Semantic Effects as a Function of Reading Skill in Word Naming of a Transparent Orthography
Ilhan Raman & Bahman Baluch
Key words: imageability, semantics, naming, transparency, Turkish, skilled, less skilled Running head: Semantic Effects In Naming
Address correspondence to either Dr Ilhan Raman, (
[email protected]) or Dr Bahman Baluch (
[email protected]), Psychology, School of Social Science, Middlesex University, Enfield, Middlesex EN3 4SF, UK.
Semantic Effects In Naming
2
Abstract The highly transparent Turkish orthography was employed to examine imageability in relation to level of skill in two experiments. In experiment 1, previously skilled readers (n = 24) named 40 high frequency and 40 low frequency words manipulated factorially with imageability. A significant main effect was only found for frequency. In experiment 2, a total of 44 adult Turkish readers (16 very skilled and 28 skilled) named the same stimuli as in experiment 1. The results showed an expected main effect for skill and frequency. However, whilst the main effect for imageability was nonsignificant, a 2-way interaction of skill by imageability and a 3-way interaction of skill by imageability by frequency were found to be significant. Very skilled readers named high imageable low frequency words significantly faster than matched low imageable low frequency words. Insofar as poor readers are concerned the results are contradictory to previous findings in English whilst data from highly skilled participants are in line with those reported for skilled readers for English. Implications of these findings on the existing literature are discussed.
Semantic Effects In Naming
3
Introduction Models of visual word recognition assume the existence of at least two qualitatively separate routines for deriving phonology from print (e.g. Baluch & Besner 1991; Besner, 1999; Coltheart, Curtis, Atkins & Haller, 1993; Coltheart & Rastle; 1994). This view is summarised in Figure 1. Firstly, a word's phonology may be assembled through a spelling-to-sound mapping process, generally referred to as the nonlexical route (route A). Secondly, the written word makes contact with its stored representation in an orthographic lexicon from which the word's pronunciation is directly addressed (route B), i.e. the lexical route. However, following a case study on acquired dyslexia reported by Saffran, Bogyo, Schwartz and Marin (1980) indicating a problem in the activation of phonology by the semantic system, there has been a suggestion that perhaps the direct lexical route can be further divided into two processing routes - i.e. a three- or multi-route model (e.g. Besner & Smith, 1992; Besner, 1999). According to the latter conceptualisation, a word's pronunciation may be arrived at after orthographic access to the word's semantic entry (route C-D). However, what is controversial is the extent of the contribution that a ‘semantic route’ may make to the production of a word's pronunciation. Although very little research amongst intact readers currently exists in the literature, yet on the basis of what has been reported the positions expressed on the role of semantics in deriving a word’s pronunciation is widely divided. --------------------------------Insert Figure1 about here ---------------------------------
Some researchers have taken the strong stand that as far as skilled reading is concerned, access to a word's semantic information is essentially ‘phonologically
Semantic Effects In Naming
4
mediated’, thus by definition semantic information has no role to play in deriving ‘prelexical phonology’ (Van Orden, Pennington & Stone, 1990). Others on the other hand have argued that the role of a semantic route in deriving phonology is evident only in conditions when phonological processing is inefficient, slow, or error prone (Strain, Patterson & Seidenberg, 1995, p1141). Based on this assumption, Strain et. al. (1995) manipulated regularity (regular vs. irregular), and frequency (high vs. low) factorially with word imageability (high vs. low), a semantic variable which is defined as the extent to which the representation of a words meaning has sensorimotor properties. It thus follows that SOOT is classified as a high imageable word as it has many sensorimotor qualities than a word such as SCARCE. Strain et. al. (1995) reported significant imageability effects for low frequency irregular English words (i.e., the words that usually produce the longest reaction time latencies in oral naming) compared to matched low imageable words. High imageable low frequency irregular words (e.g. SOOT) were named significantly faster than matched low imageable low frequency irregular words (e.g. SCARCE). It was argued that because processing for low frequency irregular words is relatively slow, inefficient and error prone, semantic representations of words have the largest impact on translating orthography to phonology, and that words with rich semantic representations (i.e., high-imageable words) benefit from such an interaction. In a further investigation and based on the premise that ‘semantic effects are present when processing is slow’ Strain and Herdman (1999) found that semantic effects on naming even for low frequency regular English words when level of skill was controlled for i.e. there was significant effects due to word imageability on naming latencies of low frequency regular (and irregular) words for both high and less skilled English readers. The authors argue that ‘For participants with high phonological skills, the mapping between orthography to
