Datasets:
HHazard
/
continuous-learning

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
13
991
72. "Real Texts to Illustrate the Three Cue Systems: Poison," Whole Language Voices In Teacher Education, York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers, 1996, pp. 144–145.
73. "Principles of Revaluing" Retrospective Miscue Analysis, Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen, 1996, pp. 13–20.
74. with Yetta M. Goodman "Vygotsky em uma perspectiva da "linguagem integral" Vygotsky e an educa��ao, Luis Moll (ed.), Porto Alegre RS, Brazil: Artes M�dicas, 1996, pp. 219–224. Portuguese translation of "Vygotsky in a Whole Language Perspective" in Vygotsky and Education.
75. "Preface" Studies in Miscue Analysis An Annotated Bibliography, Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 1996, pp.iv-x.
76. "Oral and Written Language: Functions and Purposes" Many Families, Many Literacies An International Declaration of Principles, Denny Taylor (ed.), Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1997, pp. 43–46.
77. With Yetta Goodman, “Forward” multiple voices, multiple texts, Dornan, R., Rosen, L, and Wilson, M. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers Heineman, 1997, pp. ix-xi.
78. �Por qu� es importante el lenguaje? Una Historia Sin Fin. Crear Y Recrear Texto, Gabriela Yncl�n (ed.), M�xico, D.F., 1997, pp. 15–17.
79. With Yetta M. Goodman, “To Err Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues,”Reconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading, Constance Weaver (ed.), Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp. 101-123.
80. “California, Whole Language, and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),” Reconsidering a Balanced Approach to Reading, Constance Weaver (ed.), Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1998, pp. 467–491.
81. “The Phonics Scam: The Pedagogy of the Absurd,” Perspectives on Reading Instruction, Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1998, pp. 27–31.
82. “The Reading Process,” Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Volume 2, Viv Edwards and Corson, David (eds.), Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, pp. 1–7.
83. With Catherine Buck, “Dialect Barriers to Reading Comprehension Revisited,” Literacy Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Student, Newark: DE: International Reading Association, 1998, pp. 139–145.
84. “I Didn't Found Whole Language,” Distinguished Educators on Reading, Nancy Padak. . . (et al.), (eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2000, pp. 2–19.
85. “Update: Forward 8 Years and Back a Century,” Distinguished Educators on Reading, Nancy Padak. . . (et al.), (eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2000, pp. 20–27.
86. With Yetta Goodman and Prisca Martens, “Text Matters: Readers Who Learn with Decodable Texts” 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Oak Creek, Wisconsin: National Reading Conference, Inc., 2002, pp. 186–203.
87. “Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment” Literacy in America An Encyclopedia of History, Theory, and Practice, Vol. 2 N-Z, Barbara Guzetti, (ed.), Santa Barbara, CA: ABC Clio, 2002, pp. 673–677.
88. With Yetta M. Goodman, “To Err Is Human: Learning About Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues” Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 5th Edition, Robert B. Ruddell and Unrau, Norman J. (Eds.), Newark, DE: International Reading Association, 2004, pp 620–639.
1. The Psychology of Language Thought and Instruction, Readings by DeCecco in Journal of Reading, Vol. 11:8, May 1968, pp. 648–50.
2. "Research Critique: Oral Language of Kindergarten Children," Elementary English, Vol. 43:8, December, 1966, pp. 897–900.
3. Buros, "Reading Tests and Reviews," American Educational Research Journal, January, 1971, pp. 169–71.
4. Linguistics in Language Arts and Reading, Journal of Reading, November, 1972.
5. Williams, Hopper, and Natalicio, The Sounds of Children, Reading Teacher, Vol. 31:5, February, 1978, pp. 578–80.
Co-author, Scott Foresman Reading Systems: Scott Foresman, Levels 1-21 (Grades K-6), 1971–73. Levels 22–27, 1974. Revised Edition, Chicago: Reading Unlimited, Levels 1-27, 1976.
1. A Study of Children's Behavior While Reading Orally, Final Report, Project No. S-425, Contract No. OE-6-10-136, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.
