effet du nombre des graphÃ¨mes en Anglais - Aix Marseille UniversitÃ©

More documents

Recommendations

Info

224Appendice IMROM-P : An interactive activation, multiple readoutmodel of orthographic and phonological processesin visual word recognitionArthur M. JacobsPhilipps Universitat, Marburg, GermanyArnaud ReyCNRC-CNRS, Marseille, FranceJohannes C. ZieglerCREPCO-CNRS, Marseille, FranceJonathan GraingerCREPCO-CNRS, Marseille, FranceAbstractThis chapter introduces a localist connectionist model of orthographic and phonologicalprocesses in visual word recognition : the M ultiple R ead- O ut M odel includingP honological units, or the MROM-P. Unlike its predecessor, the MROM (Grainger &Jacobs, 1996), the present model includes sublexical and lexical phonological processes.This model is examined with respect to its ability to account for two major effects obtainedin the visual lexical decision task : the pseudohomophone effect and the bidirectionalconsistency effect. Both of these effects demonstrate bidirectional influences of orthographicand phonological processes in the lexical decision task. None of these effectshave been quantitatively accounted for by any other computational model. The MROM-Pis able to simulate both effects with identical parameter sets, tuned on an independent setof data. The results of a criterion-guided evaluation of the model suggest that MROM-P isa promising prototype for a general model of visual word recognition.Arthur M. Jacobs, Brain & Language Group, Center for Research in Cognitive Neuroscience, CNRS, Marseille,France, and Department of Psychology, Philipps-University of Marburg, Germany ; Arnaud Rey and Johannes C.Ziegler, Brain & Language Group, Center for Research in Cognitive Neuroscience, CNRS, Marseille, France ; JonathanGrainger, CREPCO, CNRS and Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France.This research was supported by a grant from the "Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft" to A. Jacobs (Teilprojekt 7der Forschergruppe "Dynamik kognitiver Repräsentationen"), a grant from the French Ministry of Education andResearch (n°95124, programme Sciences Cognitives) to A. Rey, and a German Academic Exchange Service Grant(DAAD-Doktorandenstipendium aus Mitteln des zweiten Hochschulsonderprogramms) to J. Ziegler. Correspondenceconcerning this article should be addressed to A. Jacobs, Philipps-University of Marburg, Psychology Dept.,Gutenbergstr. 18, D - 35037 Marburg. Electronic mail may be sent to JACOBSA@MAILER.UNI-MARBURG.DE.
Appendice I 225INTRODUCTION"The world is worded before it is sentenced" (variation on a theme by Humboldt).READING, WORD RECOGNITION, AND THE LEXI-CAL DECISION TASK"The world of words is just as wondrous as the world of syntax, or even more so. For not only are peopleas infinitely creative with words as they are with phrases and sentences, but memorizing individualwords demands its own special virtuosity" (Pinker, 1994, p. 127).The general subject area of this paper is reading. As perhaps the finest achievement of human civilizationand one of the most complex activities of the human mind, explaining the whys and hows of reading skillrepresents an outstanding intellectual challenge for cognitive scientists. Since word recognition is the fundamentalprocess underlying reading skill, it provides the favorable focus for experimental reading research.At the level of word representations, all lower- and higher-level processes involved in reading seem to meet :Word representations are the central building blocks of language learning and processing (cf. Miller, 1993).It is here that sensory, orthographic, phonological, morphological, semantic, and syntactic operations convergeand diverge. The problem is to find out how these central representations are organized and how theyinteract with both lower- and higher-level processes that depend on task or language contexts. Solving thisproblem necessarily involves a multistep approach. Before tackling, for example, problems of word or sentenceproduction that reflect the "infinite creativity with words", we try to solve the problems concerning theperceptual and mnestic organization of lexical memory that are the basis of the "special virtuosity" mentionedin the above citation. Before tackling problems or morphosemantic and -syntactic processing ofwords, we try to answer simpler questions concerning orthographic and phonological processing 2 .Word recognition and reading are studied using a variety of experimental techniques, that still require afair amount of methodological and theoretical unification (Jacobs & Grainger, 1994 ; see also discussionsection). The most