How do you spell influence

The approach of this research is using an experimental quantitative approach. The data that is obtained used the statistical pretest-posttest analysis that calculated by t-test. And the techniques of collecting the data are by using observation, questionnaire and test.

The total number of population comes to And for the sample, the writer use simple random sampling as many as 33 students. Meanwhile, from the posttest resulted the average score 7,8.

First Known Use of predominant , in the meaning defined at sense 1. Learn More About predominant. Time Traveler for predominant The first known use of predominant was in See more words from the same year. Style: MLA. English Language Learners Definition of predominant.

Kids Definition of predominant. Get Word of the Day daily email! Test Your Vocabulary. Can you spell these 10 commonly misspelled words?

Love words? Need even more definitions? Homophones, Homographs, and Homonyms The same, but different. Ask the Editors 'Everyday' vs. What Is 'Semantic Bleaching'? How 'literally' can mean "figuratively". He interpreted this finding as suggesting that lexical priming is not due solely to short-term, residual activation of the letters of prior real words, since the effects lasted even when other stimuli were presented in between the prime word and target nonword, which should eliminate residual activation of the prime word's letters as subsequent words' letters are activated.

Perry concluded, similar to Folk and Rapp [4], that changes in the resting activation of P-G rules in the sublexical system are responsible for the priming effects. Tainturier, et al. They found that French nonwords were spelled more often using low-probability P-G correspondences when the nonwords had a close phonological neighbor to the target spelling that included the low probability P-G correspondence than for those without a close phonological neighbor.

Tainturier et al. In this way, the lexical system influences the operation of the sublexical system. It is possible that neighbor effects could account for all previous findings as prime words are neighbors of the target nonwords, and their increased activation as a result of being presented could account for priming effects. Previous work suggests that several mechanisms may underlie the influence of the lexical system on the sublexical system during the spelling of unfamiliar words: 1 dynamic re-weighting, which is the temporary re-weighting of P-G rules or correspondences in the sublexical system via the presentation of a real word; 2 residual activation, which is the persisting activation of a prime word's letters at the grapheme level, making them more likely to be selected when a subsequent nonword is spelled; and 3 activation of familiar words that are phonological neighbors of the aurally presented nonword.

The spellings of the neighbor words become active and influence the activation of graphemes, which are then more likely to be selected when the nonword is spelled. Specifically, it is possible that previously reported priming effects could be explained, not in terms of priming from residual activation or dynamic re-weighting, but as a result of the activation of word neighbors of the presented nonwords.

Additionally, it is unclear, if we find evidence of lexical priming, whether effects of dynamic re-weighting occur over and above effects of residual activation when word neighbor effects are taken into account. To investigate the contribution of these different possible mechanisms to lexical influences on the sublexical system, we employed a lexical priming task, using nonwords as our unfamiliar words.

The work of Tainturier et al. Those spellings are more likely to be selected to spell the nonword. Accordingly, what we have been calling priming effects may actually be a result of the increased activation of the prime word, a neighbor of the nonword, making it more likely that the prime word's spelling influences how the nonword is spelled and not other mechanisms.

We extended the work of Tainturier et al. Participants: Ninety-six undergraduate students from Kent State University participated in this experiment 48 in the lexical priming condition and 48 in the control condition with 12 per list. Participants received course credit for their participation, and all were native speakers of English. Nonwords were constructed by changing the first phoneme of each prime word. Nonwords were considered to be low in friends or enemies if they had a mean summed frequency of less than 50 for friends or enemies respectively, and items were considered to be high if they had a mean summed frequency of or more for friends or enemies [20].

Mean summed frequencies were matched among high and low groups. Also matched were the P-G probabilities of the target vowel spellings [21] for each group to ensure that baseline P-G probabilities did not differentially influence responding.