Semantic Effects In Naming
5
phonology produces clear phonological representations quickly, confining the effect of semantics primarily to words with uncommon and unusual mappings. Readers with low phonological skill, on the other hand, exploit consistencies within the orthography to phonology mapping less well, leading to slower and unclear phonological activation over a wider range of word types. This allows semantics to play a greater role in the reading of these items’ (Strain & Herdman, 1999, p357). However, whilst to this date any effects due to possible involvement of a semantic route has been demonstrated for low frequency words, Baluch and Besner (1999) have found that semantics could play a role even in naming of high frequency words by skilled readers of Persian. In view of vowel structure of Persian orthography (see Baluch & Besner, 1991 for details) one could identify words that are transcribed by consonant letters only (opaque words) and words with full vowels specified (transparent words). Opaque words by necessity require semantic information for disambiguation. A significant imageability effect was found by Baluch and Besner (1999) in naming high (and low) frequency opaque Persian words, whilst such effects were minimal for matched transparent words. The studies reported here at best collectively suggest the existence of a semantic route (route C-D) or semantic involvement in naming which could also be interpreted within the connectionist accounts of reading (e.g. Plaut, McClelland, Seidenberg & Patterson, 1996). Indeed the view that semantic information may contribute to naming is very much in agreement with the latter account of reading. According to the most recent versions of the model and the logic of ‘division of labour’, in the course of training and with increased specialisation, the model gradually builds up a putative semantic route. It is hypothesised here that this development could potentially lead to the reorganisation of resources and division of
Semantic Effects In Naming
6
labour in that route B becomes specialised in naming regular words and/or high frequency irregular words, and route C-D in naming low frequency irregular words. Thus, both the localised multi-route model and the connectionist model of reading are in agreement that semantic information may be involved in reading English (and other orthographies). ‘Lexical Effects’ in a Very Transparent Orthography The fact that imageability effects have (until recently) mainly been reported for low frequency irregular English words, raises the question of whether this can be generalised to scripts other than English, particularly in transparent scripts where there are no irregular words. One account would be that for a cohort of ‘average’ readers there will be no imageability effects for low frequency words in a transparent script, as they should behave like regular English words. This makes sense on logical grounds: Since imageability effects were originally found only for low frequency irregular English words and only when level of skill was poor, there is no reason to expect imageability to have an impact in the naming of low frequency words for a cohort of ‘average’ readers in a transparent script. Indeed the results of a study by Raman, Baluch and Besner (1997), showed no significant effect due to imageability on single word naming of Turkish high and low frequency words. Turkish orthography is transcribed by a very transparent modern Roman alphabet in which each of the 29 letters corresponds to only one spoken sound (see Raman, 1999 for details of Turkish orthography). This relationship is invariant, context independent and bi-directional, unlike many other scripts such as Spanish or Italian which exhibit variations according to context. Evidence pertaining to cognitive processes of reading Turkish is gradually flourishing on both beginner (Öney & Durgunoğlu, 1997; Raman, 2000) and skilled readers (Raman, Baluch & Sneddon, 1996; Raman, Baluch & Besner, 1997). Previous
Semantic Effects In Naming
7
research on Turkish has investigated word frequency (Raman et. al., 1996) and word imageability (Raman et. al., 1997). Whilst both studies have reported significant frequency effects, there was no significant effect for imageability. Thus, the finding that there are no imageability effects for naming Turkish is a further indication to support that if there are any effects for imageability this should be seen for irregular words, irregular orthographies and less skilled readers. One possibility is to bring a novel dimension by testing ‘previously skilled’ readers of the script (originally employed by Baluch, 1996). If level of skill is a factor that affects imageability even for regular words (cf. Strain & Herdman, 1999) this should also be demonstrated for previously skilled readers of Turkish. Absence of such effects may question the impact of imageability effects in a totally transparent orthography. The aim of experiment 1 is to examine whether imageability affects word naming in previously skilled Turkish readers.
