Nonword reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units?

By Usha Goswami, Johannes C. Ziegler, L. Dalton, M. Schneider. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2003

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/310bafdb6eadfa4e3162967afd6b13e95ed1fffa

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Using the known to chart the unknown: A review of first-language influence on the development of English-as-a-second-language spelling skill (2006, background): “Developmental changes in processing are considered to be an adaptive behaviour in response to the nature of English orthography ( Goswami et al., 2001, 2003; Rittle-Johnson & Siegler, 1999).”
Reading acquisition, developmental dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: a psycholinguistic grain size theory. (2005, background): “…phonology when reading PsHs (Goswami et al., 2001), they show stronger switching costs when words cannot be decoded using one grain size only (Goswami et al., 2003), and they show evidence for the adaptive use of large unit and small unit strategies in response to task demands (Brown &…”
Morphological awareness, phonological awareness, and reading in English–Arabic bilingual children (2008, background): “Consequently, word decoding necessitates the use of larger grain size orthographic units (such as rimes or morphemes) for the retrieval of word pronunciation (Aro & Wimmer, 2003; Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2003; Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005).”
Principles of Learning, Implications for Teaching: A Cognitive Neuroscience Perspective. (2008, result): “…advantage for reading aloud such analogous nonsense words, despite the fact that the individual letter-sound correspondences in the non-analogous items (e.g. ‘d’, ‘ai’, ‘k’ in daik) were matched for orthographic familiarity to those in the analogous items (like dake, see Goswami et al., 2003).”