2007 Role of Phonological and Morphological Awareness in L2 Oral Word Reading

合集下载
  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

Language Learning ISSN0023-8333 Role of Phonological and Morphological
Awareness in L2Oral Word Reading
Rachel Schiff and Sharon Calif
Bar-Ilan University
In this study,57fifth-grade native Hebrew speakers performed orthographic-phonological awareness,morphological awareness,and oral word reading tasks in both Hebrew(first language[L1])and English(second language[L2]).The results of the language-specific task scores in the two languages reflect,with certain qualifications, participants’L1proficiency and the language proximity of particular language features. The more similar the language feature(linear morphology),the more positive the cross-language influence;conversely,the less similar the language feature(phonology),the less positive the influence.Hebrew(L1)language-specific task scores related to English (L2)word reading.In addition,Hebrew(L1)and English(L2)word reading scores were only related when Hebrew orthographic-phonological and/or morphological awareness was low.In contrast,when the(L1)Hebrew orthographic-phonological and morpholog-ical awareness scores were high,there was no correlation between Hebrew and English word reading.
Keywords phonological awareness;morphological awareness;word reading;cross-language influence;Hebrew,English
Reading is a multifaceted cognitive process in which various component fac-tors interact simultaneously.Reading includes cognitive,linguistic,and socio-affective features(Carr,Brown,Vavrus,&Evans,1990).The dynamics of the interaction between the components of reading are complex and often not in-dividually discernable.
Recent cross-language research(e.g.,Faerch&Kasper,1987;Geva& Wang,2001;Hancin-Bhatt&Nagy,1994;Koda,1998;Muljani,Koda,& Moates,1998;Sasaki,1993)has focused on the influence of linguistic knowl-edge and processing skills across languages and their effects on second lan-guage(L2)word reading.First language(L1)linguistic and metalinguistic Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr.Rachel Schiff,Director,Haddad Center for Research in Dyslexia and Reading Disorders,Bar-Ilan University,Ramat-Gan52900, Israel.Internet:rschiff@mail.biu.ac.il
knowledge of language-specific features such as phonology and morphology might influence L2reading(Bowey&Francis,1991;Koda,1987,2000;Perfetti, Beck,Bell,&Hughes,1987;Velluntino&Scanlon,1987).An extrapolation of this assumption would postulate that different L1features and experiences would differentially affect L2metalinguistic awareness and L2reading(Koda, 2000).
Thus,crosslinguistic influence,which reflects progressive and cumulative print exposure and processing,interacts with the perceived relationship be-tween language-specific features and differences between the L1and L2.This interaction determines the degree to which interlingual identifications are likely (Andersen,1983;Odlin,1989;Ringbom,1987).Numerous crosslinguistic stud-ies have shown systematic variations in readers’responses to various lexical tasks in different orthographic systems(e.g.,Frost,1994;Frost,Katz,&Bentin, 1987;Hatta,1992;Henderson,1985;Nakagawa,1994;Rusted,1988;Turvey, Feldman,&Lukatela,1984;Tzeng&Wang,1983).Differences between L1 and L2orthographic word systems and word recognition models might influ-ence L2learner strategy use(Chikamatsu,1996).Although linguistic knowl-edge and its accompanying skills can be transferred from language to language (e.g.,Hancin-Bhatt&Nagy,1994;Koda,1998,2000;Muljani et al.,1998; Sasaki,1993),the quality of L1linguistic knowledge and metalinguistic aware-ness(Bowey&Francis,1991;Koda,2000;Perfetti et al.,1987;Velluntino &Scanlon,1987),specifically phonological and morphological knowledge, might affect the cross-language inflmensurately,because L2lexical awareness is the product of cumulative L1and L2crosslinguistic processing ex-periences,L2reading might be heavily constrained by L1language awareness and reading(Koda,2000).