2. A Study of Oral Reading Miscues that Result in Grammatical Re-Transformations, Final Report, Project No. 7-E-219, Contract No. OEG-O-8-070219-2806 (010), U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.
3. Theoretically Based Studies of Patterns of Miscues in Oral Reading Performance, Final Report, Project No. 9-0775, Grant No. OEG-0-9-320375-4269, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research, May, 1973. Abstracted in ERIC.
4. with William Page, Reading Comprehension Programs: Theoretical Bases of Reading Comprehension Instruction in the Middle Grades, Contract No. NIE C-74-0140, National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, August, 1976.
5. Reading of American Children Whose Reading is a Stable, Rural Dialect of English or Language Other Than English, Grant No. NIE-C-00-3-0087, National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, August, 1978.
6. with Suzanne Gespass, Analysis of Text Structures as They Relate to Patterns of Oral Reading Miscues, Project NIE-G-80-0057, National Institute of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, February, 1982.
with Janet Emig and Yetta M. Goodman, Interrelationships of Reading and Writing, NCTE No. 7250R.
with Barbara Bonder and Jean Malmstram, Psycholinguistics and Reading, NCTE No. 73276R.
and Yetta M. Goodman, Reading for Meaning: The Goodman Model, Sydney: Film Australia, 1977,
with DeWayne Triplett and Frank Greene, The Right Not To Read, NCTE No. 71311R.
with Yetta M. Goodman, Watching Children Reading, BBC, London, 1986.
What's Whole in Whole Language?, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia, 1992.
with Constance Kamii, Constructivism & Whole Language, ASCD, Alexandria, Virginia, 1993.
No. 1 with Yetta Goodman, A Whole-Language Comprehension Centered View of Reading Development, February, 1981.
No. 2 with F.V. Gollasch, Word Omissions in Reading Deliberate and Non-Deliberate: Implications and Applications, March, 1981.
No. 3 with Bess Altwerger, Studying Text Difficulty Through Miscue Analysis, June, 1981.
No. 6 with Lois Bridges Bird, On the Wording of Texts: A Study of Intra-Text Word Frequency, March, 1982.
No. 7 with Suzanne Gespass, Text Features as they Relate to Miscues: Pronouns, March, 1983.
No. 8 Text Features as they Relate to Miscues: Determiners, July, 1983.
No. 15 with G. Williams and J. David, Revaluing Troubled Readers, February, 1986.
No. 16 with Brown, J. and Marek, A. Annotated Chronological Miscue Analysis Bibliography, August, 1994.
The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful. The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book "Speech and Brain Mechanisms", and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with "Biological Foundations of Language."
The critical period hypothesis states that the first few years of life is the crucial time in which an individual can acquire a first language if presented with adequate stimuli, and that first-language acquisition relies on neuroplasticity. If language input does not occur until after this time, the individual will never achieve a full command of language. There is much debate over the timing of the critical period with respect to SLA, with estimates ranging between 2 and 13 years of age.
The critical period hypothesis is derived from the concept of a critical period in the biological sciences, which refers to a set period in which an organism must acquire a skill or ability, or said organism will not be able to acquire it later in life. Strictly speaking, the experimentally verified critical period relates to a time span during which "damage" to the development of the visual system can occur, for example if animals are deprived of the necessary binocular input for developing stereopsis.
The discussion of language critical period is complicated by the subjectivity of determining native-like competence in language, which includes things like pronunciation, prosody, syllable stress, timing and articulatory setting. Some aspects of language, such as phoneme tuning, grammar processing, articulation control, and vocabulary acquisition have weak critical periods and can be significantly improved by training at any age. Other aspects of language, such as prefrontal synthesis, have strong critical periods and cannot be acquired after the end of the critical period.
The theory has often been extended to a critical period for second-language acquisition (SLA), although this is much less widely accepted. David Singleton states that in learning a second language, "younger = better in the long run", but points out that there are many exceptions, noting that five percent of adult bilinguals master a second language even though they begin learning it when they are well into adulthood—long after any critical period has presumably come to a close. Jane H. Hill posited that much research into SLA has focused on monolingual communities, whereas multilingual communities are more of a global norm, and this impacts the standard of competence that the SLA speaker is judged by.
