1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, 2019
  5. Article

Annual Review of Linguistics

Volume 5, 2019

Relations Between Reading and Speech Manifest Universal Phonological Principle

Abstract

All writing systems represent speech, providing a means for recording each word of a message. This is achieved by symbolizing the phonological forms of spoken words as well as information conveying grammar and meaning. Alphabetic systems represent the segmental phonology by providing symbols for individual consonants and vowels; some also convey morphological units. Other systems represent syllables (typically CVs) or morphosyllables. In all cases, learning to read requires a learner to discover the forms of language that writing encodes, drawing on metalinguistic abilities that are not needed for the acquisition of speech. Therefore, learning to read is harder and rarer than acquiring speech. Research reveals that skilled readers of every studied orthography access phonological language forms automatically and early in word reading. Although reading processes differ according to the cognitive demands of specific orthographic forms, the differences are subservient to the universal phonologic principle that all readers access phonological language forms.

Keyword(s): orthography, phonological awareness, phonology, reading, speech, writing system
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012419
2019-01-14
2024-05-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/5/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-012419.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012419&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abler W 1989. On the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems. J. Soc. Biol. Struct. 12:1–13
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams MJ 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning About Print Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  3. Anderson SR 2010. How many languages are there in the world? Brochure, Linguist. Soc. Am. Washington, DC: https://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/how-many-languages-are-there-world
  4. Ball E, Blachman B 1991. Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling. Read. Res. Q. 26:40–65
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentin S, Leshem H 1993. On the interaction of phonological awareness and reading acquisition: It's a two-way street. Ann. Dyslexia 43:125–48
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Blachman BA, Fletcher JM, Munger KA, Schatschneider C, Murray MS, Vaughn MG 2013. Intensive reading remediation in grade 2 or 3: Are there effects a decade later. J. Educ. Psychol. 106:46–57
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bloomfield L, Barnhart CL 1961. Let's Read: A Linguistic Approach Detroit, MI: Wayne State Univ. Press
  8. Bradley L, Bryant PE 1980. Why children sometimes write words which they do not read. Cognitive Processes in Spelling U Frith 355–70 Orlando, FL: Academic
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bradley L, Bryant PE 1983. Categorizing sounds and learning to read—causal connection. Nature 301:419–21
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brady SA 2011. Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes. See Brady et al. 2011 69–96
  11. Brady SA, Braze D, Fowler CA 2011. Explaining Individual Differences in Reading New York: Psychology
  12. Brady SA, Shankweiler D 1991. Phonological Processes in Literacy: A Tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  13. Braze D, Gong T 2017. Orthography, word recognition, and reading. Handbook of Psycholinguistics FM Fernandez, H Cairns 269–93 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Braze D, McRoberts G, McDonough C 2011. Early precursors of reading-relevant phonological skills. See Brady et al. 2011 23–42
  15. Bright W 2000. A matter of typology: alphasyllabaries and abugidas. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 30:63–71
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Bruce DJ 1964. The analysis of word sounds by young children. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 34:158–70
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Brysbaert M 2001. Prelexical phonological coding of words in Dutch: automatic after all. Mem. Cogn. 29:765–73
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bus AG, van IJzendoorn MH 1999. Phonological awareness and early reading: a meta-analysis of experimental training studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 91:403–14
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Byrne B 1996. The learnability of the alphabetic principle: children's initial hypotheses about how print represents spoken language. Appl. Psycholinguist. 17:401–26
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Byrne B 1998. The Foundation of Literacy: The Child's Acquisition of the Alphabetic Principle Hove, UK: Psychology
  21. Byrne B, Fielding-Barnsley R 1989. Phonemic awareness and letter knowledge in the child's acquisition of the alphabetic principle. J. Educ. Psychol. 8:313–21
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Byrne B, Fielding-Barnsley R 1990. Acquiring the alphabetic principle: a case for teaching recognition of phoneme identity. J. Educ. Psychol. 82:805–12
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Byrne B, Fielding-Barnsley R 1995. Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: a 2- and 3-year follow-up and a new preschool trial. J. Educ. Psychol. 87:488–503
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Byrne B, Fielding-Barnsley R, Ashley L 2000. Effects of preschool phoneme identity training after six years: outcome level distinguished from rate of response. J. Educ. Psychol. 92:659–67
