{"title":"眼动追踪作为母语和非母语阅读中组合音韵学的窗口","authors":"Katherine I. Martin, Alan Juffs","doi":"10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The past 30 years of reading research has confirmed the importance of bottom-up processing. Rather than a\n psycholinguistic guessing game (Goodman, 1967), reading is dependent on rapid, accurate\n recognition of written forms. In fluent first language (L1) readers, this is seen in the automatic activation of a word’s\n phonological form, impacting lexical processing (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995). Although the influence of phonological form\n is well established, less clear is the extent to which readers are sensitive to the possible pronunciations of a\n word (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1998), derived from the varying consistency of\n grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) (e.g., although ‘great’ has only one pronunciation, [ɡɹeɪt], the grapheme \n within it has multiple possible pronunciations: [i] in [plit] ‘pleat’, [ɛ] in [bɹɛθ] ‘breath’; Parkin, 1982). Further, little is known about non-native readers’ sensitivity to such characteristics. Non-native\n readers process text differently from L1 readers (Koda & Zehler, 2008; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong & Li, 2004), with implications for understanding L2\n reading comprehension (Rayner, Chace, Slattery & Ashby, 2006). The goal of this\n study was thus to determine whether native and non-native readers are sensitive to the consistency of a word’s component GPCs\n during lexical processing and to compare this sensitivity among readers from different L1s.","PeriodicalId":29903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Second Language Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eye-tracking as a window into assembled phonology in native and non-native reading\",\"authors\":\"Katherine I. Martin, Alan Juffs\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The past 30 years of reading research has confirmed the importance of bottom-up processing. Rather than a\\n psycholinguistic guessing game (Goodman, 1967), reading is dependent on rapid, accurate\\n recognition of written forms. In fluent first language (L1) readers, this is seen in the automatic activation of a word’s\\n phonological form, impacting lexical processing (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995). Although the influence of phonological form\\n is well established, less clear is the extent to which readers are sensitive to the possible pronunciations of a\\n word (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1998), derived from the varying consistency of\\n grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) (e.g., although ‘great’ has only one pronunciation, [ɡɹeɪt], the grapheme \\n within it has multiple possible pronunciations: [i] in [plit] ‘pleat’, [ɛ] in [bɹɛθ] ‘breath’; Parkin, 1982). Further, little is known about non-native readers’ sensitivity to such characteristics. Non-native\\n readers process text differently from L1 readers (Koda & Zehler, 2008; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong & Li, 2004), with implications for understanding L2\\n reading comprehension (Rayner, Chace, Slattery & Ashby, 2006). The goal of this\\n study was thus to determine whether native and non-native readers are sensitive to the consistency of a word’s component GPCs\\n during lexical processing and to compare this sensitivity among readers from different L1s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Second Language Studies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Second Language Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Second Language Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JSLS.19026.MAR","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Eye-tracking as a window into assembled phonology in native and non-native reading
The past 30 years of reading research has confirmed the importance of bottom-up processing. Rather than a
psycholinguistic guessing game (Goodman, 1967), reading is dependent on rapid, accurate
recognition of written forms. In fluent first language (L1) readers, this is seen in the automatic activation of a word’s
phonological form, impacting lexical processing (Perfetti & Bell, 1991; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch & Pollatsek, 1995). Although the influence of phonological form
is well established, less clear is the extent to which readers are sensitive to the possible pronunciations of a
word (Lesch & Pollatsek, 1998), derived from the varying consistency of
grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences (GPCs) (e.g., although ‘great’ has only one pronunciation, [ɡɹeɪt], the grapheme
within it has multiple possible pronunciations: [i] in [plit] ‘pleat’, [ɛ] in [bɹɛθ] ‘breath’; Parkin, 1982). Further, little is known about non-native readers’ sensitivity to such characteristics. Non-native
readers process text differently from L1 readers (Koda & Zehler, 2008; McBride-Chang, Bialystok, Chong & Li, 2004), with implications for understanding L2
reading comprehension (Rayner, Chace, Slattery & Ashby, 2006). The goal of this
study was thus to determine whether native and non-native readers are sensitive to the consistency of a word’s component GPCs
during lexical processing and to compare this sensitivity among readers from different L1s.