Reading and Writing

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 395–418 | Cite as

Ambiguity resolution in lateralized Arabic

  • Manar Hayadre
  • Dennis Kurzon
  • Orna Peleg
  • Eviatar Zohar


We examined ambiguity resolution in reading in Arabic. Arabic is an abjad orthography and is morphologically similar to Hebrew. However, Arabic literacy occurs in a diglossic context, and its orthography is more visually complex than Hebrew. We therefore tested to see whether hemispheric differences will be similar or different from previous findings in Hebrew. We also tested whether phonological recoding is a mandatory stage in reading Arabic. We used a divided visual field paradigm, where 32 participants performed semantic decisions on pairs of words in which the first word (presented centrally) was either a homophone (bank), heterophone (tear), or unambiguous. The second word was presented in the left, right, or central visual field. The results revealed larger effects of ambiguity for heterophones than for homophones in all conditions, and thus support the contention that phonological recoding is mandatory in reading Arabic. Hemispheric patterns were different from those found with Hebrew, and were similar in the peripheral visual fields, which can be interpreted as indicating a single processor, with the pattern indicating that this processor is the LH. The alternative hypothesis is that interhemispheric integration occurs in all conditions. The implications of these results for reading in Arabic are discussed.


Arabic Ambiguity resolution Reading Laterality 


  1. Abu-Rabia, S. (2000). Effects of exposure to literacy on reading comprehension in a diaglossic situation. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 13, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asaad, H., & Eviatar, Z. (2013). Learning to read in Arabic: The long and winding road. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 165–168.Google Scholar
  3. Ayari, S. (1996). Diglossia and illiteracy in the Arab world. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 9, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Azaam, R. (1984). Orthography and reading of the Arabic language. In J. Aaron & R. Joshi (Eds.), Reading and writing disorders in different orthographic systems (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  5. Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Bentin, S., & Ibrahim, R. (1996). New evidence for phonological processing during visual word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brysbaert, M., Van Dyck, G., & Van De Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilibguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 137–148.Google Scholar
  8. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1998). Modeling cerebral asymmetries of semantic memory using high-dimensional semantic space. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chiarello, C. (1998). On codes of meaning and the meaning of codes: Semantic access and retrieval between and within hemispheres. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 141–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Chiarello, C. (2013). Interpretation of word meanings by the cerebral hemispheres: One is not enough. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 251–265). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Coney, J., & Evans, K. D. (2000). Hemispheric asymmetries in the resolution of lexical ambiguity. Neuropschologia, 38, 272–282.Google Scholar
  12. Coulson, S., Federmeier, K., Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (2005). Right hemisphere sensitiviy to word and sentence level context: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daniels, P. T. (1990). Fundamentals of grammatology. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 110, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dijkstra, S., Graigner, J., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 496–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The archirecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–197.Google Scholar
  16. Eviatar, Z., & Ibrahim, R. (2000). Bilingual is as bilibgual does: Metalinguistic abilities of Arabic-speaking children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 452–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eviatar, Z., & Ibrahim, R. (2004). Morphological and orthographical effects on hemispheric processing of nonwords: A cross-linguistic comparison. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eviatar, Z., & Ibrahim, R. (2007). Morphological structure and hemispheric functioning: The contribution of the right hemisphere to reading in different languages. Neuropsychology, 21, 470–484.Google Scholar
  19. Eviatar, Z., Ibrahim, R., & Ganayim, D. (2004). Orthography and the hemispheres: Visual and linguistic aspects of letter processing. Neuropsychology, 18, 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faust, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Sentence context and lexical ambiguity resolution by the two hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 36, 827–835.Google Scholar
  21. Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Pschycophysiology, 44, 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340.Google Scholar
  23. Graigner, J., Dufaut, S., Montant, M., Ziegler, J. C., & Fagot, J. (2012). Orthographic processing in baboons. Science, 336, 245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grill-Spector, K., Kushnir, T., Hendler, T., Edelman, S., Itzchak, Y., & Malach, R. (1998). A sequence of object-processing stages revealed by fMRI in the human occipital lobe. Human Brain Mapping, 6, 316–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hellige, J. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ibrahim, R., & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Language status and hemispheric involvement in reading: Evidence from trilingual speakers tested in Arabic, Hebrew, and English. Neuropsychology, 23, 240–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ibrahim, R., & Eviatar, Z. (2012). The contribution of the two hemispheres to lexical decision in different languages. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 8, 2–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koivisto, M. (1997). Time course of semantic activation in the cerebral hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 35, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maamouri, M. (1998). Language, education and human development: Arabic diglossia and its impact on the quality of education in the Arabic region. The Mediterranean Development Forum (pp. 1–83). Merrakech: ERIC.Google Scholar
  30. Nas, G. (1983). Visual word recognition in Bilibguals: Evidence for a cooperation between visual and sound based codes during access to a common lexical store. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 526–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2008). Hemispheric sensitivities to lexical and contextual constraints: Evidence from ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 105, 71–82.Google Scholar
  32. Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2009). Semantic asymmetries are modulated by phonological asymmetries: Evidence from the disambiguation of heterophonic versus homophonic homographs. Brain and Cognition, 70, 154–162.Google Scholar
  33. Peleg, O., & Eviatar, Z. (2012). Understanding written words: Phonological, lexical and contextual effects in the two cerebral hemispheres. In M. Faust (Ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language (Vol. 1, pp. 59–76). New-York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. PISA. (2009). Results: Executive summary. Retrieved May 26, 2014, from oecd:
  35. Saiegh-Haddad, E. (2003). Linguistic distance and initial reading acquisition: The case of Arabic diglossia. Applied Psychololinguistics, 24, 431–451.Google Scholar
  36. Saiegh-haddad, E., & Joshi, M. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of Arabic literacy: Insights and perspectives. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Share, D. (2008). On the anglocentrities of current reading research and practice: The perils of overliance on an “outlier” orthography. Psychology and Bulletin, 134, 584–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taouk, M., & Colheart, M. (2004). The cognitive processes involved in learning to read Arabic. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Titone, D. A. (1998). Hemispheric differences in context sensitivity during lexical ambiguity resolution. Brain and Language, 65, 361–394.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manar Hayadre
    • 4
  • Dennis Kurzon
    • 1
  • Orna Peleg
    • 2
  • Eviatar Zohar
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of English languageHaifa UniversityHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsTel-Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyHaifa UniversityHaifaIsrael
  4. 4.Haifa UniversityHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations