effet du nombre des graphèmes en Anglais - Aix Marseille Université

Appendice III 261evidences in english, see Bowey, 1990, 1993 ; Treiman, 1989 ; Treiman & Chafetz, 1987 ; Treiman,Goswami, & Bruck, 1990 ; Treiman et al., 1995 ; Treiman & Zukowski, 1988 ; Wise, Olson, & Treiman,1990 ; for syllable evidences in English, Spanish and French, see Carreiras, Alvarez, & de Vega, 1993 ; Ferrand,Segui, & Grainger, 1996 ; Ferrand, Segui, & Humphreys, 1996 ; Perea, & Carreiras, 1998 ;Prinzmetal, Treiman & Rho, 1986 ; Rapp, 1992). Together, these different levels of functional spellingunits could emerge during reading acquisition, increasing the ability of skilled readers to process letter stringsin parallel.The concept of unit that we use here has to be understood as a descriptive concept. We use it as a theoreticaltool that allows simplified functional descriptions of the reading system complexity (Grainger & Jacobs,1998b). Also, by « reading unit », we mean stable and functional patterns of representations that emergeduring the maturation of reading. These patterns can be considered as « units » because they are recurrentlyassociated with other informations. Thus, graphemes, onset, rimes or syllables can be considered as functionalspelling units in the sense that these patterns of letter strings are repeatedly associated to specific phonemes orstrings of phonemes. These repeated associations lead to a unique coupling of two distinct codes and consequently,to the development of what we call « a functional unit » inside each code.REFERENCESBaayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Linguistic DataConsortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.Berndt, R. S., Lynne D’Autrechy, C., & Reggia, J. A. (1994). Functional pronunciation units in English words.Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory and Cognition 20, 977-991.Berndt, R. S., Reggia, J. A., & Mitchum, C. C. (1987). Empirically derived probabilities for grapheme-to-phonemecorrespondences in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 19, 1-9.Bowey, J. A. (1990). Orthographic onsets and rimes as functional units of reading. Memory and Cognition 18, 419-427.Bowey, J. A. (1993). Orthographic rime priming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 46A, 247-271.Carreiras, M., Alvarez, C., J., & de Vega, M. (1993). Syllable frequency and visual word recognition in Spanish.Journal of Memory and Langage, 32, 766-780.Corcoran, D. W. J. (1966). An acoustic factor in letter cancelation. Nature, 210, 658.Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In : Underwood, G. (Ed.), Strategies of InformationProcessing. London : Academic Press.Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, H. (1993). Models of reading aloud : Dual-route and paralleldistributed-processingapproaches. Psychological Review 100, 589-608.Content, A., Mousty, P., & Radeau, M. (1990). BRULEX : Une base de données lexicales informatisée pour le Françaisécrit et parlé. L’Année Psychologique 90, 551-566.Drewnowski, A., & Healy, A. F. (1977). Detection errors on the and and : Evidence for reading units larger than theword. Memory and Cognition, 5, 154-168.Ferrand, L., Segui, J., & Grainger, J. (1996). Masked priming of words and picture naming : The role of syllabicunits. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 708-723.Ferrand, L., Segui, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1996). The syllable’s role in word naming. Memory and Cognition 25,458-470.Gibson, E. J., Pick, A. D., Osser, H., & Hammond, M. (1962). The role of grapheme-phoneme correspondence inthe perception of words. American Journal of Psychology 75, 554-570.Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A., M. (1998a). Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition Hillsdale, NJ : LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A., M. (1998b). On localist connectionism and psychological science. In J. Grainger & A.M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition (pp. 1-38). Hillsdale, NJ : LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Healy, A.F. (1994). Letter detection : A window to unitization and other cognitive processes. Psychonomic Bulletin& Review, 1, 333-344.Henderson, L. (1985). On the use of the term ‘grapheme’. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 135-148.Jakobson, R., Fant, M. & Halle, M. (1952). Le concept de trait distinctif. Preliminaries to speech analysis. Cambridge(Mass.) : The M.I.T. Press.Laberge, D., & Samuel, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. CognitivePsychology 6, 293-323.Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1997). Orthographic and phonological neighborhood in naming : Not all neighborsare equally influential in orthographic space. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 382-410.Perea, M., & Carreiras, M. (1998). Effects of syllable frequency and syllable neighborhood frequency in visual wordrecognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance, 24, 134-144.Pring, L. (1981). Phonological codes and functional spelling units : Reality and implications. Perception and Psychophysics,30, 573-578.Prinzmetal, W., Treiman, R., & Rho, S. (1986). How to see a reading unit. Journal of Memory and Language 25,461-475.Rapp, B. C. (1992). The nature of sublexical orthographic organization : The bigram trough hypothesis examined.Journal of Memory and Language 31, 33-53.Rastle, K., & Coltheart, M., in press. Whammy and double whammy : Length effects in nonword naming. PsychonomicBulletin and Review.