Alphabetic orthographies are based on ortho-phonemic transcription and readers’ability to match the phonemic code represented by the graphemes. Orthographic mastery involves creating a graphic model of a phonological sys-tem and the successful grapheme-to-phoneme mapping.Olson(1994)consid-ered children’s mastery of this matching process“an intellectual achievement”(p.263).Different orthographies impact phonological awareness differently. Because the orthographic representations of languages differ,the reciprocal relationship between phonological awareness and orthography can be stud-ied by examining the relationship between the phonological systems and or-thographic representations of different languages.Three studies(Caravolas& Bruck,1993;Cossu,Shankweiler,Liberman,Katz,&Tola,1988;Durgunoglu &Oney,1999)of preliterate andfirst-grade children with different language backgrounds have found language-specific cross-language influence.Cossu
et pared Italian and American kindergarten andfirst-graders and found that Italian open-syllable structure influenced syllable awareness.Caravolas and Bruck compared Czech-and Canadian English-speaking preliterate andfirst-grade children and found that Czech complex onsets affected the awareness of consonant clusters.Durgunoglu and Oney compared Turkish and American kindergarten andfirst-graders and found that English onset-rime distinctions influence their manipulation of onset-rime patterns.These studies confirm that language-specific phonological patterns are present before literacy exposure and develop with exposure to the printed texts presented infirst-grade read-ing instruction.Thus,phonological awareness develops as a function of salient language-specific features of spoken language and is supported by the language-specific orthography(Durgunoglu&Oney,1999).
Ortho-phonemic processing of alphabetical orthographies requires the grad-ual and protracted extraction of both discrete phonological segments from con-tinuous and coarticulated speech(Bentin,1992;Locke,1995).The effects of phonology on the orthography of specific alphabetical languages might dif-ferentially affect factors associated with L1and L2reading and the potential effects of cross-language transfer.For example,Turvey et al.(1984)found that the mediating phonemic code needed for lexical access of Serbo-Croatian is more efficient than that of English because Serbo-Croatian has a more pre-dictable and consistent letter-sound correspondence than English.English,in contrast,with its less transparent grapheme-phoneme correspondence also re-lies on the more abstract morphological level(Chomsky&Halle,1968)for lexical mediation.
Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness and its effect on L2 reading has been examined in several studies(e.g.,Cisero&Royer,1995; Durgunoglu,Nagy,&Hancin-Bhatt,1993;Gottardo,Y an,Siegel,&Wade-Woolley,2001;Riccio,et al.,2001).Cisero and Royer found that students’ability to isolate initial sounds in their L1was a significant predictor of their ability to do the same in a L2.Durgunoglu et al.found that Spanish-speakingfirst-graders,with good phonological awareness,read English words and pseudowords with greater success than students who scored poorly on phonemic awareness tests.Thus,phonological awareness was a significant pre-dictor of word recognition performance both“within and across languages”(p.461).
The degree to which readers can use their L1phonological awareness to fa-cilitate or impede L2reading is relative to the transparency of the letter-sound correspondences of the two specific languages under consideration(Durgunoglu &Oney,1999).Alphabetic orthographies are classified by the transparency
or depth of their letter-to-phoneme correspondence(Bentin,Bargai,&Katz, 1984;Frost,1994).A shallow orthography is characterized by a simple and direct grapheme-phoneme correspondence,whereas a deep orthography is characterized by a more opaque grapheme-phoneme correspondence and often relies more on morphological than phonemic clues.Consequently,when dis-cussing L2influence and reading,the language-specific ortho-phonemic char-acteristics of both the L1and L2must be considered.
Whereas the relationship between phonology and reading development in English(as an L1)is well documented(Adams,1990;Bradley&Bryant, 1985;Caravolas&Bruck,1993;Durgunoglu&Oney,1999;Fowler& Liberman,1995;Goswami&Bryant,1992;Liberman,1982;Mann,1998;Nagy &Anderson,1998;Perfetti,1985),the parallel relationship between morpho-logical awareness and reading has been less studied(Singson,Mahony,&Mann, 2000).Mann(2000)related the results of recent literature searches for articles having the keywords“phonology and reading”and“phonology and reading”ability;the former yielded almost a thousand entries and the latter over350 entries.She compared these results with a similar search for“morphology and reading”and“morphology and reading ability”;the resultant scores were150 and32,respectively(Mann,2000).Even fewer studies have dealt with either or both of these language domains in crosslinguistic influence.
