You are on page 1of 7

1

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


A. Background
Pshycolinguistics is one of lecturer subject which is learn about
understanding of the language or words which is recognize in social contexts.
For example body language and the way of speak. This paper wrote is to
identify about what is visual word recognition in social context, there are so
many of parts that include in pshycolinguistics study, such as spoken word
recognition and visual word recognition. In this paper the writer would like to
give the dept information about visual word recognition which is so
comparable but has similar meaning each other.
B. Problems
In this paper, the writer has some of the obstacles that need to clarify.
Which are: what is visual word recognition and all the aspects that include in.

C. Purpose of Writing
The writer would like to write this paper for the following purpose of
writer, that are to give the dept information of what is word recognition itself
and to make the audience easier to identify the visual word recognition and
also what is the implementation in social life, even the implementation
through the teachers or the students in education. Beside that the purpose of
this paper also to give dept understanding to the students or teacher to
compare which one is visual word recognition and spoken word recognition.







2

CHAPTER II
DISCUSSION

A. Definition of Visual Word Recognition
Word recognition, according to Literary information and
Communication System (LINCS) is "the ability of a reader to recognize
written words correctly and virtually effortlessly." It is sometimes referred
to as "isolated word recognition" because it involves a reader's ability to
recognize words individually from a list without needing similar words for
contextual help.
Word recognition is a manner of reading based upon the immediate
perception of what word a familiar grouping of letters represents. This
process exists in opposition to phonetics and word analysis, as a different
method of recognizing and verbalizing visual language (i.e. reading).
Word recognition functions primarily on automaticity. On the other hand,
phonetics and word analysis rely on the basis of cognitively applying
learned grammatical rules for the blending of letters, sounds, graphemes,
and morphemes. Factors affecting speed and accuracy of visual word
recognition are:
1. Word frequency
2. Lexical status - word and non word
3. Syllable
4. Length
5. Semantic, morphological
6. Morpheme
B. Word Frequency
Word frequency effects have been found in lexical decision
performance ,naming performance ,identification performance ,and online
reading measures such as fixation duration and gaze duration measures.
This, of course, should not be surprising because printed word-frequency


3

should be related to the number of times one experiences a given word;
experience with an operation should influence the ease of performing that
operation. In other word, it refer to stressing of the word while we read the
word intended.

C. Word and Non word
This arrangement may have encouraged subjects to treat the
display as a matching task dependent solely upon visual features; such a
match could have been done at a prelexical level. Hence, failure to find
semantic priming could have resulted either because prime processing
produced no lexical activation or because lexical activation occurred
without a spread of activation to related items. A slightly different type of
letter search task was used in the present experiments. Instead of asking
subjects to signal whether a specified letter was or was not present in a
letter string, subjects were asked whether two simultaneously presented
strings shared a common letter. Kreuger (1989) used this variation of the
letter-search procedure and found that subjects were able to locate a
common letter faster in pairs of words than in pairs of non words.
Shortly non word is unrecognized or
unaccepted as legitimate as one produce by a
spelling, we can say it as nonsense in semantics
field. For example the word ”BALLYHOA (
bombastic or pretentious nonsense); BUGABAO
(loud or empty nonsense); FUSTIAN(pretentious
writing or speech)” is similar to English spelling,
but it doesn’t have meaning in lexical status
which is can find in dictionary.


4


D. Syllable
At this level, it is quite surprising that there has been considerable
disagreement regarding the role of the syllable in visual word recognition.
For example, according to Howard’s (1979) that emphasize intrasyllabic
consonant strings surrounding a stressed vowel, CAMEL would be parsed
as (CAM)_(EL), whereas, according to Selkirk (1980) more linguistically
based view that emphasizes the maximal syllable onset principle CAMEL
would be parsed (CA)_(MEL). Obviously, before one can address the
functional role of the syllable in visual word recognition, one must have
some agreement on how to parse words into syllables. Fortunately, for the
majority of words, there is agreement on how words are parsed into
syllables. The question here of course is whether a word like ANVIL is
parsed into (AN)_(VIL) en route to word recognition.

