Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 16:2/3 (2021) ► pp.325–361

Phonological similarity effects in cross-script word processing

Evidence from Sino-Korean word processing by Cantonese learners

 | National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The present study explored the conditions under which phonological similarity effects arise without orthographic confounds by testing languages with true cognates but divergent scripts. We investigated the similarities and differences between within- and cross-script processing patterns by providing data from an understudied language pair, Korean and Cantonese, which have many cognates but bear no orthographic resemblance. In two word-naming and translation tasks, beginning and intermediate Cantonese-speaking learners of Korean (N = 112) were tested for the processing speed of Sino-Korean words. The results of the word-naming experiments showed that phonologically similar words were processed faster than dissimilar ones, regardless of L2 fluency, especially when the logographic L1 characters were used as primes. However, facilitation by shared phonology was not observed in the translation experiments in either direction. L1-to-L2 forward translation was much faster than L2-to-L1 backward translation, indicating conceptual memory being used as a primary processing pathway. The characteristics of cross-script processing patterns were discussed in terms of the structure of bilingual memory.
Keywords: Sino-Korean, Cantonese, cognates, phonological similarity, Chinese characters
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Cross-script word-processing: Findings and limitations
    • Strictly cross-script processing: Cantonese and Sino-Korean words
    • Phonological facilitation by logographic L1 orthography
    • Facilitation by shared phonology across experimental paradigms
  • Experiment 1. Explicit word-naming
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Data analyses
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 2. Word-naming with masked primes
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Data analyses
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • Experiment 3. Translation
    • Method
      • Participants
      • Materials
      • Procedure
      • Data analyses
    • Results
    • Discussion
  • General discussion
    • The phonological similarity effect in cross-script word processing: When and how it arises
    • Phonological facilitation by L1 characters in cross-script processing
  • Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Ethics clearance
  • References
Published online: 8 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.20001.lee
References (72)
References
Allen, D., & Conklin, K. (2013). Cross-linguistic similarity and task demands in Japanese-English bilingual processing. PLoS ONE, 8 (8), e72631. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Cross-linguistic similarity norms for Japanese–English translation equivalents. Behavior Research Methods, 46 (2), 540–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ando, E., Jared, D., Nakayama, M., & Hino, Y. (2014). Cross-script phonological priming with Japanese Kanji primes and English targets. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26 (8), 853–870. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Vasishth, S., Kliegl, R., & Bates, D. (2017). The cave of Shadows: Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94 1, 206–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, R. H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv:1506.04967, 1–21.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baur, R. S., & Benedict, P. K. (1997). Modern Cantonese Phonology. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, M., & Gouskova, M. (2016). Source-oriented generalizations as grammar inference in Russian vowel deletion. Linguistic Inquiry, 47 (3), 391–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, M., & Levine, J. (2010). Experigen – an online experiment platform. Retrieved from [URL]
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2017). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer (Version 6.0.26). Retrieved from [URL]
Bowers, J., Mimouni, Z., & Arguin, M. (2000). Orthography plays a critical role in cognate priming: Evidence from French/English and Arabic/French cognates. Memory & Cognition, 28 (8), 1289–1296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, B., & Peng, D. (2001). The time course of graphic, phonological and semantic information processing in Chinese character recognition (I). Acta-Psychologica-Sinica, 33 1, 1–6.Google Scholar
Chen, B. G., Wang, L. X., & Peng, D. L. (2003). The time course of graphic, phonological and semantic information processing in Chinese word recognition (II). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35 (5), 576–581.Google Scholar
Chen, H.-C., & Leung, Y.-S. (1989). Patterns of lexical processing in a nonnative language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 15 (2), 316–325.Google Scholar
Chen, H.-C., & Shu, H. (2001). Lexical activation during the recognition of Chinese characters: Evidence against early phonological activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8 (3), 511–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chen, P. (1999). Modern Chinese: History and Sociolinguistics. Cambridge, U.K.; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 (5), 1283–1296.Google Scholar
Davis, C., Sánchez-Casas, R., García-Albea, J. E., Guash, M., Molero, M., & Ferré, P. (2010). Masked translation priming: Varying language experience and word type with Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (2), 137–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. J. (2010). Contrast coding in multiple regression analysis: Strengths, weaknesses, and utility of popular coding structures. Journal of Data Science, 8 (1), 61–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B. (1992). Determinants of word translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18 (5), 1001–1018.Google Scholar