widely used modern experimental method for investigating visual and auditory word recognitionis the lexical decision task (LDT). Like any other experimental technique, it provides only indirectand incomplete information about the processes underlying word recognition, and therefore requires cognitivemodeling as a complement to experimental analyses. This paper focuses on such a model of word recognitionperformance as assessed by the LDT.ORTHOGRAPHIC AND PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING : A MODEL-GUIDED,MULTILINGUISTIC, MULTITASK PERSPECTIVE BASED ON THREE SKEP-TICISMSFrom an evolutionary perspective, writing and reading evolved because humans needed a convenientmeans of coding and decoding oral language -which, as a means of externalization of thoughts, presumablyhad already stood its test on the scale of survival values- for purposes of storage, transmission, and tradition.In alphabetic writing systems, the individual elements of the alphabet correspond to the elementary soundsof the spoken language. The degree of this correspondence (its consistency) is variable and object of much(psycho)-linguistic research. In some places many-to-many mappings evolved (e.g., English and French),whether "naturally", following invasions, or via spelling reforms, whereas in others something closer toone-to-one mappings between script and sound evolved (e.g. Serbo-Croatian or Spanish). This considerablevariation across languages in the degree of correlation, or the consistency of the spelling-to-sound and thesound-to-spelling mappings ("deep" vs. "shallow" orthographies) provides a rich playground for crosslinguisticexperimental studies of reading skills (Carello, Turvey, & Lukatela, 1992 ; Frost, Katz, & Bentin,1987 ; Perfetti, Zhang, & Berent, 1992). Such studies have their costs, but for understanding the readingprocess they are more interesting than monolinguistic studies. Moreover, these considerable crosslinguisticvariations in consistency also provide a big challenge for researchers who aim at building computationalmultilingual, multitask models of reading (Carreiras, Perea, & Grainger, in press ; Dijkstra & Van Heuven,present volume ; Jacobs, 1995 ; Ziegler, 1996).Our research program, of which the present modeling efforts are an integral part, is multilinguistic, becausewe are skeptical about the view that the reading process can be understood by studying a single language.Instead, as many examples show, cross-linguistic research can avoid the dangers of premature or falseconclusions drawn from the results of monolinguistic work (Carello et al., 1992 ; Hagège, 1986 ;MacWhinney, Bates, & Kliegl, 1984 ; Lass, 1995 ; Marcus, Brinkmann, Clahsen, Wiese, & Pinker, 1995 ;Perfetti et al., 1992 ; Van Orden & Goldinger, 1994). Currently, our research program directly includes three2 Orthographic processing refers to the use of orthographic information, i.e. knowledge of the spellings ofwords. In alphabetic languages such as English, French, or German, we assume that such knowledge is letterbased.In particular, knowledge of how to spell a word is thought to be stored as a set of abstract representationsthat code both the identity and position of a word's component letters. Phonological processing refersto the use of phonological information (i.e., knowledge of the sounds of one's language) in processing writtenand oral language. The question which functional units code that knowledge is more complex than for orthographicprocessing, as discussed in the text.
Page 1:
UNIVERSITÉ DE PROVENCE, AIX-MARSEI
Page 4 and 5:
Ce travail clôt un cycle de format
Page 6 and 7:
CHAPITRE 7 : LE FUM . . . . . . . .
Page 8 and 9:
8IntroductionPour cela, notre domai
Page 10 and 11:
10Introduction• au niveau lexical
Page 12 and 13:
12Introduction• sa forme visuelle
Page 14 and 15:
14IntroductionAprès avoir posé le
Page 16 and 17:
16Méthodologiespulations sur les i
Page 18 and 19:
18Méthodologies2.1. Protocoles exp
Page 20 and 21:
20Méthodologiessi le stimulus se t
Page 22 and 23:
22MéthodologiesCertaines études t
Page 24 and 25:
24Méthodologiestes, on obtient des
Page 26 and 27:
26Méthodologies1996 ; Peter & Turv
Page 28 and 29:
28Méthodologiesles performances da
Page 30 and 31:
30Méthodologies6 %8%10%15%30%50%80
Page 32 and 33:
32MéthodologiesMatériel expérime
Page 34 and 35:
34Méthodologiesentraîne le masqua
Page 36 and 37:
36MéthodologiesLe même résultat
Page 38 and 39:
38Méthodologies120100Situation Sta
Page 40 and 41:
Chapitre 3Orthographe et phonologie
Page 42 and 43:
42Orthographe et Phonologie3.1. Var
Page 44 and 45:
44Orthographe et PhonologieLa Figur
Page 46 and 47:
46Orthographe et PhonologieJacobs,