E. Length
If the letter is a crucial player in word recognition then one should
find consistent effects of letter length. Interestingly, there has been some
disagreement on this simple topic. There is clear evidence that longer
words take more time in perceptual identification and produce longer
fixation durations in reading, but the effect of length in lexical decision
and naming performance has been a bit more inconsistent. The role of
letter length in naming performance has been the focus of a number of
recent studies. For example UNCONDITIONALLY.

F. Semantics Morphological
Another approach to morphological analysis in word recognition
involves long-term morphemic priming (e.g., Stanners, Neiser, & Painton,
1979a, 1979b). In these studies, subjects are most often presented a
sequence of lexical decision (word/nonword) trials. At varying lags within
the sequence, subjects might be presented two forms of a given word with


5

the same root. The interesting comparison is the influence of an earlier
presentation of a given root form on later lexical decisions to the actual
root. For example, if either JUMP or JUMPED is presented earlier in a
lexical decision task, what impact does this presentation have on later
lexical decision performance on the root form JUMP? Stanners, Neiser,
Hernon, and Hall (1979a, 1979b) found that both JUMP and JUMPED
equally primed later lexical decisions to JUMP. Presumably, subjects had
to access JUMP to recognize JUMPED and hence there was as much long-
term priming from JUMPED as for the actual stem itself. Interestingly,
Lima (1987) has found that mere letter overlap does not produce such an
effect. For example, she reported that ARSON does not prime SON, but
DISHONEST does prime HONEST. Thus, it does not appear that mere
letter overlap is producing this long-term priming effect (for a summary of
evidence favoring non-orthographic accounts of morphemic priming
effects, see review by Feldman & Andjelkovic, 1992).

G. Morpheme
Although we may have never encountered the non word
CHUMMILY, we may assume that it means something like in a chummy
way or friendly because it appears to have the morphological form
CHUMMY _ LY. Linguistic models of lexical representation assume that
there is some base form of representation and a set of rules that are used to
construct other forms of that item. The present question is whether a given
form of a word such as JUMPED is parsed as (JUMP)_(ED) en route to
word recognition.
As in the case of syllables, we are not questioning whether
morphemes are represented in the processing system, the question is
whether morphemic analyses play a role in processes tied to visual word
recognition. For example, if the word CHARACTERISTIC was presented,
the reader would first access the root word CHARACTER and once this
root word was accessed the subject would search through a list of


6

polymorphemic words with the same root morpheme, e.g.,
CHARACTERISTIC, UNCHARACTERISTIC, CHARACTERIZED,
CHARACTERISTICALLY, UNCHARACTERISTICALLY, etc. For
example, if either JUMP or JUMPED is presented earlier in a lexical
decision task, what impact does this presentation have on later lexical
decision performance on the root form JUMP both JUMP and JUMPED
equally primed later lexical decisions to JUMP.
CHAPTER III
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. CONCLUSION
Pshycolinguistic is is one of lecturer subject which is learn about
understanding of the language or words which is recognize in social
contexts. Word recognition, according to Literary information and
Communication System (LINCS) is "the ability of a reader to recognize
written words correctly and virtually effortlessly." Word frequency effects
have been found in lexical decision performance ,naming performance
,identification performance ,and online reading measures such as fixation
duration and gaze duration measures. Shortly non word is unrecognized or
unaccepted as legitimate as one produce by a spelling, we can say it as
nonsense in semantics field. For example the word ”BALLYHOA (
bombastic or pretentious nonsense).In syllable for example, according to
Howard’s (1979) that emphasize intrasyllabic consonant strings
surrounding a stressed vowel, CAMEL would be parsed as (CAM)_(EL),
whereas, according to Selkirk (1980) more linguistically based view that
emphasizes the maximal syllable onset principle CAMEL would be parsed
(CA)_(MEL). The role of letter length in naming performance has been
the focus of a number of recent studies. For example
UNCONDITIONALLY. The interesting comparison is the influence of an


7

earlier presentation of a given root form on later lexical decisions to the
actual root. For example, if either JUMP or JUMPED. A list of
polymorphemic words with the same root morpheme, e.g.,
CHARACTERISTIC, UNCHARACTERISTIC, CHARACTERIZED,
CHARACTERISTICALLY, UNCHARACTERISTICALLY, etc.

B. SUGGESTION
This paper hope to the reader to read this paper to get fepth
understanding of visual word recognition and read this paper carefully to
easier to understand.