A1 Refereed original research article in a scientific journal
The costs of adding versus omitting diacritics in visual word recognition: Evidence from German and Finnish.
Authors: Labusch, Melanie; Perea, Manuel; Hyönä, Jukka
Publisher: American Psychological Association (APA)
Publication year: 2026
Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
ISSN: 0278-7393
eISSN: 1939-1285
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001586
Publication's open availability at the time of reporting: No Open Access
Publication channel's open availability : Partially Open Access publication channel
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001586
In German, diacritical marks distinguish between vowel sounds in print (e.g., “o” pronounced /o/ vs. “ö” pronounced /ø/). Unlike in Spanish, where diacritics primarily indicate lexical stress, omitting diacritics in German (e.g., Kröte [toad] → Krote) leads to longer word identification times compared with intact words. This suggests separate letter representations for diacritical and nondiacritical vowels in German. Current models of visual word recognition assume distinct letter representations for diacritical and nondiacritical vowels in German (Ziegler et al., 2000), but it remains unclear whether the reading cost differs when a diacritic is added versus omitted. We conducted three semantic categorization experiments to examine whether the presence of an added diacritic in a nondiacritical word (e.g., Schwan [swan] → Schwän) incurs a greater lexical-semantic cost than its omission (e.g., Kröte → Krote) in German and Finnish, another language where diacritical vowels signal distinct pronunciations. In noisy-channel models, adding a diacritic makes the percept less similar to the base word than omitting one, thus predicting a larger cost. In contrast, abstractionist models assume rapid activation of abstract letter representations, predicting a negligible asymmetry. Results were similar in German and Finnish. First, both types of misspellings showed a reading cost relative to the intact words. Second, the reading cost was larger for the addition than for the omission of diacritics, placing new constraints on the orthographic front-end of models of visual word recognition.