Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-wjqwx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-16T16:02:31.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of spelling on the production and storage of words with allophonic variants of /h/ in Korean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2015

JEONG-IM HAN  and
TAE-HWAN CHOI
JEONG-IM HAN*
Affiliation:
Konkuk University
TAE-HWAN CHOI
Affiliation:
Konkuk University
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Jeong-Im Han, Department of English, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, 143–701, Korea. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined the role of orthography in the production and storage of spoken words. Korean speakers learned novel Korean words with potential variants of /h/, including [ɦ] and ø. They were provided with the same auditory stimuli but with varying exposure to spelling. One group was presented with the letter for ø (<ㅇ>), the second group, the letter for [ɦ] (<ㅎ>), and the third group, auditory input only. In picture-naming tasks, the participants presented with <ㅇ> produced fewer words with [ɦ] than those presented with <ㅎ>. In a spelling recall task, the participants who were not exposed to spelling displayed various types of spellings for variants, but after exposure to spelling, they began to produce spellings as provided in the task. These results suggest that orthographic information influences the production of words via an offline restructuring of the phonological representation.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , July 2016 , pp. 757 - 780
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ahn, S.-C. (1986). On the nature of /h/ in Korean. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 16, 1–13.Google Scholar
Alario, F.-X., Perre, L., Castel, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2007). The role of orthography in speech production revisited. Cognition, 102, B464–B475.Google Scholar
Bassetti, B. (2006). Orthographic input and phonological representations in learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Written Language and Literacy, 9, 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bi, Y., Wei, T., Janssen, N., & Han, Z. (2009). The contribution of orthography to spoken word production: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 555–560.Google Scholar
Bürki, A., Alario, F.-X., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2011). Lexical representation of phonological variants: Evidence from pseudohomophone effects in different regiolects. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 424–442.Google Scholar
Bürki, A., Ernestus, M., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2010). Is there only one “fenêtre” in the production lexicon? On-line evidence on the nature of phonological representations of pronunciation variants of French schwa words. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 421–437.Google Scholar
Bürki, A., Spinelli, E., & Gaskell, G. (2012). A written word is worth a thousand spoken words: The influence of spelling on spoken-word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 449–467.Google Scholar
Castles, A., Holmes, V. M., Neath, J., & Kinoshita, S. (2003). How does orthographic knowledge influence performance on phonological awareness tasks? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 445–467.Google Scholar
Cha, J., Jung, M., & Shin, J. (2003). A phonetic and phonological study on /h/-realization between sonorant sounds. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 28, 765–784.Google Scholar
Choi, T.-H., Lim, N.-S., & Han, J.-I. (2006). Effects of word frequency on a lenition process: Evidence from stop voicing and /h/ reduction in Korean. Speech Sciences, 13, 35–48.Google Scholar
Connine, C. M. (2004). It's not what you hear, but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 1084–1089.Google Scholar
Connine, C. M., & Pinnow, E. (2006). Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. Linguistic Review, 23, 235–245.Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 119–132.Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2009). Assessing the role of orthography in speech perception and production: Evidence from picture-word interference tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 581–598.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Roelofs, A., & Fieuws, S. (1995). Orthographic effects on phoneme monitoring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 264–271.Google Scholar
Dumay, N., & Gaskell, M. G. (2007). Sleep-associated changes in the mental representation of spoken words. Psychological Science, 18, 35–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdener, V. D., & Burnham, D. K. (2005). The role of audiovisual speech and orthographic information in nonnative speech production. Language Learning, 55, 191–228.Google Scholar
Escudero, P., Hayes, R., & Mitterer, H. (2008). Novel L2 words and asymmetric lexical access. Journal of Phonetics, 36, 345–360.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G., Cox, H., Foley, K., Grieve, H., & O'Brien, R. (2003). Constraints on definite article alternation in speech production: To “thee” or not to “thee”? Memory and Cognition, 31, 715–727.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1996). Phonological variation and inference in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 144–158.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1998). Mechanisms of phonological inference in speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 380–396.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. (2001). Assimilation and anticipation in continuous spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 133–159.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. (2002). Does English coronal place assimilation create lexical ambiguity? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 163–179.Google Scholar
