi.tit g the pronunciation of nonwords' By 1971,10, Behavior, ierbat and verbalLearning rule without phono.logy: account, ttre child overtly pronouncesthe word by s"".*"n, n. u., b Menrn, o. s. M. Reading Psynormal the Evidencefrom aphasia.QuortertyJournal of Experimentol and then the output of this passesthrough read I 5-526' can 5 29, child 1917, the is, T-hat chologY, speech recognition system. L...tt via an orthographic-code: The,Basic is T;;-Ivi.'iexiial -'Orif,ogr"ptric onty UV tp.utittg thi word aloud, and, in fact' that Structure (BOSS)' Journal of Verbol Svffalic transi .*u.tly w'hat belinning readersseemto do' The VerbolBehavior,l9?9' lt' 21-39'(a) Lrirning'ond a frequency tion to silent reading-might take place either when M."i..ognition of affixed words and the word T;*, (b) when or1979,1,26t'272' acquired is Cognition, & route Memoiy .rii.t. direct orthographic accesi stripp'ingrevisited' J-ournalof Verbal Leornins the graph.-t-pionunciation rulesbecomemore abstract To;;, M. Prefii ' 289-297 Behavior,1981,20, Verbat and present The of preand become grapheme-phonemerules' T;;i M., g Fonstnn, K' I' t-exicalstoragea1d 1et1ie11l resultssupport the former alternative' fixedwords.Journa'lofVerbalLearningondVerbalBehavior' I t w o u l d b e a t t h i s t r a n s i t i o n s t a g e t h a t g r a p h e m e . 1975,14,638-&7. S' graphemeTlNnxuaus, M. K., Fllxrcen, H' P" & Sntonxsnnc'.M' gruph.rn. rules develop' Knowledge of in auditoryand visual onologicaiactivation profrom orthographi. originate must "na-pt irupn.tn. correspondenie-s a cognition, 19E0,t, 513-520. word recognition.-Me^oly iunciational knowledge. However, once the transition two to direct orthographii accessis completed' these the that in types of knowl"edgebecome independelt' NOTES knowledge provides system grupt.-t-grapheme rule without for ExperiiUo"t phoiroiogicalrelationshipsbetweenwords 1. Two G-condition items were in fact changed and BOOLwaschanged GAUVE to .ftung.d *u, recoding' CAUVE 3. ment to ,r.orrtie Phonological realized that CAUVE could be pro-

to HOOL, since it was could be prontun*o like covE (as in MAWE) and BooL REFERENCES (as WOOL)' in nouncedlike BULL one of the 2. It is interes-tin!to note that' inadvertently' orthographic.and-wordof Use C' Stnnwsox, & J., be homophonicwith a Benox, -';;;ih; to out turned non*o,i' G-condition inowteaeBin readingwordsaloud.Journalof Experi' homophonicwith 1976' ;ord, but an itn*t"O one: CREESTbeingdetecle! numonF"'eption andPerformance' this' it is mentalPsycnot-o;yt subjects 10 of the 2 ontv CREASED. Since 2,386-393. evidencefor morphologicaldecomposi; this see to tempting HeriAmericon The is'lexical .f. B., Dnvtns,P', & RtcHMlx'B' Citi*"i", -'iir ii* ti#t, 1g79b,1981;Taft & Forster,1975)'That l97l' of a word (e.9., i"ra frequencybook; Boston:Houghton-Mifflin' stem the of basis the on performed is in lexicalaccess. u.."ri c"""""r*r, 5. rvr.L.it.r andorderinformation CREASE)and not on the inflectedword asa whole' 1979'lE' comply Journol of viOii t'eorningand VerbalBehovior' 3. Someof the items used in the experiment9t9.":t 225-Ur. w i t h o r t h o t a c t i c r u l e s ' F o r e x a m p l e ' G W o c c u r s i n i t i abrand llyonlyin In G' in simplereading3s$' Co"t"ti*t, M. Lexicalaccess 'it and KW- occurs initially onlv in names(CWEN), London: processrng' ;*; i4formotion of be not it'atesiu Underwoodfeail was consideredthat this would names(KWIK-GRipj relevant only Press,1978' are rules Academic orthotactic since recoding,and deepdys- important, tro*euer, be made about the "Englishness"of the C"ir"r^*r, tr,t.i.aaing, phonological & J' Ci Marshall when a decisionis io Fatterson' e' f' nonword item i"fnt"ii r"r. In lexia. oJftogiuptty of an item' In this experiment'the & R-outledge London: [eganPaul'1980' itself was no, ift" subject of such a decision'On the other (Eds.),O"rp ayirti' rtr.1-o"ut*n*, E" Jownssox'J' T" & Bnsxnn' hand, the decisionwhether or not a letter string createdby the c;;;;;;t' (Ed')' Attenis a word mav well D. Access,o itti internallexicon'In S' Dornic 1977' ;;ph;;elrapheme.rules apptcation Erlbaum' N'J: Hillsdale' //' perfor:mance "f Ui tie Engiistrness of that letter string,and thus and tion influenceO be T' J' E.,d;;;;;enr, M" BnsNon'D" & Jorussox' Dnvnr,AAn, aracter"isticsoftheletterstringscreatedby Memory& Cognition' t h e o r t h o t a c t i c , c hrules andlexicalaccess' recoaing Phonologicaf grapheme-grapheme are important'