See Table 1 for mean summed frequencies and mean P-G probabilities. Word frequency determined using [22]. Eight lists were created: 4 for the experimental lexical priming condition and 4 for the control condition. Lists for the priming condition contained 24 experimental nonword targets and 24 rhyming prime words, with the prime-nonword pairs in different pseudo-randomized orders in each list. The control lists contained nonword targets without rhyming prime words.

The prime words were replaced with other real words that neither rhymed with the subsequent nonword nor shared the same vowel sound or spelling. Each list was divided across two sessions in such a way as to prevent the presentation of duplicate vowel sounds in one session.

An experimenter read lists of words and nonwords aloud to participants at a rate of approximately one item every four seconds. Participants were instructed to put a check on their answer sheet if they heard a real English word, and if they heard a made-up nonword, they were instructed to spell it in a way that seemed reasonable to them. Participants attended two separate sessions exactly one week apart. Each participant in the experimental condition heard only one list containing 24 target nonwords 12 each session with a rhyming real word immediately preceding each target nonword.

Each participant in the control condition heard only one list containing 24 target nonwords 12 each session with a nonrhyming real word no prime immediately preceding each target nonword.

Participants were tested in groups or individually. The two testing sessions lasted approximately 20 minutes each. The proportion of items for which the target vowel spellings were produced for target nonwords was calculated.

For the prime condition, responses were excluded if the prime word was spelled out by the participant or if a checkmark was placed for the nonword instead of the nonword being written, either because the participant thought the stimulus was a real word or misheard it.

In the control condition, responses were excluded if a checkmark was placed for the nonword instead of the nonword being written. If participants wrote the real word primes in the prime condition, it is possible that the motor processes might have influenced the subsequent writing of the nonword.

Responses excluded for all of these reasons accounted for 7. Data analysis was conducted across participant F1 and t1 and item F2 and t2 variability. For the participants analyses, the prime condition was a between participants variable while friends and enemies were within-participants variables. For the items analyses, the prime condition was a within-items variable while friends and enemies were between-items variables. Table 2: Proportion of trials for which the target nonword spellings were produced in Experiment 1 by participants and by items.

Note: Item means are in parentheses. Our data indicate that a nonword's phonological neighbors can influence the likelihood of producing the target nonword spelling and that the frequency of those neighbors affects their influence on the operation of the sublexical system. The main effect of enemy indicates that participants are more likely to respond with target spellings of the nonword when the mean summed frequency of word neighbors that are enemies of the nonword is low than when it is high.

Importantly, there was no interaction between enemy and condition, indicating that while word neighbors did influence the likelihood of producing a particular nonword spelling, they had no influence on overall priming effects, indicating that lexical priming from a previously presented word occurs.

Experiment 2 addresses possible mechanisms of this priming. In Experiment 1 we found priming effects beyond the effects of friends and enemies. Clearly some factor beyond the effect of word neighbors is responsible for a substantial portion of the priming effect. Thus, Experiment 2 was designed to explore priming effects across intervening items to investigate the influence of dynamic re-weighting and residual activation on sublexical processing and the interaction, if any, with lexical influences from word neighbors.

Since letter level activation from the presentation of the nonword should be overwritten by the intervening items, any remaining lexical effects on nonword spelling should be a result of the re-weighting process [18]. Participants: Ninety-six undergraduate students from Kent State University participated in this experiment. Forty-eight of the participants were in the lexical priming condition 12 per list and forty-eight in the control condition 12 per list.

Participants received course credit for their participation. All participants were native English speakers, and none participated in Experiment 1. Materials: The materials were identical to those in Experiment 1, with the exception that in the experimental lists, prime words were followed by two intervening items which were real words that did not rhyme with or share any vowel sounds or target vowel letters with the target nonword.

In the control lists, the word prime was replaced with a nonrhyming real word. The procedure was identical to that used in Experiment 1, with the exception that the intervening items added to the number of stimuli presented. Participants in the prime condition heard a prime word, then two nonrhyming intervening words, and finally the target nonword, with filler words before the prime words and after the nonwords.