Studies have investigated the fundamental effects of morphology on L1 reading(Anglin,1993;Carlisle,1995,2000;Koda,2000;Nagy&Anderson, 1984;Nagy,Anderson,Shommer,Scott,&Stallman,1989;Nagy&Herman, 1985;Schiff,2002;Taft,1985;T yler&Nagy,1986).For example,Fowler and Liberman(1995)found that the ability to recover the base-form morpheme from a derivative form predicts single-word reading.Children’s awareness of the segmental structure of spoken sounds is directly related to their ability to read English words(e.g.,Koda,2000;Stahl&Murray,1994;Stanovich, Cunningham,&Cramer,1984;Y opp,1988).Deutsch,Frost,and Forster(1998) cited studies from various languages that show language-specific differences in the magnitude of inflections and derivations affect lexical udanna, Badecker,and Caramazza(1992)found that morphemes are represented and processed differently in Italian inflections and derivations with the same base form.Schiff(2002,2003)found that at various grade levels,inflections and derivations of Hebrew nominals affect accuracy and latency in word reading. Feminine nominal derivations took longer and elicited fewer accurate reading responses than feminine possessive optional nominal inflections.
The cross-language effects of L1morphology have also been investi-gated(Hancin-Bhatt&Nagy,1994;Jarvis&Odlin,2000;Koda,2000).
Koda compared three aspects of morphological awareness among English as a second language(ESL)learners of Chinese(a logographic system with approxi-mately7,000morphemes and1,200tone-syllables)and Korean(an alphabetical system).She found that the Korean learners performed intraword analysis more efficiently than the Chinese and that both groups performed relatively equally in their inconsistency detection efficiency with morphologically simple target words.Koda’s results confirmed that L1processing experience has specific and predictable influences on L2morphological awareness.Thus,L1process-ing experience and its influence on L2morphological are L1-and L2-specific. Hancin-Bhatt and Nagy compared the ability of Spanish-English bilinguals at three grade levels to give the Spanish equivalent of specific English words,some of which had derivational and inflectional suffixes.Theirfindings suggest that, in closely related alphabetical languages,cross-language influence might play a role both in the recognition of individual words and in the learning of deriva-tional morphology.Jarvis and Odlin investigated the degree of transfer in spatial prepositions among Finnish and Swedish speakers of English.This empirical study provides specific confirmation of the transferability of bound morphol-ogy,as well as confirming an empirical basis for the concept of cross-language morphological influence.
Word reading is affected by orthographic,phonological,and morphological factors.Word reading involves both the knowledge of the grapheme-phoneme correspondences of a language as well as learning the grapheme-morpheme correspondences and the interdependence between the two(Casalis&Louis-Alexandre,2000;Mahony,Singson,&Mann,2000;Mann,2000;Mann& Singson,2003).While reading,readers seem not only dependent on graphic and phonological structures,but they also decompose morphological structures while processing written words(Gillis&Ravid,2000;Schiff,2002).The ability to divide a word into morphemes facilitates both word recognition and pronun-ciation(Frost,1998;Taft,1985).Decoding unfamiliar words is facilitated by implementing morphological knowledge(T yler&Nagy,1986).
Although the influence of orthographical,phonological,and morphological features on word reading has been confirmed(Schiff,2002,2003),less attention has been given to their role in L2word reading.Y et,Ganschow,Sparks,and Javorsky(1998)specifically correlated native and foreign language learning. The Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis(LCDH),based on empirical re-search(e.g.,Velluntino&Scallon,1986),speculated that most underachieving foreign language learners had difficulty in one native language skill(phonol-ogy/orthography),which probably negatively affected both their native and foreign language learning.They succinctly stated that“most poor FL learners
have overt or subtle problems with the phonological/orthographic(and syntac-tic)components of language”and that empirical evidence“has been generated to support the positions that FL learning performance is related to native lan-guage learning”(Ganschow,Sparks,&Javorsky,1998,p.254).In addition, because metalinguistic awareness is relative to specific language features and based on structural and functional intraword forms,its influence must vary to the extent that the specific language properties differ across languages(Koda, 2000).Therefore,when discussing crosslinguistic influence,learner strengths and deficiencies as well as language-specific and shared structures of both the particular L1and L2must be considered.Because the current study postulates L1Hebrew influence on students’L2English word reading,a short introduc-tion to some of the language-specific characteristics of Hebrew and various similarities and differences between Hebrew and English are presented. Hebrew Orthography
Modern written Hebrew employs two orthographical versions:a vocalized and nonvocalized version.The vocalized version is considered shallow,reflecting a direct and consistent grapheme-phoneme correspondence.In contrast,the nonvocalized version of written Hebrew has a deeper and more abstract and morphologically based written orthographic transcription.In vocalized Hebrew, all consonants are represented by letters,whereas the5vowels a,e,i,o,and u are represented both by the4vowel letters—(Aleph,Heh,Vav,Y od)—and
13diacritical vowel marks.Although this transparent double vowel-marking system(Frost,1995)sometimes provides redundant phonological information about written words,it also disambiguates and creates a precise transparent word representation.Therefore,this form is often used in the texts for beginners as well as in sacred and poetic texts(Schiff&Ravid,2004).