39142. 197E,6,

473

GRAPHEME-PHONEMERULES APPENDIX

kxical

Table A Decision Times CI) and Errors (E) for the Nonword ltems Used in Experiment I

BROE HATVE DWE MOOTH PUTCH LOAZE

1

750 763 740 726 707 744 737 741 726 756 73s 76r 816 7s9 772 744

GLOE SAIVE MUVE YOOTH TUTCH HOAZE TOOM HOAM GHOAST LEACE BRETH LEEF PLEED WOSP WOOND JERM WIRK DERTH SWARE FLUD

N Nonwords

O Nonwords

H Nonwords

J

0 4 2 2 5 I 0 2

cooM

J

4 10 0 2 0 0 5 5 2

7tr 742 833 796

SOAM FROAST TEACE WRETH DEEF DREED GOSP ROOND JIFT FIRK HERTH CLARE BRUD

1 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 I 2

710 701 704 729 718 732 743 722 69r 769 674 757 743 703 661 667 7t4 688 716 683

SPOE FAIVE BUVE NOOTH RUTCH MOAZE YOOM GOAM PLOAST HEACE FRETH SEEF CLEED DOSP TOOND JILK SIRK LERTH PLARE GRUD

0 4 I 7 5 0 I 2 0 2 I 0 2 I 5 0 0 0 l0 1

7s8 803 755 793 831 683 727 718 73r 716 790 772 787 740 693 849 682 772 79s 672

Table B I-exical Decision Times (LT) and Errors (LE) for Nonword ltems in Experiment 2, Along With Homophone Decision Times (HT) and Errors (HE) for Those Items in Experiment 3 G Nonwords

O Nonwords

LT STEEK TOWCH SWARD CHEECE SWEER BRODE HALPH HIERCE YOWTH KELL COAPY WICE CHALC SOOL BREEST HATVE MUSKLE WUDE GLOAVE SOOGAR Note-llords

(steak) (touch) (sword) (cheese) (swear) (broad) (hal0 (hearse) (youth) (cell) (copy) (wise) (chalk) (soul) (breast) (have) (muscle) (wood) Glove) (sugar)

6s5 683 649 735 807 830 563 690 605 72s 6t6

7rs

648 734 725 632 630 639 682 668

HE

LE 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0

1s40 r402 1430 1683 r549 1506 r349 1486 1 53 3 t37 | 1 4 81 t253 l 303

r320 1498 1695 1445 1s84 13 8 0 t652

4 I 4 4 2 2 3 I 4 1 1 I 6 1 2 2 6 5 3 4

FLEEK MOWCH SWOFT BREECE BLEER FRODE STALPH VIERCE TOWTH KEND PoAPY SICE HALC BOOL CREEST CAUVE RUSKLE SHUDE PROTVE SOOVEL

(fleck, flake) (much) (swift, soft) (breeze) (bleed,blare) (froze,fraud) (stalk, staf0 (verse) (tooth) (send) (poppy) (size) (halt,hawk) (bowl) (crest) (cave) (rustle) (shade,should) (prove) (shovel)

LT

HT

HE

595 s90 706 734 619 s94 611 632 631 607 601 616 682 610 662 680 627 637 652 624

t2r4 t444 1400 1616 t43t t293 1348 1339 1s46 1358 t673 1470 1415 1326* 1601 1 3 5l * 1378 1692 1380 t723

0 0 0 0 2 I 0 I 3 0 2 I 0 0 2 1 I 3 3 0

0 0 J

2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0

in parentheses are words that ore graphemically andfor phonemically similar to the nonword item.

*See Footnote l-

Table C Homophone Decision Times (T) and Enors (E) for the Homophonic Items in Experiment 4 Two4rapheme

One$rapheme Change

SKEME SKREAM PURCE

937 862 9s8

0 0 0

SKEAM SKREME PERCE

Change

1008 1278 1344

I 0 3

474

TAFT Table C Continued TwoCrapheme Change

OneCrapheme Change

VERCE SKAIT SCAIR ROAP WREQUE ROOLE SOOP PHEIGN KRANE GNOAM KNEAL SKWIRM PHERN

947 843 890

r026 IIO2 1080 1084 11 8 8 8s8 11 5 6 820 11 8 7 1259

2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 a J

0 0 1

VURCE SCAIT SKAIR WROAP REQUE ROOL SOOPE PHANE KREIGN KNOAM GNEAL SKWERM PHIRN

16 2 8 r246 1003 t192 11 5 0 969 11 8 5 11 9 8 r02l tr44 998 t37 3 1,394

J

1 0 2 4 2 1 ,7 5 2 J

0 5

Table D (E) for the Nonhomophonic ltems in Experiment 4 Homophone Decision Times (T) and Errors Rules Not APPlicable Rules Applicable

RAWL SKACE PHLESK CLEED WRAD JIRCE KWIEVE WOONE KRAIST WHOSC

rs26 13 5 4 13 8 s 1406 t472 t434 1 s8 2 1465 t644 t67l

2 1 6 0 I 0 4 8 2 2

TARL SPANT THRISP BLOIN PRUB LINGE GWELVE VOOTH GLANCH DWUSP

(Received for publicationNovember24,l98li MaY I I, 1982.) revisionaccePted

I 159 t265 tzl6 t437

r228 1518

r422

1488 r233 r436

I 0 2 0 J

0 1 2 2 1