Gow, D. W. (2003). Feature parsing: Feature cue mapping in spoken word recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 575–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes-Harb, R., Nicol, J., & Barker, J. (2010). Learning the phonological forms of new words: Effects of orthographic and auditory input. Language and Speech, 53, 367–381.Google Scholar
Huh, W. (1985). Korean phonology. Seoul, Korea: Sammunhwasa.Google Scholar
Jakimik, J. A., Cole, R., & Rudnicky, A. I. (1985). Sound and spelling in spoken word recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 24, 165–178.Google Scholar
Kim, C.-W. (1997). The structure of phonological units in Han'gul. In Kim-Renaud, Y. K. (Ed.), The Korean alphabet (pp. 145–160). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.-S. (2007). Phonological awareness and literacy skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role of body-coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 69–94.Google Scholar
Ku, H.-O. (1999). A comprehension of Korean phonology. Seoul, Korea: Hankukmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38, 245–294.Google Scholar
Leach, L., & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Lexical configuration and lexical engagement: When adults learn new words. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 306–353.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.Google Scholar
LoCasto, P. C., & Connine, C. M. (2002). Rule-governed missing information in spoken word recognition: Schwa vowel deletion. Perception and Psychophysics, 64, 208–219.Google Scholar
Lupker, S. J. (1982). The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture-word interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 349–367.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524–545.Google Scholar
Mitterer, H., & Blomert, L. (2003). Coping with phonological assimilation in speech perception: Evidence for early compensation. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 956–969.Google Scholar
Montant, M., Schon, D., Anton, J.-O., & Ziegler, J. C. (2011). Orthographic contamination of Broca's area. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 378.Google Scholar
Patterson, D., & Connine, C. M. (2001). Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica, 58, 254–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pitt, M. (2009). How are pronunciation variants of spoken words recognized? A test of generalization to newly learned words. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 19–36.Google Scholar
Rafat, Y. (2013). Orthography-induced transfer in the production of English-speaking learners of Spanish. Language Learning Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.784346 Google Scholar
Ranbom, L. J., & Connine, C. M. (2007). Lexical representation of phonological variation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 273–298.Google Scholar
Rastle, K., McCormick, S. F., Bayliss, L., & Davis, C. J. (2011). Orthography influences the perception and production of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1588–1594.Google ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, A. (2007). The influence of spelling on phonological encoding in word reading, object naming, and word generation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 33–37.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., & Tannenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 546–554.Google Scholar
Shin, J.-Y. (2003). A comprehension of speech sounds. Seoul, Korea: Hankukmunhwasa.Google Scholar
Taft, M. (2006). Orthographically influenced abstract phonological representation: Evidence from non-rhotic speakers. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 35, 67–78.Google Scholar
Taylor, I. (1980). The Korean writing system: An alphabet? A syllabary? A logography? In Kolers, P. A., Wrolstad, M. E., & Bouma, H. (Eds.), Processing of visible language (pp. 67–82). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Treiman, R., & Cassar, M. (1997). Can children and adults focus on sound as opposed to spelling in a phoneme counting task? Developmental Psychology, 33, 771–780.Google Scholar
Van Orden, G. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1269–1291.Google Scholar
Young-Scholten, M. (2002). Orthographic input in L2 phonological development. In Burmeister, P., Piske, T., & Rohde, A. (Eds.), An integrated view of language development: Papers in honour of Henning Wode (pp. 263–279). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q., & Damian, M. F. (2012). Effects of orthography on speech production in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 267–283.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Ferrand, L. (1998). Orthography shapes the perception of speech: The consistency effect in auditory word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5, 683–689.Google Scholar
Ziegler, J. C., & Muneaux, M. (2007). Orthographic facilitation and phonological inhibition in spoken word recognition: A developmental study. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 75–80.Google Scholar