The critical period hypothesis in SLA follows a "use it then lose it" approach, which dictates that as a person ages, excess neural circuitry used during L1 learning is essentially broken down. If these neural structures remained intact they would cost unnecessary metabolic energy to maintain. The structures necessary for L1 use are kept. On the other hand, a second "use it or lose it" approach dictates that if an L2 user begins to learn at an early age and continues on through their life, then their language-learning circuitry should remain active. This approach is also called the "exercise hypothesis".
There is much debate over the timing of the critical period with respect to SLA, with estimates ranging between 2 and 13 years of age. However, some studies have shown that "even very young L2 beginners diverge at the level of fine linguistic detail from native speakers."
Some writers have argued that the critical period hypothesis does not apply to SLA, and that second-language proficiency is determined by the time and effort put into the learning process, and not the learner's age. observed that factors other than age may be even more significant in successful second-language learning, such as personal motivation, anxiety, input and output skills, and the learning environment. A combination of these factors often leads to individual variation in second-language acquisition experiences.
On reviewing the published material, Bialystok and Hakuta (1994) conclude that second-language learning is not necessarily subject to biological critical periods, but "on average, there is a continuous decline in ability [to learn] with age."
Other work has challenged the biological approach; Krashen (1975) re-analysed clinical data used as evidence and concluded cerebral specialisation occurs much earlier than Lenneberg calculated. Therefore, if a CP exists, it does not coincide with lateralisation. Despite concerns with Lenneberg's original evidence and the dissociation of lateralisation from the language CP idea, however, the concept of a CP remains a viable hypothesis, which later work has better explained and substantiated.
Contrary to biological views, behavioural approaches assert that languages are learned as any other behaviour, through conditioning. Skinner (1957) details how operant conditioning forms connections with the environment through interaction and, alongside O. Hobart Mowrer (1960), applies the ideas to language acquisition. Mowrer hypothesises that languages are acquired through rewarded imitation of ‘language models’; the model must have an emotional link to the learner (e.g. parent, spouse), as imitation then brings pleasant feelings which function as positive reinforcement. Because new connections between behaviour and the environment are formed and reformed throughout life, it is possible to gain new skills, including language(s), at any age.
asserts that environmental factors must be relatively unimportant for language emergence, as so many different factors surround children acquiring L1. Instead, Chomsky claims language learners possess innate principles building a 'language acquisition device' (LAD) in the brain. These principles denote restricted possibilities for variation within the language, and enable learners to construct a grammar out of 'raw input' collected from the environment. Input alone cannot explain language acquisition because it is degenerated by characteristic features such as stutters, and lacks corrections from which learners discover incorrect variations.
Singleton and Newport (2004) demonstrate the function of UG in their study of 'Simon'. Simon learned ASL as his L1 from parents who had learned it as an L2 after puberty and provided him with imperfect models. Results showed Simon learned normal and logical rules and was able to construct an organised linguistic system, despite being exposed to inconsistent input. Chomsky developed UG to explain L1 acquisition data, but maintains it also applies to L2 learners who achieve near-native fluency not attributable solely to input and interaction .
Although it does not describe an optimal age for SLA, the theory implies that younger children can learn languages more easily than older learners, as adults must reactivate principles developed during L1 learning and forge an SLA path: children can learn several languages simultaneously as long as the principles are still active and they are exposed to sufficient language samples (Pinker, 1995). The parents of Singleton and Newport's (2004) patient also had linguistic abilities in line with these age-related predictions; they learned ASL after puberty and never reached complete fluency.
Problems within UG theory for L2 acquisition.
This suggests that L2 may be qualitatively different from L1 due to its dissociation from the 'normal' language brain regions, thus the extrapolation of L1 studies and theories to SLA is placed in question. A further disadvantage of UG is that supporting empirical data are taken from a limited sample of syntactic phenomena: a general theory of language acquisition should cover a larger range of phenomena. Despite these problems, several other theorists have based their own models of language learning on it. These ideas are supported by empirical evidence, which consequently supports Chomsky's ideas. Due to this support and its descriptive and explanatory strength, many theorists regard UG as the best explanation of language, and particularly grammar, acquisition.