Semantic Effects In Naming
8
Experiment 1 Participants Twenty four adult male and female native Turkish speakers (mean age 34years) who have lived in the UK for approximately ten years took part in the experiment. All participants reported that they had little daily activity in reading Turkish materials although Turkish is maintained as the main spoken language.
Materials Imageability ratings for 400 words, i.e. 200 high frequency and 200 low frequency from a previously created pool of words (see Raman et. al., 1996 for details), were obtained from 60 highly literate native Turkish speakers on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = high imageability to 7 = low imageability, as there are no readily available imageability ratings in Turkish. Words were then rated as either high or low on imageability according to their mean rating scores. A mean score of 2 was the maximum acceptable for high imageability and a mean score of 6 was the minimum acceptable for low imageability for words. All experimental stimuli can be seen in Appendix 1. Moreover, where possible, imageability ratings for Turkish words were checked against those reported by Paivio, Yuille and Madigan (1968) for English by using their translations. It was noted that both high and low imageable Turkish words had corresponding similar ratings in Paivio et. al.’s list. For example, ANNE (meaning MOTHER) has a rating of 6.3 in Turkish and a corresponding rating of 6.7 in Paivio et. al.’s scale, thus a high imageable word. Similarly, FELEK (meaning FATE) has a rating of 1.98 in Turkish and 2.3 in English thus a low imageable word (see Appendix 2 for how stimuli from the current study compare to Paivio et. al.’s ratings). Moreover, statistical testing between the ratings by Turkish readers and Paivio et. al.’s list for 18
Semantic Effects In Naming
9
words (nine high and nine low imageable) yielded Pearson’s correlation coefficients, r = 0.74, p < 0.02 for high imageable words and r = 0.70, p < 0.03 for low imageable words. Subsequently, four sets of experimental stimuli, 20 in each condition, which matched on initial letter, number of syllables and number of letters were created. Examples for each of the four sets are as follows: High Imageability - High Frequency (BARDAK meaning glass); High Imageability - Low Frequency (BALKON meaning balcony); Low Imageability - High Frequency (BENCIL meaning selfish); Low Imageability - Low Frequency (BELLEK meaning memory).
Apparatus/Procedure The 80 experimental trials were presented randomly in one mixed-block. An Amstrad PC7486 computer was used to present the stimuli. A voice-key was utilized to detect the start of articulation. The program was designed in VisualBasic for Dos. The experiment was carried out in a quiet room with one participant at a time. The participants were seated approximately 70cm from the screen and were then instructed in Turkish, both verbally and in writing on the screen, to call out the words presented on the screen as fast and as accurate as possible. The experiment commenced after 15 practice trials (high and low frequency words) to ensure that the voice key levels were adjusted appropriately and that the participants were accustomed to the procedure. Each stimulus was presented in the middle of the visual display screen in black print, Times New Roman 16, on a dark grey background which disappeared with the onset of articulation. RTs were recorded by using a microphone which was connected to a voice-activated relay interfaced to the computer which timed RTs from the appearance of the stimulus to the onset of articulation, in milliseconds. A
Semantic Effects In Naming
10
1.5 second inter-trial interval was employed before the next stimulus appeared. The participants were given a 3 minute break after 40 trials. If a word was mispronounced this was noted by the experimenter as error data. There was no repetition of stimuli at any stage of the experiment.
Results Mean RTs (in ms) and their corresponding standard deviations (SD) for high- and lowfrequency and high- and low-imageability words, along with the Error % for subjects
--------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here --------------------------------As can be seen in Table 1, participants were faster in naming high-frequency words than low-frequency words. Formal repeated measures ANOVA for subjects was significant for Frequency (high and low), F1 (1, 23) = 63.163, p < 0.001, MSE = 3633.875 but not for Imageability (high and low) F1 (1, 23) = 1.757, p = 0.198, MSE = 1355.542. There was also no significant interaction, F1 (1, 23) = 0.138, p = 0.714, MSE = 638.415. A significant frequency effects was observed in the analysis for items, F2 (1, 76) = 21.757, p < 0.001, MSE = 7602.851 whilst imageability was nonsignificant, F2 (1, 76) = 0.474, p = 0.5, MSE = 7602.851 and also there was no interaction F2 (1, 76) = 0.139, p = 0.711, MSE = 7602.851. Single-word naming in previously skilled readers of Turkish is clearly influenced by frequency but not by imageability of words.
Semantic Effects In Naming
11
Discussion The results from experiment 1 show a significant frequency effect but fail to show any evidence for semantic involvement in naming Turkish where previously skilled readers are concerned. This is contrary to previous findings reported for less skilled readers of English. A further theoretical consideration, in this respect, is whether readers of transparent writing systems ever benefit from words imageability in naming. One remaining unexamined possibility whereby semantics could play a role in naming is for very skilled readers. This reasoning is based on evidence that readers of transparent and opaque orthographies may behave differently when engaged in naming tasks. Recently, Raman (1999) concluded that although there are some universality’s in cognitive processes of single word naming there are nevertheless some marked differences between transparent and opaque scripts in the manner in which lexical and nonlexical routes may operate. This is because Raman (1999; also cited in Besner 1999, p432) found that the presence of nonwords per se embedded within a set of high and low frequency target words did not affect the magnitude of word frequency; rather RTs were influenced by the speed of nonword naming. The speed of nonword naming were manipulated by increasing (i.e. making them slower) and decreasing (i.e. making them faster) letter length. In view of these findings Raman (1999) proposed that rather than switching strategies (i.e. changing routes) which is argued to take place in the presence of nonwords, participants adjust the time criteria for articulation in view of speed of filler nonwords (see Lupker, Brown & Colombo, 1997 for a related discussion). Raman (1999) argued that contrary to readers of scripts such as English (or Persian) in which reading incorporates a mixture of opaque (irregular) and transparent (regular) spellings, Turkish readers are always (without exception) faced with the task of reading highly transparent words. Thus, Turkish
Semantic Effects In Naming
12
readers are never faced with the task to ‘strategically’ select the most appropriate route for naming while English readers do so strategically for low frequency words. For Turkish readers the links between spelling and pronunciation via both lexical and nonlexical routes develops in parallel and in harmony. Therefore, a Turkish reader may be argued to be skilled in reading not because he/she is efficient in switching between routes, rather because of the efficiency, interactivity and harmony between the functioning of all possible means of gaining access to a word’s phonology. If so, the more skilled a person becomes the more elaborated and interactive the internal mental lexicon. In this respect it may be a possibility that for a cohort of very skilled readers there is a greater degree of semantic involvement in single word naming. Indeed, as reported earlier Strain and Herdman (1999) found evidence for imageability effects for very skilled English readers. However, whether this effect is via route C-D or a post-lexical ‘top-down’ process still remains a debatable issue. The aim of the follow-up experiment is to examine whether increasing degree of semantic involvement is directly linked to increasing degree of skill in the transparent Turkish orthography.
Semantic Effects In Naming
13
Experiment 2 Participants Participants were all adult native speakers of Turkish (n = 44) who were either first year undergraduate or foundation level students at the Eastern Mediterranean University, North Cyprus, who received course accreditation for their participation. This group was further divided according to level of skill (speed and accuracy) as explained below to two groups, very skilled (n = 16) and skilled (n = 28). The method used to determine level of skill was based on the distribution of Reaction Time (RTs) latencies and error rates for a pool of 100 words. Prior to the main experiment, 78 students were asked to name as rapidly as possible 100 words of mixed frequency (not used in the main experiment) presented on the computer screen. The overall RT mean for 78 students was 851ms, (SD = 277). Participants' RTs were standardized and consequently used to identify two levels of skill, i.e. very skilled and skilled. Participants whose RT's and error rates fell beyond approximately one standard deviation higher than the mean were classified as skilled (n= 28). Participants whose RTs were at least one standard deviation below the mean were classified as very skilled readers (n=16).
Apparatus/Materials The apparatus and the materials were the same as in Experiment 1.
Results The data can be seen in Table 2. Mean reaction times for correct responses and error rates for each subject in each condition were calculated. Errors consisted of mispronunciations or pauses.
Semantic Effects In Naming
14
--------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here ---------------------------------
As can be seen from Table 2, very skilled readers are faster in naming all four types of words in the task than skilled readers. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed on RTs using both Subjects (F1) and Item (F2) means. The two variables included in the initial ANOVA conducted on RTs were Frequency (high vs low) and Imageability (high vs low). These variables were treated as repeated measures (withinsubjects) in the analysis by Subjects and independent groups (between-subjects) in the analysis by Items. Overall, participants were significantly faster in naming high frequency words (745ms) than low frequency (821ms) ones; a significant main effect for frequency F1 (1, 43) = 70.05, p < 0.00, MSE = 3579.59; but not in naming words high (781ms) vs low (785ms) imageability; F1 (1, 43) = 0.66, p = 0.42, MSE = 1210.63. There was also no significant interaction between frequency and imageability F1 (1, 43) = 0.02, p = 0.89, MSE = 908.62. Item analysis also showed a significant effect for frequency F2 (1, 76) = 46.976, p < 0.00, MSE = 2255.60 but not for imageability F2 (1, 76) = 0.07, p = 0.79, MSE = 2255.60. There was also no significant interaction between frequency and imageability F2 (1, 76) = 0.03, p = 0.88, MSE = 2255.60. However, analyses of RTs yielded different results when level of skill was taken into consideration. Formal analyses of skill (very skilled vs skilled) by frequency (high vs low) and imageability (high vs low) for subjects showed a significant main effect for level of skill F1 (1,42) = 22.66, p < 0.00, MSE = 67849.53; and for
Semantic Effects In Naming
15
frequency F1 (1,42) = 60.28, p < 0.00, MSE = 3534.39; but non-significant effect for imageability F1 (1,42) = 1.90, p = 0.18, MSE = 1122.83. A 2-way, skill by frequency interaction F1 (1, 42) = 1.55, p = 0.22, MSE = 3534.39 and a frequency by imageability interaction were also nonsignificant F1 (1,42) = 0.19, p = 0.66, MSE = 840.73; whilst a 2-way skill by imageability interaction was significant F1 (1,42) = 4.36, p < 0.04, MSE = 1122.83 as well as a 3-way interaction for skill by frequency by imageability F1 (1, 42) = 4.47, p < 0.04, MSE = 840.73. Post-hoc analyses conducted on the data showed that the latter interaction is a result of faster naming of low frequency high imageable words by very skilled readers than low frequency low imageable words t (15) = 3.05, p < 0.008. A 3-way factorial ANOVA was conducted in the analyses for items which showed a significant main effect for frequency F2 (1, 152) = 53.32, p < 0.00, MSE = 3834.41 and level of skill F2 (1, 152) = 366.51, p < 0.00, MSE = 3834.41; and no main effect for imageability F2 (1, 152) = 0.117, p = 0.73, MSE = 3834.41. Both the 2-way and 3-way interactions were also nonsignificant in the item analysis.