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Byrne B, Liberman AM 1999. Meaninglessness, productivity and reading: some observations about the relation between the alphabet and speech. Reading Development and the Teaching of Reading J Oakhill, R Beard 157–73 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Byrne B, Shankweiler D, Hine DW 2008. Reading development in children at risk for dyslexia. Brain, Behavior, and Learning in Language and Reading Disorders M Mody, ER Silliman 240–70 New York: Guilford
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Calfee R, Chapman R, Venezky R 1972. How a child needs to think to learn to read. Cognition in Learning and Memory LW Gregg 139–82 New York: Wiley
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Carlisle JF 2010. Effects of instruction in morphological awareness on literacy achievement: an integrative review. Read. Res. Q. 45:464–87
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Castles A, Coltheart M 2004. Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read. Cognition 91:77–111
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Castro-Caldas A, Petersson KM, Reis A, Stone-Elander S, Ingvar M 1998. The illiterate brain: Learning to read and write influences the functional organization of the adult brain. Brain 121:1053–63
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Chan DW, Ho CSH, Tsang SM, Lee SH, Chung KKH 2006. Exploring the reading-writing connection in Chinese children with dyslexia in Hong Kong. Read. Writ. 19:543–61
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Chomsky N, Halle M 1968. The Sound Pattern of English New York: Harper & Row
  33. Coltheart M 2006. Dual route and connectionist models of reading: an overview. Lond. Rev. Educ. 4:5–17
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Coltheart M 2012. Dual-route theories of reading aloud. Visual Word Recognition, vol. 1: Models and Methods, Orthography and Phonology JS Adelman 3–27 New York: Psychology
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Coltheart M, Rastle K, Perry C, Langdon R, Ziegler J 2001. DRC: a Dual Route Cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychol. Rev. 108:204–56
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Cossu G, Shankweiler D, Liberman IY, Tola G, Katz L 1988. Reading and awareness of phonological segments in Italian children. Appl. Psycholinguist. 9:1–16
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Coulmas F 1989. The Writing Systems of the World Malden, MA: Blackwell
  38. DeFrancis J 1989. Visible Speech: The Diverse Oneness of Writing Systems Honolulu: Univ. Hawai‘i Press
  39. Dehaene S 2009. Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read New York: Penguin
  40. Dehaene S, Pegado F, Braga LW, Ventura P, Nunes Filho G et al. 2010. How learning to read changes the cortical network for vision and language. Science 330:1359–64
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Ehri LC 1992. Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. Reading Acquisition PB Gough, LC Ehri, R Treiman 107–43 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Elkonin DB 1973. USSR. Comparative Reading J Downing 551–79 New York: Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Fletcher-Flinn C, Shankweiler D, Frost SJ 2004. Coordination of reading and spelling in early literacy development: an examination of the discrepancy hypothesis. Read. Writ. 17:617–44
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Foorman BR, Francis DJ, Fletcher JM, Schatschneider D, Mehta P 1998. The role of instruction in learning to read: preventing reading failure in at-risk children. J. Educ. Psychol. 90:37–55
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Foulin JN 2005. Why is letter-name knowledge such a good predictor of learning to read. Read. Writ. 18:129–55
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Fowler AE 1991. How early phonological development might set the stage for phoneme awareness. Phonological Processes in Literacy: A Tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman SA Brady, DP Shankweiler 97–117 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Fowler CA 2004. Speech as a supramodal or amodal phenomenon. The Handbook of Multisensory Processes GA Calvert, C Spence, BE Stein 189–201 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fowler CA 2011. How theories of phonology may enhance understanding of the role of phonology in reading development and reading disability. See Brady et al. 2011 3–19
  49. Fowler CA, Shankweiler D, Studdert-Kennedy M 2016. Perception of the speech code revisited: Speech is alphabetic after all. Psychol. Rev. 123:125–50
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Fox B, Routh DK 1975. Analyzing spoken language into words, syllables, and phonemes: a developmental study. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 4:331–42
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Frith U, Wimmer H, Landerl K 1998. Differences in phonological recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Sci. Stud. Read. 21:31–54
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Frost R, Katz L, Bentin S 1987. Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: a multilingual comparison. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 13:104–15
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Frost SJ, Landi N, Mencl WE, Sandak R, Fulbright RK et al. 2009. Phonological awareness predicts activation patterns for print and speech. Ann. Dyslexia 59:78–97
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Goodman KS 1976. Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading H Singer, RB Ruddell 497–508 Newark, DE: Int. Read. Assoc.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Gough PB, Tunmer WE 1986. Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial Spec. Educ. 7:6–10
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Gronau N, Frost R 1997. Prelexical phonologic computation in a deep orthography: evidence from backward masking in Hebrew. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 4:107–12