In the nonvocalized written Hebrew,all consonants are represented by let-ters,and vowels are partially and ambiguously represented by the vowel letters. The nonvocalized form,in which both consonants and vowel letters are devoid of diacritical marks,is often ambiguous and opaque.Nonvocalized Hebrew is the default version of written Hebrew and is used for most purposes.In this orthog-raphy,different Hebrew words might appear identical,and only with the addition of diacritical vocalization are the multiple options apparent.For example,the nonvocalized written string of consonants might be read as any of the follow-
ing:\sefer\“book”;\sapar\“counted”;\sapar\“hairdresser”;and
\sfar\“border area.”Only with diacritical vocalization are the differences
evident(Frost&Bentin,1992;Shimron,1993).By virtue of its dual orthography
(the vocalized and nonvocalized versions),Hebrew presents both shallow and deep orthographical characteristics.
Despite the two versions of Hebrew and their different orthographic depths, even the deeper version does not correspond to English.Although both lan-guages,Hebrew(in its nonvocalized form)and English have deep orthogra-phies,there are basic differences in how this depth is represented.Hebrew orthography directly represents the phonology of its words(Bentin et al.,1984) in a consistent invariant isomorphic letter-sound correspondence(Frost et al., 1987).The pronunciation of Hebrew words has relatively few exceptions cre-ated by particular letter strings,idiosyncratic spellings,the phoneme position within a word,or special vowel combinations(Geva,Wade-Wooley,&Shany, 1993).English,in contrast,has26letters that map onto more than36phonemes, and sound values are often dependent on their position relative to another letter (Wade-Woolley&Geva,1998).For example,a single grapheme can radically change the pronunciation of a letter within the same word(e.g.,thefinal silent <e>in English that indicates the quality of a previous vowel within a word).
In addition,in Indo-European languages such as English,vowel distinc-tions often mark basic morphemic contrasts,and graphemic representation of vowels is often critical for meaning(consider<but,bet,bat,bit,boat,beat>, etc.).Owing to Hebrew’s distinctive morphology,the skilled Hebrew reader is relatively less dependent on full vowel representation for meaning.
Hebrew Morphology
Hebrew is a highly synthetic Semitic language with a rich root-based morphol-ogy(Berman,1987;Ravid,1990;Schwarzwald,2002).The Semitic root is a triliteral(sometimes quadriliteral)consonantal string that constitutes the formal and semantic core of the Hebrew and Arabic word.Semitic roots are discon-tinuous consonantal sequences and,thus,unpronounceable entities.They are interdigitated by the complementary morphological construction,the(mostly) vocalic pattern.For example,root k-t-b is affixed to the causative verb pat-tern hiCCiC to form hixtiv“dictated”and to the noun pattern miCCaC to form mixtav“letter.”Morphological patterns have categorical functions that are domain-specific:They classify nouns into ontological categories and clas-sify verbs by their transitivity value.Together,roots and patterns combine to create specific consonant-vowel(CV)prosodic templates that serve as the ba-sic tier of a Semitic word,to be modified by further linear derivational and inflectional processes(Ravid,2002).Hebrew has both inflections and deriva-tions.Hebrew inflectional morphology features both obligatory and optional
bound forms.Nouns and adjectives have obligatory gender and number in-flections.Verbs and prepositions have obligatory gender,number,and person inflections.Verbs also have obligatory tense inflections.The most character-istically Semitic feature of Hebrew is its derivational morphology(Berman, 1997).Hebrew derivational morphology is rich and varied with a large array of derivational affixes of various structures and with extremely complex root, stem,and affix allomorphy(Ravid,2005).In most Hebrew root-and-pattern nonlinear combinations,neither root nor pattern has an independent lexical status and only in their combined form do they constitute a lexeme.Hebrew roots are interdigitated by pattern;for example,the root BRK combines with the nominal pattern CCaCa to create the noun BRKH,bracha“a blessing.”Hebrew linear suffixation is formed by the combination of the linearly con-catenated base(usually a word)and affix.For example,dmyon“imagination”is followed by the suffix i and becomes dmyoni“imaginary.”Linear affixation used for both inflections and derivations is simpler than the nonlinear root-and-pattern combination because the boundary between the two linear components is clearly discernable and they are each whole morphological entities.English morphology is primarily linear and uses affixation to create inflectional and derivational forms.English morphology does not include root-and-pattern in-terdigitated forms and is not as morphological rich as Hebrew.Even though Hebrew has several morphological word formations,Hebrew and English both use morphologically linear derivational forms(base and suffix).Thus,all of the words chosen for this study are linear derivations.