Semantic Effects In Naming
16
Discussion A straightforward interpretation of the results from Experiment 2 is that naming in skilled readers of Turkish is as expected influenced by word frequency. However what is interesting is the evidence for involvement for semantic involvement for very skilled participants. This is because very skilled readers of Turkish were faster in naming low frequency high imageable words than matched low imageable words. A similar finding was reported in Strain and Herdman’s (1999) recent study where highly skilled readers of English named not only irregular but also regular, low frequency high imageable words faster than low imageable words. The authors report that for their high-skill group ‘… imageability also influenced naming of lowfrequency regular words, although this effect was less than for low-frequency exception words.’ (p357). Thereby, the data from very skilled readers of Turkish and English are in agreement insofar as imageability is concerned whilst data from less skilled readers differ. One explanation for these results is that although the contribution of semantics in naming now appears to be a universal phenomenon the underlying processes for its involvement may be different and manifested by the nature of the given orthography. To elaborate, as explained previously orthographic transparency could the determining factor whether readers become ‘strategic’ or not. The null effect for imageability in previously skilled and average skilled readers of Turkish could be taken as further support for this argument. This is because in the natural course of the development of their reading skill Turkish readers never had the need to rely on semantic information as a strategy to help disambiguate naming while for English readers this may indeed be the case. What, however, could be a distinguishing aspect for very skilled Turkish readers from their counterparts is the
Semantic Effects In Naming
17
higher level of interactivity between sources of linguistic information in the mental lexicon.
Semantic Effects In Naming
18
General Discussion The aim of the present experiments was to examine the effects of imageability on single-word naming in transparent Turkish orthography as a function of reading skill. Collectively the results show significant main effects for frequency even with previously skilled readers while no main effects for imageability was found for each of the three levels of skill. For very skilled and skilled readers, there was, however, a significant 2-way interaction of skill by imageability and a 3-way interaction of skill by frequency and by imageability. Further analysis showed that this was due to i) very skilled readers showing more imageability effects than skilled readers and ii) the effects of imageability being significant for low frequency words. High imageable low frequency words were named 30ms faster by very skilled readers than matched low imageable words. The findings in Turkish with average and previously skilled adult readers as well as from beginning readers (Raman, 2000) support the notion that in the absence of inconsistent print to sound conversions there is no evidence for semantic involvement in single word naming. However, for irregular scripts such as English (Strain et al 1995) or opaque scripts such as Persian (Baluch & Besner, 1999) semantics mainly contribute to single word naming of irregular words or opaque spellings even if they are high frequency or when readers are of less skill. Regular words or transparent spellings show little if any effects of semantic involvement. So the main question is why only very skilled readers of transparent Turkish show effects of semantic involvement while for English it is evident for all levels of skill? The answer to this question may lie firstly, in how one regards development of reading skills amongst readers of transparent and irregular/opaque scripts and also one needs to consider in how one defines the contribution of semantics to naming single words.