A key question about the relationship of UG and SLA is: is the language acquisition device posited by Chomsky and his followers still accessible to learners of a second language? The critical period hypothesis suggests that it becomes inaccessible at a certain age, and learners increasingly depended on explicit teaching. In other words, although all of language may be governed by UG, older learners might have great difficulty in gaining access to the target language's underlying rules from positive input alone.
Although Krashen (1975) also criticises this theory, he does not deny the importance of age for second-language acquisition. Krashen (1975) proposed theories for the close of the CP for L2 at puberty, based on Piaget's cognitive stage of formal operations beginning at puberty, as the ‘ability of the formal operational thinker to construct abstract hypotheses to explain phenomena’ inhibits the individual's natural ability for language learning.
The term "language acquisition" became commonly used after Stephen Krashen contrasted it with formal and non-constructive "learning." Today, most scholars use "language learning" and "language acquisition" interchangeably, unless they are directly addressing Krashen's work. However, "second-language acquisition" or "SLA" has become established as the preferred term for this academic discipline.
Though SLA is often viewed as part of applied linguistics, it is typically concerned with the language system and learning processes themselves, whereas applied linguistics may focus more on the experiences of the learner, particularly in the classroom. Additionally, SLA has mostly examined "naturalistic" acquisition, where learners acquire a language with little formal training or teaching.
Virtually all research findings on SLA to date build on data from literate learners. find significantly different results when replicating standard SLA studies with low literate L2 learners. Specifically, learners with lower alphabetic literacy levels are significantly less likely to notice corrective feedback on form or to perform elicited imitation tasks accurately. These findings are consistent with research in cognitive psychology showing significant differences in phonological awareness between literate and illiterate adults . An important direction for SLA research must therefore involve the exploration of the impact of alphabetic literacy on cognitive processing in second-language acquisition.
Empirical research has attempted to account for variables detailed by SLA theories and provide an insight into L2 learning processes, which can be applied in educational environments. Recent SLA investigations have followed two main directions: one focuses on pairings of L1 and L2 that render L2 acquisition particularly difficult, and the other investigates certain aspects of language that may be maturationally constrained. looked at bilingual dominance to evaluate two explanations of L2 performance differences between bilinguals and monolingual-L2 speakers, i.e. a maturationally defined CP or interlingual interference.
investigated whether the age at which participants learned English affected dominance in Italian-English bilinguals, and found the early bilinguals were English (L2) dominant and the late bilinguals Italian (L1) dominant. Further analysis showed that dominant Italian bilinguals had detectable foreign accents when speaking English, but early bilinguals (English dominant) had no accents in either language. This suggests that, though interlingual interference effects are not inevitable, their emergence, and bilingual dominance, may be related to a CP.
also studied bilinguals and highlight the importance of early language exposure. They looked at vocabulary processing and representation in Spanish-Catalan bilinguals exposed to both languages simultaneously from birth in comparison to those who had learned L2 later and were either Spanish- or Catalan-dominant. Findings showed 'from birth bilinguals' had significantly more difficulty distinguishing Catalan words from non-words differing in specific vowels than Catalan-dominants did (measured by reaction time).
These difficulties are attributed to a phase around age eight months where bilingual infants are insensitive to vowel contrasts, despite the language they hear most. This affects how words are later represented in their lexicons, highlighting this as a decisive period in language acquisition and showing that initial language exposure shapes linguistic processing for life. also indicate the significance of phonology for L2 learning; they believe learning an L2 once the L1 phonology is already internalised can reduce individuals’ abilities to distinguish new sounds that appear in the L2.
