Ziegler and Goswami (2006, see also Ziegler & Goswami, 2005) offer a cross-language reading theory that focuses on the grain size of lexical units which are converted into phonological structures during visual word recognition in different orthographic systems. Two axioms provide the basis for the grain size theory: first, that reading for meaning in any orthography primarily entails the recovery of the phonological information that is conveyed by the printed symbols; second, that any cross-language theory of reading should, therefore, focus on the ease or the difficulty of grapheme-to-phoneme computation given the consistency by which graphemic units represent phonological units in a given language. Ziegler and Goswami propose that reading in consistent orthographies involves small linguistic units, whereas reading in inconsistent orthographies requires the use of larger units as well. Hence, the grain size theory seems to present an improved and modern alternative to the Orthographic Depth Hypothesis (e.g. Frost, Katz & Bentin, 1987), which historically emerged from the classical dual-route models. The clear advantage of grain size over dualroute theory is that it examines the size of the computed phonological units and thereby allows the use of a continuous measure rather than a dichotomous concept such as ‘lexical’ or ‘prelexical’ phonology (see also Frost, 1998, for a discussion of skilled reading and grain size, according to the Strong Phonological Theory). Hebrew represents a very intriguing case for examining the theory promoted by Ziegler and Goswami. In Hebrew, the letters mostly represent consonants while most of the vowels can optionally be superimposed on the consonants as diacritical marks (‘points’). However, these diacritical marks are omitted from most adult reading material. Therefore, since different vowels may be inserted into the same string of consonants to form different words or nonwords, Hebrew unpointed print cannot specify a unique phonological unit, and a printed consonant string is phonologically ambiguous, often representing more than one word. English and Hebrew are both considered deep orthographies, but the ‘depth’ of the Hebrew orthography is different in character from that of English orthography. Whereas in English the opaque relations of spelling-to-sound are related to the inconsistency of letter clusters, in Hebrew opaque spelling-tosound connections arise simply from missing phonemic information, mainly vowel information. Note that when the diacritical marks are presented in the text, Hebrew orthography is entirely shallow, as the phonemic structure of the printed word can be easily assembled using simple grapheme-to-phoneme conversion rules. Extensive research has consistently revealed that reading in Hebrew involves an interplay of two computational processes which are defined by the size of the computed units. The first process is characterized by the conversion of units of single letters into consonantal information. The second process involves the use of morphological information, mainly word-pattern morphemes, which provide the missing vowels. Frost (1994) examined the effect of delaying the presentation of vowel marks under unpointed words in a naming task. The results showed that the Hebrew readers were willing to delay naming and wait for the vowel (pointed) information to appear,
Read full abstract