Semantic Effects In Naming
19
Considering the first issue, it is possible that although readers of all orthographies may make use of the routes shown in Figure 1 the degree of emphasis on each route may differ depending on the nature of materials being read. For readers of English and Persian irregular words and opaque spellings may benefit more from greater involvement of semantic information for disambiguation of phonological information. Indeed readers of English do so strategically as required and at all levels of skill. However, in a very transparent orthography one needs no support from semantics for disambiguation as all words have regular and consistent print to sound associations so reading need not to be ‘strategic’. This could take one to the second issue raised above i.e. how one defines the contribution of semantics to single word naming. Essentially the contribution of semantics in naming English and Persian may be strictly bottom-up, i.e. a words semantic information may have been accessed directly from print (route C-D) which then contributes to phonological activation. In Turkish, however, it may essentially be a ‘top-down’ process, i.e. phonology has already been activated directly from print but prior to articulation the information from semantics may also be available to the very skilled reader. Indeed there is well elaborated literature dating back to the work of Lesgold and Perfetti (1981) suggesting the development of an interactive mental lexicon as prerequisite to development of high level of skill in reading process. Thus it may be possible that in the present study the very skilled readers of Turkish are distinguished from their counterparts in the manner in which their highly elaborated and interactive mental lexicon operates. Such readers have the advantage of having all sources of linguistics information at their disposal when naming single words. In particular having knowledge of a words semantic information when naming very low frequency words enables a significantly faster naming latencies. This is of course implying that there is not much that one
Semantic Effects In Naming
20
could claim as to how semantic information has been activated i.e. direct print to semantics or print to phonology to semantics. What one could claim here is that semantic information at least for a cohort of very skilled readers could be a contributing factor to their reading processes. Whether similar accounts also hold true for readers of Persian and English remains an issue for follow up research.
Semantic Effects In Naming
21
References Baluch, B. (1996). Word frequency effects in naming in experienced and previously experienced adult readers of Persian. Reading and Writing, 8, 433-441. Baluch, B. & Besner, D. (1999). Naming single words in an alphabetic script: Orthography to semantics to phonology. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, November, U.S.A. Baluch, B. & Besner. D. (1991). Visual word recognition: Evidence for strategic control of lexical and non lexical routines in oral reading Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition 17, 644-652. Besner, D. (1999). Basic processes in reading: Multiple routines in localised and connectionist model. In P.A. McMullen and R.M. Klein (Eds.). Converging methods for understanding reading and dyslexia Cambridge MA : MIT press Besner, D. & Smith, M.C. (1992). Models of visual word recognition: When obscuring the stimulus yields a clearer view. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition , 18, 3, 468-482. Coltheart, M., & Rastle, K. (1994). Serial processing and reading aloud: Evidence for dual-route models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1197-1211. 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. Lesgold, A.M. & Perfetti, C. A. (1981). Interactive processes in reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 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, 23 (3), 570-590.
Semantic Effects In Naming
22
Öney, B. & Durgunoğlu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read Turkish: A phonologically transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics. 18, 1-15. Paivio, A., Yuille, J.C., & Madigan, S.A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 76(3, part 2). Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J . L., Seidenberg, M.S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasiregular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-116. Raman, I. (2000) Word imageability effects on naming: A pilot investigation of beginning readers of Turkish. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 472-474. Raman, I. (1999). Single-word naming in a transparent alphabetic orthography. Unpublished PhD thesis, Middlesex University. Raman, I., Baluch, B., & Sneddon, P. (1996). What is the cognitive system's preferred route for deriving phonology from print? European Psychologist. 1(3), 221227. Raman, I., Baluch, B. & Besner, D. (1997). Imageability and frequency effects on visual word recognition: Evidence from a transparent orthography. Paper presented at the 5th European Congress of Psychology, Dublin, Ireland. Saffran, E. M., Bogyo, L. C., Schwartz, M. F., & Marin, O. S. M. (1980). Does deep dyslexia reflect right-hemisphere reading? In M. Coltheart, K. Patterson & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep Dyslexia (pp. 3810406). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Strain, E. & Herdman, C. H. (1999). Imageability effects in word naming: An individual differences analysis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53 (4), 347-359.
