4.4 Article

Spoken words activate native and non-native letter-to-sound mappings: Evidence from eye tracking

Journal

BRAIN AND LANGUAGE
Volume 223, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bl.2021.105045

Keywords

Letter-to-sound mapping; Phonology-to-orthography mapping; Phonology; Orthography; Word learning; Word processing; Parallel activation; Eye tracking; Visual world paradigm

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health [R01HD059858]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Native language experience affects the acquisition and processing of words with conflicting letter-to-sound mappings. The typicality of orthography can impact learning difficulty, and non-native spoken words activate both native language orthography and letter-to-sound mappings.
Many languages use the same letters to represent different sounds (e.g., the letter P represents /p/ in English but /r/ in Russian). We report two experiments that examine how native language experience impacts the acquisition and processing of words with conflicting letter-to-sound mappings. Experiment 1 revealed that individual differences in nonverbal intelligence predicted word learning and that novel words with conflicting orthography-tophonology mappings were harder to learn when their spelling was more typical of the native language than less typical (due to increased competition from the native language). Notably, Experiment 2 used eye tracking to reveal, for the first time, that hearing non-native spoken words activates native language orthography and both native and non-native letter-to-sound mappings. These findings evince high interactivity in the language system, illustrate the role of orthography in phonological learning and processing, and demonstrate that experience with written form changes the linguistic mind.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available