Some Bodies are Easier to Read: The Effect of Consistency and Regularity on Children's Reading

Patterson and Morton (1985) proposed a model for the skilled reading of words and non-words that accommodates two non-lexical routines. One is the grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence system which utilizes the regularity of letter to sound correspondences for single letters and digraphs. The other is a system of “bodies”—the vowel and terminal letters of a monomorphemic, monosyllabic word. The idea of the body segment, as Patterson and Morton use it, is to capture consistency effects in reading aloud—that is, the fact that the spelling-sound pattern of words with similar written endings to the target affects the speed and accuracy of its reading. In this study consistency and regularity are examined as separate factors in children's reading, by devising stimuli in accordance with the different types of three-letter ending that are proposed within the body sub-system. A group of 87 children aged seven to nine (reading age range: 6;6 to 13;7) was sub-divided according to reading ability and given words and non-words to read aloud. In all the children, performance was affected by body type for both words and non-words, but the better readers were most affected. The implications of these results for a radical distributed model of reading acquisition (Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989) are considered.

[1]  Words your children use : a survey of the words used by children in infants' schools with the resultant graded vocabulary , 1964 .

[2]  R. Venezky.  The Structure of English Orthography , 1965 .

[3]  R. W. Zandvoort.  Rules of pronunciation for the English language. An account of the relationship between English spelling and pronunciation: Axel Wijk, (Language and Language Learning 12.) London: Oxford University Press. 1966. 160 pp. Price 8s. 6d. net , 1967 .

[4]  J. Marshall,et al.  Patterns of paralexia: A psycholinguistic approach , 1973 .

[5]  M. Coltheart.  Lexical access in simple reading tasks , 1978 .

[6]  P. McCullagh,et al.  The GLIM System, Release 3: Generalized linear interactive modelling , 1979 .

[7]  R. Glushko.  The Organization and Activation of Orthographic Knowledge in Reading Aloud. , 1979 .

[8]  Janice Kay,et al.  One Process, Not Two, in Reading Aloud: Lexical Analogies Do the Work of Non-Lexical Rules , 1981 .

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. , 1982, Psychological review.

[10]  S. Andrews.  Phonological recoding: Is the regularity effect consistent? , 1982 .

[11]  Anthony F. Jorm,et al.  An invited article: Phonological recoding and reading acquisition , 1983, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[12]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition , 1984 .

[13]  P. H. Seymour,et al.  Developmental dyslexia: a cognitive experimental analysis of phonological, morphemic, and visual impairments , 1984 .

[14]  H. Francis.  Children's knowledge of orthography in learning to read. , 1984, The British journal of educational psychology.

[15]  G. Waters,et al.  Children’s and adults’ use of spelling-sound information in three reading tasks , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[16]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Acquisition and use of spelling-sound correspondences in reading , 1984 .

[17]  A. Parkin.  Dual-route theory and the consistency effect , 1985, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Word recognition processes of poor and disabled readers: Do they necessarily differ? , 1985, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[19]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Do children use similar processes to read and spell words , 1985 .

[20]  S. Johansson,et al.  Word Frequencies in British and American English , 1985 .

[21]  R. W. Barron.  Word recognition in early reading: A review of the direct and indirect access hypotheses , 1986, Cognition.

[22]  Joy Stackhouse,et al.  Phonological dyslexia and dysgraphia—a developmental analysis , 1986 .

[23]  Philip H. K. Seymour,et al.  Beginning reading without phonology , 1986 .

[24]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[25]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation. , 1987 .

[26]  James A. Reggia,et al.  Empirically derived probabilities for grapheme-to-phoneme correspondences in english , 1987 .

[27]  A. Parkin,et al.  Further explorations of the consistency effect in word and nonword pronunciation , 1987, Memory & cognition.

[28]  Gordon D. A. Brown.  Resclving inconsistency: A computational model of word naming , 1987 .

[29]  James L. McClelland.  Parallel Distributed Processing: Implications for Cognition and Development , 1988 .

[30]  U. Goswami.  Orthographic Analogies and Reading Development , 1988 .

[31]  M. Coltheart,et al.  Does reading develop in a sequence of stages? , 1988, Cognition.

[32]  V. Coltheart,et al.  CHILDREN FIND FRIENDLY WORDS FRIENDLY TOO: WORDS WITH MANY ORTHOGRAPHIC NEIGHBOURS ARE EASIER TO READ AND SPELL , 1988 .

[33]  S. Andrews.  Frequency and neighborhood effects on lexical access: Activation or search? , 1989 .

[34]  James L. McClelland,et al.  A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. , 1989, Psychological review.

[35]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Connections and disconnections: Acquired dyslexia in a computational model of reading processes. , 1989 .

[36]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Distributed Representations , 1986, The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence.

[37]  Ken N. Seergobin,et al.  On the association between connectionism and data: Are a few words necessary? , 1990 .