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Harm M, Seidenberg MS 1999. Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: insights from connectionist models. Psychol. Rev. 106:491–528
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Harm M, Seidenberg MS 2004. Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychol. Rev. 111:662–720
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Hindson B, Byrne B, Fielding-Barnsley R, Newman C, Hine D, Shankweiler D 2005. Assessment and early instruction of preschool children at risk for reading disability. J. Educ. Psychol. 97:687–704
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Ho CSH, Chan D, Tsang SM, Lee SH, Luan VH 2004. Cognitive profiling and preliminary subtyping in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Cognition 91:43–75
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Hockett CF 1960. The origin of speech. Sci. Am. 203:88–96
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Hulme C, Boyer-Crane C, Carroll JM, Duff FJ, Snowling MJ 2012. The causal role of phoneme awareness and letter-sound knowledge in learning to read: combining intervention studies with mediation analyses. Psychol. Sci. 23:572–77
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Hulme C, Snowling M, Caravolas M, Carroll J 2005. Phonological skills are probably one cause of success in learning: a comment on Castles and Coltheart. Sci. Stud. Read. 9:351–65
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Kavanagh JF, Mattingly IG 1972. Language by Ear and by Eye: The Relationship Between Speech and Reading Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  65. Klima E 1972. How alphabets might reflect language. See Kavanagh & Mattingly 1972 57–80
  66. Levasseur VM, Macaruso P, Shankweiler D 2008. Promoting gains in reading fluency: a comparison of three approaches. Read. Writ. 21:205–30
     [Google Scholar]
  67. LeVine S 2017. Artificial intelligence pioneer says we need to start over. Axios Sept. 15. https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-we-need-to-start-over-1513305524-f619efbd-9db0-4947-a9b2-7a4c310a28fe.html
  68. Liberman AM 1970. The grammars of speech and language. Cogn. Psychol. 1:301–23
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Liberman AM 1992. The relationship of speech to reading. Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning R Frost, L Katz 167–78 Amsterdam: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Liberman AM, Cooper FS, Shankweiler D, Studdert-Kennedy M 1967. Perception of the speech code. Psychol. Rev. 74:431–61
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Liberman IY 1973. Segmentation of the spoken word and reading acquisition. Bull. Orton Soc. 23:65–77
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Liberman IY, Liberman AM 1990. Whole language versus code emphasis: underlying assumptions and the implications for reading instruction. Ann. Dyslexia 40:51–76
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Liberman IY, Liberman AM, Mattingly IG, Shankweiler D 1980.a Orthography and the beginning reader. Orthography, Reading, and Dyslexia JF Kavanagh, RL Venezky 137–53 Baltimore, MD: Univ. Park Press
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Liberman IY, Shankweiler D, Camp L, Blachman B, Werfelman M 1980.b Steps toward literacy: a linguistic approach. Auditory Processing and Language: Clinical and Research Perspectives P Levinson, C Sloan 189–215 New York: Grune & Stratton
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Liberman IY, Shankweiler D, Fischer FW, Carter B 1974. Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 18:201–12
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Lukatela G, Turvey MT 1990. Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 123:107–28
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Lukatela K, Carello C, Shankweiler D, Liberman IY 1995. Phonological awareness in illiterates: observations from Serbo-Croatian. Appl. Psycholinguist. 164:463–88
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Lundberg I, Frost J, Petersen O 1988. Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in school children. Read. Res. Q. 23:263–84
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Mann V 1991. Are we taking too narrow a view of the conditions for development of phonological awareness?. Phonological Processes in Literacy: A Tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman SA Brady, DP Shankweiler 55–64 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Mattingly IG 1972. Reading, the linguistic process, and linguistic awareness. See Kavanagh & Mattingly 1972 133–47
  81. Mattingly IG 1992. Linguistic awareness and orthographic form. Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning R Frost, L Katz 11–26 Amsterdam: Elsevier
     [Google Scholar]
  82. McBride-Chang C, Shu H, Zhou A, Wat CP, Wagner RK 2003. Morphological awareness uniquely predicts young children's Chinese character recognition. J. Educ. Psychol. 95:743–51
     [Google Scholar]
  83. McClelland J, Rumelhart DE 1981. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychol. Rev. 88:375–407
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Mesulam MM 1998. From sensation to cognition. Brain 121:1013–52
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Metsala JL, Walley AC 1998. Spoken vocabulary growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. Word Recognition and Beginning Literacy JL Metsala, LC Ehri 89–120 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Morais J, Cary L, Alegria J, Bertelson P 1979. Does awareness of speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously. Cognition 74:323–31
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Natl. Read. Panel. 2000. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Reports of the Subgroups Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Child Health Hum. Dev.
