The Omission of Accent Marks Does Not Hinder Word Recognition: Evidence From Spanish.

accent marks lexical access lexical decision reading word recognition

Journal

Frontiers in psychology
ISSN: 1664-1078
Titre abrégé: Front Psychol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101550902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 14 10 2021
accepted: 22 11 2021
entrez: 30 12 2021
pubmed: 31 12 2021
medline: 31 12 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Recent research has found that the omission of accent marks in Spanish does not produce slower word identification times in go/no-go lexical decision and semantic categorization tasks [e.g., cárcel (prison) = carcel], thus suggesting that vowels like á and a are represented by the same orthographic units during word recognition and reading. However, there is a discrepant finding with the yes/no lexical decision task, where the words with the omitted accent mark produced longer response times than the words with the accent mark. In Experiment 1, we examined this discrepant finding by running a yes/no lexical decision experiment comparing the effects for words and non-words. Results showed slower response times for the words with omitted accent mark than for those with the accent mark present (e.g., cárcel < carcel). Critically, we found the opposite pattern for non-words: response times were longer for the non-words with accent marks (e.g., cárdil > cardil), thus suggesting a bias toward a "word" response for accented items in the yes/no lexical decision task. To test this interpretation, Experiment 2 used the same stimuli with a blocked design (i.e., accent mark present vs. omitted in all items) and a go/no-go lexical decision task (i.e., respond only to "words"). Results showed similar response times to words regardless of whether the accent mark was omitted (e.g., cárcel = carcel). This pattern strongly suggests that the longer response times to words with an omitted accent mark in yes/no lexical decision experiments are a task-dependent effect rather than a genuine reading cost.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34966338
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.794923
pmc: PMC8710576
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

794923

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Marcet, Fernández-López, Labusch and Perea.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

Psychol Rev. 1996 Jul;103(3):518-65
pubmed: 8759046
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Aug 23;:
pubmed: 34424023
Psychol Rev. 1998 Oct;105(4):678-723
pubmed: 9830376
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Feb;26(1):347-352
pubmed: 29987764
J Cogn. 2018 Jan 12;1(1):9
pubmed: 31517183
Psychol Rev. 2010 Jul;117(3):713-58
pubmed: 20658851
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2021 Sep;74(9):1631-1641
pubmed: 33719759
Behav Res Methods. 2010 Aug;42(3):627-33
pubmed: 20805584
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
pubmed: 24403724
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2022 Jan;75(1):148-155
pubmed: 34427486
Behav Res Methods. 2013 Dec;45(4):1246-58
pubmed: 23468181
Psychol Res. 2020 Jun;84(4):981-989
pubmed: 30370458

Auteurs

Ana Marcet (A)

Department of Language and Literature Teaching, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.

María Fernández-López (M)

Department of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.

Melanie Labusch (M)

Department of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.

Manuel Perea (M)

Department of Methodology of Behavioral Sciences and ERI-Lectura, Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain.
Center of Research in Cognition, Universidad Antonio de Nebrija, Madrid, Spain.

Classifications MeSH