Although several studies(e.g.Geva&Siegel,2000;Geva et al.,1993;Wade-Woolley&Geva,1998)have dealt with the crosslinguistic influence of English (L1)on Hebrew(L2),to the best of our knowledge there are but few studies (e.g.,Kahn-Horowitz,Shimron,&Sparks,2005)in which Hebrew is the source language(L1)and English the target(L2)language.This study investigates how specific language differences and similarities(orthography and morphology)of these two specific languages contribute to the crosslinguistic influence.
Due to the orthographic language-specifics of each language,we hypothe-sized that the Hebrew orthographic-phonological awareness task performance would not predict L2English orthographic-phonological awareness task per-formance.Because the morphological task in this study focused on the linear derivational morphological form(base and suffix forms),a shared morpholog-ical feature of the two languages,we hypothesized that L1Hebrew morpholog-ical task scores would predict L2morphological task results.
We also investigated the effect of L1Hebrew orthographic-phonological awareness,morphological awareness,and word reading on English L2word
reading.We hypothesized that L1Hebrew task scores would predict L2English word reading.Because L1word reading is negatively affected by L1phonolog-ical and/or morphological awareness weaknesses(Casalis&Louis-Alexandre, 2000;Mann,2000),we hypothesized that L1(Hebrew)orthographic-phono-logical and/or morphological awareness weaknesses would negatively affect L2(English)word reading.
Methods
Participants
The study population consisted of57(28girls and29boys)native Hebrew-speaking Israelififth-grade students in their fourth year of English studies.The mean age of the participants was10.8years(129.8months)(SD=1.73years). The children were tested in May;the Israeli elementary school year is from the beginning of September to the end of June.The participants were native monolingual Hebrew speakers who,according to school records,had a normal academic development(had never been left back a year,neither in kindergarten nor grade school),had no hearing or visual impairments,and were not enrolled in special education.The participants were students enrolled in an upper middle-class urban school in central Israel.
Participant selection was based on four independent assessment mea-sures:the Standard Progressive Matrices Test(Raven,1960),the synonym and antonym sections of the Mann Hebrew Verbal Intelligence Test(Glanz,1989), and one English vocabulary task(N.Abramowitz,personal communication, March15,2002).The reliability of the Mann test(Cronbach’s alpha)is0.96, where the mean score in the general Hebrew speaking population is10,SD= 1.5.The mean scores on the Raven and Hebrew tests(the synonym and antonym sections of the Mann Hebrew Verbal Intelligence Test)are presented in Table1.
The English V ocabulary Test(N.Abramowitz,personal communication, March15,2002)is the only nationally recognized graded assessment test for Israeli schoolchildren’s knowledge of English vocabulary.This test of60high-frequency English words from a Ministry of Education word list for the students’grade level,examines students’ability to recognize and translate the selected words.Students who scored below average(fewer than36correct answers)in this test were excluded from the study.All students who scored below average in any of the tests were excluded.This ensured that the57participants(out of 65screened students)had normal intelligence and were able to understand the task concepts.