  88. Norris D 2013. Models of visual word recognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 171:517–24
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Ognjenovic V, Lukatela G, Feldman LB, Turvey MT 1983. Misreadings by beginning readers of Serbo-Croatian. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 35A:97–109
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Olson RK, Keenan JM, Byrne B, Samuelsson S 2014. Why do children differ in their development of reading and related skills. Sci. Stud. Read. 18:38–54
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Perfetti CA, Bell L 1991. Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: evidence from backward masking and priming. J. Mem. Lang. 30:473–85
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Perfetti CA, Bell LC, Delaney SM 1988. Automatic prelexical phonetic activation in silent word reading: evidence from backward masking. J. Mem. Lang. 27:59–70
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Perfetti CA, Cao F, Booth J 2013. Specialization and universals in the development of reading skill: how Chinese research informs a universal science of reading. Sci. Stud. Read. 17:5–21
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Perfetti CA, Liu Y, Tan LH 2005. The lexical constituency model: some implications of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. Psychol. Rev. 112:43–59
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Perfetti CA, Zhang S, Berent I 1992. Reading in English and Chinese: evidence for a “universal” phonological principle. Adv. Psychol. 94:227–48
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Perry C, Ziegler JC, Zorzi M 2007. Nested incremental modeling in the development of computational theories: the CDP+ model of reading aloud. Psychol. Rev. 114:273–315
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Perry C, Ziegler JC, Zorzi M 2010. Beyond single syllables: large-scale modeling of reading aloud with the Connectionist Dual Process CDP++ model. Cogn. Psychol. 61:106–51
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Preston J, Molfese PJ, Frost SJ, Mencl WE, Fulbright RK et al. 2016. Print–speech convergence predicts future reading outcomes in early readers. Psychol. Sci. 27:75–84
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Price CJ 2012. A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading. NeuroImage 62:816–47
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Pugh KR, Frost SJ, Sandak R, Landi N, Moore D et al. 2010. Mapping the word reading circuitry in skilled and disabled readers. The Neural Basis of Reading PL Cornelissen, PC Hansen, ML Kringelback, KR Pugh 281–305 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Pugh KR, Mencl WE, Jenner JR, Ren Lee J, Katz L et al. 2001. Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading disability. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 16:241–49
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Rayner K, Foorman BR, Perfetti CA, Pesetsky D, Seidenberg MS 2001. How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychol. Sci. Suppl. 2:31–74
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Read C, Yun-Fei Z, Hong-Yin N, Bao-Qing D 1986. The ability to manipulate speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic writing. Cognition 24:31–44
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Rimzhim A, Katz L, Fowler CA 2014. Brāhmī-derived orthographies are typologically Aksharik but functionally predominantly alphabetic. Writ. Syst. Res. 61:41–53
     [Google Scholar]
  105. Rozin P, Poritsky S, Sotsky R 1971. American children with reading problems can easily learn to read English represented by Chinese characters. Science 171:1264–67
     [Google Scholar]
  106. Rueckl JG 2016. Toward a theory of variation in the organization of the word reading system. Sci. Stud. Read. 20:86–97
     [Google Scholar]
  107. Rueckl JG, Paz-Alonso PM, Molfese PJ, Kuo W-J, Bick A et al. 2015. Universal brain signature of proficient reading: evidence from four contrasting languages. PNAS 112:15510–15
     [Google Scholar]
  108. Rumelhart D, McClelland J 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 1: Foundations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  109. Saffran JR 2003. Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 12:110–14
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Savin HB 1972. What the child knows about speech when he starts to learn to read. See Kavanagh & Mattingly 1972 319–26
  111. Scarborough HS, Brady SA 2002. Toward a common terminology for talking about speech and reading: a glossary of “phon” words and some related terms. J. Lit. Res. 34:299–336
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Schmandt-Besserat D 1997. How Writing Came About Austin: Univ. Tex. Press