Page 48 and 49:
48Orthographe et Phonologiedans la
Page 50 and 51:
50Orthographe et PhonologieDans l
Page 52 and 53:
52Orthographe et Phonologieteurs du
Page 54 and 55:
54Orthographe et PhonologieGoldstei
Page 56 and 57:
56Orthographe et Phonologietion est
Page 58 and 59:
58Orthographe et Phonologierand, 19
Page 60 and 61:
60Orthographe et Phonologieplus ad
Page 62 and 63:
62Orthographe et Phonologie3.2.3.1.
Page 64 and 65:
64Orthographe et PhonologiePlus ré
Page 66 and 67:
66Orthographe et PhonologieUne autr
Page 68 and 69:
68Orthographe et Phonologiedeux var
Page 70 and 71:
Chapitre 4Modèles de la perception
Page 72 and 73:
72Modèles de la perception visuell
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
98MROM-pspécifier leur lien avec l
Page 100 and 101:
100MROM-pphonèmes reliés par un r
Page 102 and 103:
102MROM-pLorsque le modèle génèr
Page 104 and 105:
104MROM-pque ce système artificiel
Page 106 and 107:
106Unités de la lecturelinguistiqu
Page 108 and 109:
108Unités de la lecture22606TR (ms
Page 110 and 111:
110Unités de la lecturemes. Aussi
Page 112 and 113:
112Unités de la lecturephonologiqu
Page 114 and 115:
114Unités de la lectureelle-même
Page 116 and 117:
116Unités de la lecture6.3. Expér
Page 118 and 119:
118Unités de la lectureRead est qu
Page 120 and 121:
120Unités de la lectureces modèle
Page 122 and 123:
122Unités de la lecturechapitre su
Page 124 and 125:
124FUMmultiples existant au sein de
Page 126 and 127:
126FUMpar Berndt, Lynne D'Autrechy
Page 128 and 129:
128FUMcessus de compétition et du
Page 130 and 131:
130FUMgène et suit les principes c
Page 132 and 133:
132FUMPseudohomophonesContrôles Or
Page 134 and 135:
134FUM61023TR (ms) Seidenberg et al
Page 136 and 137:
136FUMportementaux et les résultat
Page 138 and 139:
138FUMà une entité extérieure au
Page 140 and 141:
Chapitre 8Des prédictionsau niveau
Page 142 and 143:
142Des prédictions au niveau des m
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
166Les mots polysyllabiquesmots mon
Page 168 and 169:
168Les mots polysyllabiquesTableau
Page 170 and 171:
170Les mots polysyllabiques9.2. Exp
Page 172 and 173:
172Les mots polysyllabiques19001890
Page 174 and 175: 174Les mots polysyllabiquesnexe XI
Page 176 and 177: 176Les mots polysyllabiques9.4. Dis
Page 178 and 179: 178ConclusionConclusion« La grande
Page 180 and 181: 180Conclusionplutôt un système o
Page 182 and 183: 182Conclusiontester les prédiction
Page 184 and 185: 184BibliographieAderman, D., & Smit
Page 186 and 187: 186BibliographieBrysbaert, M., Vitu
Page 188 and 189: 188BibliographieFerrand, L., Segui,
Page 190 and 191: 190BibliographieGrainger, J., & Jac
Page 192 and 193: 192BibliographieKay, J., & Bishop,
Page 194 and 195: 194BibliographieMewhort, D. J. K.,
Page 196 and 197: 196BibliographiePerea, M., & Pollat
Page 198 and 199: 198BibliographieSeidenberg, M. S.,
Page 200 and 201: 200BibliographieTreiman, R., & Zuko
Page 202 and 203: 202AnnexesAnnexes
Page 204 and 205: 204AnnexesAnnexe II : Temps de rép
Page 206 and 207: 206AnnexesAnnexe IV : Temps de rép
Page 208 and 209: 208Annexesd t 88 3 fixed fI%tdd d 3
Page 210 and 211: 210Annexesoo u 3395 57 too tuoo $ 5
Page 212 and 213: 212AnnexesAnnexe VI : Liste des 120
Page 214 and 215: 214AnnexesAnnexe VII : Détail des
Page 216 and 217: 216AnnexesSujets Stim. Erreur Sujet
Page 218 and 219: 218AnnexesSujet Moyenne % Err ES Su
Page 220 and 221: 220AnnexesAnnexe X : Stimuli employ
Page 222 and 223: 222AnnexesAnnexe XI : Stimuli emplo
Page 226 and 227: 226Appendice Ilanguages (French, Ge
Page 228 and 229: 228Appendice Isummed frequency of f
Page 230 and 231: 230Appendice IClearly, the ability
Page 232 and 233: 232Appendice Ito an orthographic le
Page 234 and 235: 234Appendice IFigure 6 gives an ill
Page 236 and 237: 236Appendice Iestimator set study,
Page 238 and 239: 238Appendice ISTEP 3. CRITERION SET
Page 240 and 241: 240Appendice Iteractive processes o
Page 242 and 243: 242Appendice INotwithstanding, a no
Page 244 and 245: 244Appendice I1994). Our stratagem
Page 246 and 247: 246Appendice ILass, U. (1995). Einf
Page 248 and 249: 248Appendice IAPPENDIXA1. Cleaning
Page 250 and 251: 250Appendice IIA phoneme effect in
Page 252 and 253: 252Appendice IIAs shown in Table 1,
Page 254 and 255: 254Appendice IImay depend on their
Page 256 and 257: Appendice III
Page 258 and 259: 258Appendice IIIHowever, an unsolve
Page 260 and 261: 260Appendice IIIgrapheme compared t
Page 262 and 263: 262Appendice IIIRead, J. D. (1983).
Page 264: 264Appendice IIIAppendix AMean resp
show all

effet du nombre des graphÃ¨mes en Anglais - Aix Marseille UniversitÃ©

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?