Most studies into age effects on specific aspects of SLA have focused on grammar, with the common conclusion that it is highly constrained by age, more so than semantic functioning. compared attainment of French learners in early and late immersion programs. She reports that after 1000 exposure hours, late learners had better control of French verb systems and syntax. However, comparing early immersion students (average age 6.917 years) with age-matched native speakers identified common problem areas, including third person plurals and polite ‘vous’ forms. This suggests grammar (in L1 or L2) is generally acquired later, possibly because it requires abstract cognition and reasoning.
B. Harley also measured eventual attainment and found the two age groups made similar mistakes in syntax and lexical selection, often confusing French with the L1. The general conclusion from these investigations is that different aged learners acquire the various aspects of language with varying difficulty. Some variation in grammatical performance is attributed to maturation, however, all participants began immersion programs before puberty and so were too young for a strong critical period hypothesis to be directly tested.
This corresponds to Noam Chomsky’s UG theory, which states that while language acquisition principles are still active, it is easy to learn a language, and the principles developed through L1 acquisition are vital for learning an L2.
also suggest learning some syntactic processing functions and lexical access may be limited by maturation, whereas semantic functions are relatively unaffected by age. They studied the effect of late SLA on speech comprehension by German immigrants to the US and American immigrants to Germany. They found that native-English speakers who learned German as adults were disadvantaged on certain grammatical tasks but performed at near-native levels on lexical tasks.
It is commonly believed that children are better suited to learning a second language than are adults. However, general second-language research has failed to support the critical period hypothesis in its strong form (i.e., the claim that full language acquisition is impossible beyond a certain age).
Another aspect worth considering is that bilingual children are often doing code switching, which does not mean that the child is not able to separate the languages. The reason for code switching is the child's lack of vocabulary in a certain situation. The acquisition of a second language in early childhood broadens children's minds and enriches them more than it harms them. Thus they are not only able to speak two languages in spite of being very young but they also acquire knowledge about the different cultures and environments. It is possible for one language to dominate. This depends on how much time is spent on learning each language.
In order to provide evidence for the evolutionary functionality of the critical period in language acquisition, generated a computer simulation of plausible conditions of evolving generations, based on three central assumptions:
According to Hurford's evolutionary model, language acquisition is an adaptation that has survival value for humans, and that knowing a language correlates positively with an individual's reproductive advantage. This finding is in line with views of other researchers such as Chomsky and . For example, Steven Pinker and Paul Bloom argue that because a language is a complex design that serves a specific function that cannot be replaced by any other existing capacity, the trait of language acquisition can be attributed to natural selection.
However, while arguing that language itself is adaptive and "did not 'just happen'" (p. 172), Hurford suggests that the critical period is not an adaptation, but rather a constraint on language that emerged due to a lack of selection pressures that reinforce acquiring more than one language. In other words, Hurford explains the existence of a critical period with genetic drift, the idea that when there are no selection pressures on multiple alleles acting on the same trait, one of the alleles will gradually diminish through evolution. Because the simulation reveals no evolutionary advantage of acquiring more than one language, Hurford suggests that the critical period evolved simply as a result of a lack of selection pressure.
supported Hurford's model, yet pointed out that it was limited in the sense that it did not take into account the costs of learning a language. Therefore, they created their own algorithmic model, with the following assumptions:
Age of acquisition (AOA or AoA), is a psycholinguistic variable referring to the age at which a word is typically learned. For example, the word 'penguin' is typically learned at a younger age than the word 'albatross'. Studies in psycholinguistics suggest that age of acquisition has an effect on the speed of reading words both simple and complex. It is a particularly strong variable in predicting the speed of picture naming. It has been generally found that words that are more frequent, shorter, more familiar and refer to concrete concepts are learned earlier than more complex words.
Sets of normative values for age of acquisition for large sets of words have been developed.
It has been disputed whether age of acquisition has an effect on word tasks on its own or by virtue of its covariance with other variables such as word frequency. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the age of acquisition is related to the fact that an earlier learned word has been encountered more often. These issues were partially resolved in an article by Ghyselinck, Lewis and Brysbaert.
Alternatively there have been discussions of the effect that the age of acquisition has on learning a second language.