  113. Seidenberg MS 2011. Reading in different writing systems: one architecture, multiple solutions. Dyslexia Across Languages: Orthography and the Brain–Gene–Behavior Link P McCardle, B Miller, JR Lee, O Tzeng 146–68 Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
     [Google Scholar]
  114. Seidenberg MS 2012. Computational models of reading: connectionist and dual-route approaches. The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics MJ Spivey, K McRae, MF Joanisse 186–203 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Seidenberg MS 2017. Language at the Speed of Sight: Why We Read, Why So Many Can't, and What Can Be Done About It New York: Basic Books
  116. Seymour PHK, Aro M, Erskine JK 2003. Foundation literacy acquisition in European orthographies. Br. J. Psychol. 94:143–74
     [Google Scholar]
  117. Shankweiler D, Fowler AE 2004. Questions people ask about the role of phonological processes in learning to read. Read. Writ. 17:483–515
     [Google Scholar]
  118. Shankweiler D, Liberman IY 1972. Misreading: a search for causes. See Kavanagh & Mattingly 1972 293–317
  119. Shankweiler D, Mencl WE, Braze D, Tabor W, Pugh KR, Fulbright RK 2008. Reading differences and brain: Cortical integration of speech and print in sentence processing varies with reading skill. Dev. Neuropsychol. 33:745–75
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Share DL 1995. Phonetic recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition 55:151–218
     [Google Scholar]
  121. Share DL 2008. On the Anglocentricities of current reading research and practice: the perils of overreliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychol. Bull. 134:584–615
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA, Blachman BA, Pugh KR, Fulbright RK et al. 2004. Development of left occipito-temporal systems for skilled reading in children after a phonologically-based intervention. Biol. Psychiatry 55:926–33
     [Google Scholar]
  123. Smith F 1973. Psycholinguistics and Reading New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
  124. Smith F, Lott D, Cronnell B 1969. The effect of type size and case alternation on word identification. Am. J. Psychol. 82:248–53
     [Google Scholar]
  125. Strain E, Patterson K, Seidenberg MS 1999. Semantic effects in single-word naming. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21:1140–54
     [Google Scholar]
  126. Studdert-Kennedy M 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity: from syllable to gesture. Approaches to the Evolution of Language J Hurford, M Studdert-Kennedy, C Knight 202–21 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Studdert-Kennedy M 2000. Evolutionary implications of the particulate principle: imitation and the dissociation of phonetic form from semantic function. The Evolutionary Emergence of Language C Knight, M Studdert-Kennedy, JR Hurford 161–76 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Studdert-Kennedy M 2005. How did language go discrete?. Language Origins: Perspectives on Evolution M Tallerman 48–67 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Tan LH, Hoosain R, Peng DL 1995. Role of early presemantic phonological code in Chinese character identification. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 21:43–54
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Tan LH, Hoosain R, Siok W 1996. Activation of phonological codes before access to character meaning in written Chinese. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22:865–82
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Treiman R 1993. Beginning to Spell New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  132. Tunmer WE, Chapman JW 2002. The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self-perceptions. Read. Writ. 15:341–58
     [Google Scholar]
  133. Van Orden G 1987. A rows is a rose: spelling, sound, and reading. Mem. Cogn. 15:181–98
     [Google Scholar]
  134. Venezky RL 1999. The American Way of Spelling: The Structure and Origins of American English Orthography New York: Guilford
  135. Yang J, Shu H, McCandliss BD, Zevin JD 2013. Orthographic influences on division of labor in learning to read Chinese and English: insights from computational modeling. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 16:354–66
     [Google Scholar]
  136. Yang J, Zevin JD, Shu H, McCandliss BD, Li P 2006. A “triangle model” of Chinese reading. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society R Sun, N Miyake 912–17 Mahwah, NJ: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
     [Google Scholar]
  137. Ziegler JC, Perry C, Jacobs AM, Braun M 2001. Identical words are read differently in different languages. Psychol. Sci. 12:379–84
     [Google Scholar]
  138. Zorzi M, Houghton G, Butterworth B 1998. Two routes or one in reading aloud? A connectionist dual-process model. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 24:1131–61
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012419
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error