Table1Means,standard deviations,and confidence intervals for the results of Raven and Synonym and Antonym Sections of the Mann Hebrew Verbal Intelligence Test (n=57)
M SD CI
Raven107.239.59104.7–109.8 Synonyms10.35 1.689.9–10.8 Antonyms10.870.8010.6–11.1 Research Tools and Procedures
The study analyzes the effects of orthographic-phonological and morphological awareness in both L1Hebrew and L2English and their effects on single-word reading in(L2)English.Separate task sheets were prepared for the Hebrew and English tasks.
Orthographic-phonological awareness for both languages was assessed by judgment tasks.In each language,participants were presented with a printed sheet with24meaningful word pairs.T welve of these word pairs were words that sound the same but had a different orthographic representation(hetero-graphic homophones).The other12word pairs were words with phonological or orthographic similarities but that were not homophones.Examples of English word pairs given include no-know and car-care;examples of Hebrew word pairs given include,KARIS,karish“a shark”-“a blood clot”;; MXIR,MKIR;mexir,maker“a price”-“he recognizes.”The word pairs were presented in two columns and a third column was reserved for student response. Participants were given both oral and written instructions for completing the third column.They were asked to write“yes”after the word pairs that,in their judgment,sound the same and“no”after the word pairs they thought did not sound the same.The task sheet included two sample responses done for them.
The following procedure for Hebrew word selection was undertaken to neutralize frequency effects in the absence of Ministry of Education graded word lists.Forty individual words(taken from20potential word pairs),taken from elementary school textbooks,were presented tofive elementary school teachers.The teachers were asked to rank the individual words on a scale from1 (not frequent)to5(very frequent).Frequency for each word was calculated by averaging the rating of each pair for thefive judges.Interrater reliability between each pair of judges,for word frequency,using Cohen’s kappa,was high(mean Cohen’sκ=.86).On the basis of the judges’ratings,24of the medium frequency(2.8–3.7)words were paired(12pairs)for use in this study.
All of the Hebrew words used in this task were presented in their nonvocalized form.
English word selection was based on Ministry of Education graded word lists(1988)for grades2–5.Forty individual words(taken from20potential word pairs)were presented tofive elementary school English teachers,who were asked to rank the individual words on a scale from1(not frequent)to 5(very frequent).Frequency for each word was calculated by averaging the rating of each pair for thefive judges.Interrater reliability between each pair of judges,for word frequency,using Cohen’s kappa,was high(mean Cohen’sκ= .89).On the basis of the judges’ratings,24of the medium-frequency(3.0–3.8) words were paired(12pairs)for use in this study.
Morphological awareness for both languages was assessed by a morpho-logical judgment task.Again,separate task sheets were prepared for each lan-guage.All of the morphologically related task word pairs were a base and a linear derivational form.
In both languages,participants were presented with a printed sheet with20 meaningful word pairs.Examples of English word pairs given include farm-farmer;corn-corner;examples of Hebrew word pairs given include YM-YMAI, yam-yamai“sea-sailor”;ESH-ISHON,esh-ishon“fire”-“the pupil of the eye.”The word pairs were presented in two columns and a third column was reserved for student response.Ten of these word pairs share a morphologically based word family.The other10word pairs had shared letters but were not morpho-logically related.Participants were given both oral and written instructions for completing the third column.“On the sheet in front of you are word pairs. Write‘yes’after the word pairs where you think the meanings of the two words are related.Write‘no’after the word pairs where you think the words are not related.”The task sheet included two sample responses done for them.
The procedure for Hebrew word selection for this task was similar to that undertaken for the phonological judgment task.To neutralize the frequency effects in the absence of Ministry of Education graded word lists,40individual words(taken from20potential word pairs),taken from elementary school textbooks,were presented tofive elementary school teachers.The teachers were asked to rank the individual words on a scale from1(not frequent)to 5(very frequent).Frequency for each word was calculated by averaging the rating of each pair for thefive judges.Interrater reliability between each pair of judges,for word frequency,using Cohen’s kappa,was high(mean Cohen’sκ= .83).On the basis of the judges’ratings,24of the medium-frequency(2.9–3.8) words were paired(12pairs)for use in this study.All of the Hebrew words used in this task were presented in their nonvocalized form.。

相关文档
最新文档