Semantic Effects In Naming
23
Strain, E. Patterson, K. & Seidenberg, M.S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21(5), 1140-1154. Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B.F. & Stone, G.O. (1990). Word identification in reading and the promise of subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488-522
Semantic Effects In Naming
24
Figure 1: Routes in the Dual-Route Model of Oral Naming (adapted from Besner, 1999)
Print
Orthographic A
Lexicon C
B
Semantic Lexicon
Spelling-Sound Rules D
Phonological Lexicon
Phonemic Buffer
Pronunciation
Semantic Effects In Naming
25
Table 1: Mean Reaction Time latencies (RTs) in milliseconds averaged for Subjects as per condition together with corresponding standard deviations (SD) and percentage (%) Error rates. Previously Skilled Readers Imageability High
Low
Frequency
Mean
911
923
High
SD
153
160
%Error
3.4
4.2
Mean
1011
1019
SD
175
184
%Error
7.1
5
Low
Difference 12
8
Semantic Effects In Naming
26
Table 2: Mean Reaction Time latencies (RTs) in milliseconds averaged for Subjects as per condition together with corresponding standard deviations (SD) and percentage (%) Error rates. Very Skilled Readers
Skilled Readers
Imageability High
Low
Imageability Difference
Low
Difference
810
814
4
Frequency
Mean
626
633
High
SD
90
92
138
149
%Error
1.6
1.7
3
3.1
Mean
675
705
901
891
SD
104
94
164
161
%Error
2.9
3
3.4
5.1
Low
7
High
30
10
Semantic Effects In Naming
27
Appendix 1 List of experimental stimuli used in the present experiment, as per condition, in Turkish together with their corresponding meaning in English. (* denotes to words that are shared by and compared to Paivio et. al.’s (1968) imageability ratings) High Imageability /High Frequency n=20 Turkish English anne mother*
High Imageability / Low Frequency n=20 Turkish English avuç palm (hand)
bardak
glass
balkon
balcony
bahçe
garden*
baston
walking stick
çiçek
flower*
çilek
strawberry*
dünya
earth*
damla
drop (water)
erkek
man
esnek
flexible
fırın
oven*
fener
lantern
göz
eye
gaz
gas
güneş
sun
gümüş
silver
hasta
ill
hamam
turkish bath
iğne
needle
inci
pearl
insan
human
incir
fig
kitap
book*
kumar
gamble
mektup
letter*
mantar
mushroom
okul
school
obur
obese
sabah
morning
sevinç
joy*
tepsi
tray
tekne
boat
tava
frying pan
tepe
hill
tarak
comb
türbe
monument
yatak
bed
yokuş
uphill
Semantic Effects In Naming
28
Continued from previous page Low Imageability / High Frequency n=20 Turkish English ayıp shame
Low Imageability / Low Frequency n=20 Turkish English ayar timing/adjusting
bencil
selfish
bellek
memory*
berbat
bad
buhran
depression
çözüm
solution
çeyiz
trousseau
davet
invite
demeç
statement
esrar
secret
evren
universe
fikir
idea*
felek
fate*
güç
power/difficult
göç
migration
günah
sin
gönül
heart/mind*
hayal
daydream
hüzün
sadness
isim
name
iblis
devil
işlem
method*
ilim
science
kibar
polite
kısır
infertile
mantık
logic
menzil
firing range
onur
honour*
oruç
fasting
sanat
art
sürgün
exile
tarih
history*
tekel
monopoly
tasa
anxiety
töre
customs*
tavır
attitude*
tutku
passion
yemin
vow
yazgı
destiny
Semantic Effects In Naming
29
Appendix 2 Table showing mean ratings from the current study and Paivio et. al.’s (1968) study High
Ratings from Ratings from Low
Ratings from Ratings from
Imageability
current study Paivio et.al.,
current study Paivio et.al.,
Words
Imageability
(1968)
Words
(1968)
mother
6.80
6.67
idea
1.92
2.20
garden
6.50
6.73
method
2.00
2.63
flower
6.90
6.57
honour
2.00
3.50
earth
6.80
6.27
history
2.00
3.47
letter
6.70
6.37
customs
2.00
3.43
strawberry
7.00
6.80
attitude
1.99
2.77
joy
6.20
5.43
memory
2.00
3.10
book
6.60
6.43
fate
1.98
2.30
oven
6.80
6.40
mind
2.00
3.03
