TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of homophony on reading aloud
T2 - Implications for models of speech production
AU - Biedermann, Britta
AU - Coltheart, Max
AU - Nickels, Lyndsey
AU - Saunders, Steve
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - In this paper we investigate whether homophones have shared (e.g., Dell, 1990; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999) or independent (e.g., Caramazza, Costa, Miozzo, & Bi, 2001) phonological representations. We carried out a homophone reading aloud task with low frequency irregular homophones and matched low frequency irregular non-homophonic controls. The 'Shared Representation' view predicted a homophone advantage: homophones should be read faster than their matched controls because the low frequency homophone inherits the frequency of its high frequency partner. The 'Independent Representation' view predicted neither an advantage nor a disadvantage: performance should be governed by the homophone's specific-word frequency. Results showed that low frequency homophones were read aloud slower than non-homophonic controls. Results were confirmed with an independent database of reading latencies (Balota, Cortese, Hutchison, Neely, Nelson, Simpson, & Treiman, 2002). Additionally, attempts to simulate the homophone disadvantage effect using current computational models of reading aloud were all unsuccessful. The homophone disadvantage effect constitutes, therefore, a new challenge for all computational reading models to date.
AB - In this paper we investigate whether homophones have shared (e.g., Dell, 1990; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999) or independent (e.g., Caramazza, Costa, Miozzo, & Bi, 2001) phonological representations. We carried out a homophone reading aloud task with low frequency irregular homophones and matched low frequency irregular non-homophonic controls. The 'Shared Representation' view predicted a homophone advantage: homophones should be read faster than their matched controls because the low frequency homophone inherits the frequency of its high frequency partner. The 'Independent Representation' view predicted neither an advantage nor a disadvantage: performance should be governed by the homophone's specific-word frequency. Results showed that low frequency homophones were read aloud slower than non-homophonic controls. Results were confirmed with an independent database of reading latencies (Balota, Cortese, Hutchison, Neely, Nelson, Simpson, & Treiman, 2002). Additionally, attempts to simulate the homophone disadvantage effect using current computational models of reading aloud were all unsuccessful. The homophone disadvantage effect constitutes, therefore, a new challenge for all computational reading models to date.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70450255143&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/01690960802597243
DO - 10.1080/01690960802597243
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:70450255143
VL - 24
SP - 804
EP - 842
JO - Language and Cognitive Processes
JF - Language and Cognitive Processes
SN - 0169-0965
IS - 6
ER -