The Modular Online Growth and Use of Language
The Modular Online Growth and Use of Language (MOGUL) project is the cover term name for any research on language carried out using the Modular Cognition Framework Cognition Framework (MCF).
The word chain can be displayed using the following abbreviations always using 'S' for '
Processing works in both directions depending where the initial input comes from and then after that going in "both" directions in principle until the overall best-fit is found. In other words, processing is parallel, incremental and bidirectional.
Linguists may note that what is conventionally thought of as the scope of "phonetics" is expressed here as the domain of auditory structure. Similarly, what is conventionally thought of as the scope of "semantics" and "'pragmatics" falls within the scope of conceptual structure. None of these linguistic areas are treated here as the domain of one or other of the two linguistic systems: the term "linguistic" is reserved for the two above-mentioned systems that process and store linguistic structure.
As we match various types of cognitive structure available to us in order to find the best fit for unfamiliar input from the environment new connections are developed, initially with the relevant structures possessing a low resting level of activation. This means they will have a relatively poor chance of selection for future instances of the same input. However, the more they are selected the more they will show up in the observable behaviour of the individual concerned.
The cognitive systems involved in language comprehension work in two directions. Production involves a physical response to internal events, the creation of a message to be conveyed. This requires articulation of different parts of the body, following the commands of motor structures. As mentioned earlier, meanings in the conceptual processor are matched with syntactic structures which in turn are matched with phonological structures; this structural chain continues to be built following different routes according to the selected mode of articulation. The required motor structures that drive the articulation of speech will be different from those involved in writing or signing.
To take a simple example, the word "horse" can be discussed or pondered; all that is needed for this is an auditory structure (the sound of the word) and its visual structure (representing its orthographic, written form), both of which are matched up with its meaning. consisting of metalinguistic concepts such as "word, syllable, noun, definition" and the like. These concepts are required for any analytic thinking about language and may vary widely in degree and complexity, depending on an individual's metalinguistic sophistication. In any case, the linguistic systems are not directly implicated in any explicit discussion (or explicit thinking) about what is actually a linguistic form. They are simply activated at lower levels to support the ongoing thought processes (Sharwood Smith, 2020).
In psychology, the transposed letter effect is a test of how a word is processed when two letters within the word are switched.
Priming is an effect of implicit memory where exposure to a certain stimulus, event, or experience affects responding to a different stimulus. Typically, the event causes the stimulus to become more salient. The transposed letter effect can be used as a form of priming.
With any priming task the purpose is to test the initial stages of processing in order to better understand more complex processing. Psychologists use transposed-letter priming to test how people comprehend word meanings. From these findings, people can begin to understand how people learn, develop and understand language. Transposed-letter priming is used in a wide array of experiments and the reasons for using this method can depend on the particular hypothesis.
Switching the position of adjacent letters in the base word is a close transposition. This type of transposition creates the greatest priming effect. For example, an effective prime for the word "computer" would be the TL non-word "".
Forming a prime word by switching the position of nonadjacent letters in the base word is a distant transposition. There is significantly less priming effect in a distant transposition than a close transposition, no matter how distant the two letters are from each other.
The first study to test the transposed-letter effects was Burner and O’Dowd (1958). However, their experiment did not use priming. They showed participants a word that had a two letter switched either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of the word and they had to determine what the English word was. They measured their response time. Bruner and O’Dowd found that the error at the beginning created the slowest response time, the end was the next slowest and the middle was the fastest. The conclusion to this data was that the beginning and the end were more important for word recognition than the middle. From there, the transposition letter effect was used to test how people process and recognize words using many tasks.
Theories challenged by effects of transposed-letter priming.
There are a number of theories that have been challenged by the effects shown with transposition-letter priming. These theories mainly have to do with how letters are used to process words.
The parallel distributed processing model proposed by Seidenberg and McClelland (1989) also uses a portion of words but instead of letters they are a small group of letters in the same order as in the word. For example, the word “judge” would have these groupings: . This predicts that if part of two words match there will be some priming, but this model still depends on the position of the letters to some extent, so it is not compatible with results from transposed-letter priming.