(2011). Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals: An Introduction. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (1), 91–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., Dannenburg, L., & van Hell, J. G. (1994). Forward and backward word translation by bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (5), 600–629. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30 (1), 90–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Groot, A. M. B., & Poot, R. (1997). Word translation at three levels of proficiency in a second language: The ubiquitous involvement of conceptual memory. Language Learning, 47 (2), 215–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: the neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (4), 496–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5 (3), 175–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duyck, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). Forward and backward number translation requires conceptual mediation in both balanced and unbalanced bilinguals. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 30 1, 889–906.Google Scholar
Francis, W. S., & Gallard, S. L. K. (2005). Concept mediation in trilingual translation: Evidence from response time and repetition priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12 (6), 1082–1088. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and non-cognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of E xperimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (5), 1122–1139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoshino, N., & Kroll, J. F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106 (1), 501–511. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N., & Forster, K. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (1), 32–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, B.-M., & Kim, H. (2004). Sejong Korean corpora in the making. Paper presented at the The International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.
Kim, H. (2006). Korean National Corpus in the 21st Century Sejong Project. Paper presented at the The 13th NIJL International Symposium, Tokyo, Japan.
(2014). Korean National Corpus in the 21st Century Sejong Project.Google Scholar
Kim, J., & Davis, C. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (4), 484–499. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Michael, E., Tokowicz, N., & Dufour, R. (2002). The development of lexical fluency in a second language. Second Language and Research, 18 (2), 137–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetry connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33 (2), 149–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2016). lmerTest: Test in linear mixed effects model: R package version 2.0–33.Google Scholar
La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & Van Der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35 1, 648–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, X. (1994). Guangdong de Fangyan [Dialects of Guangdong]. Guangzhou: Guangdong Renmin Chubanshe.Google Scholar
Luo, X., Yang, Y., Sun, J., & Chen, N. (2019). Correspondence between the Korean and Mandarin Chinese pronunciations of Chinese characters: A comparison at the sub-syllabic level. Paper presented at the Buckeye East Asian Linguistics Forum.
Martin, S. E. (1992). A Reference Grammar of Korean: A Complete Guide to the Grammar and History of the Korean Language. Rutland, Vermont: C.E. Tuttle.Google Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, R. H., & Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I Error and Power in Linear Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94 1, 305–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McAllister Byun, T., Halpin, P. F., & Szeredi, D. (2015). Online crowdsourcing for efficient rating of speech: A validation study. Journal of Communication Disorders, 53 1, 70–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McAllister Byun, T., & Tiede, M. (2017). Perception-production relations in later development of American English rhotics. PLoS ONE, 12 (2), e0172022. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McBride-Chang, C., Bialystok, E., Chong, K. K. Y., & Li, Y. (2004). Levels of phonological awareness in three cultures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89 1, 93–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDowell, H. J., & Lorch, M. P. (2008). Phonemic awareness in Chinese L1 readers of English: Not simply an effect of orthograph. TESOL Quarterly, 42 1, 495–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miwa, K., Dijkstra, T., Bolger, P., & Baayen, R. H. (2014). Reading English with Japanese in mind: Effects of frequency, phonology, and meaning in different-script bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17 (3), 445–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, M., Sears, C. R., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2012). Cross-script phonological priming for Japanese–English bilinguals: Evidence for integrated phonological representations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27 (10), 1563–1583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paap, K. R., McDonald, J. E., Schvaneveldt, R. W., & Noel, R. W. (1987). Frequency and pronounceability in visual presented naming and lexical-decision tasks. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading (pp. 221–243). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pechmann, T., Reetz, H., & Zerbst, D. (1989). Kritik einer me-smethode: Zur ungenauigkeit von voice-key messungen [The unreliability of voice-key measurements]. Sprache and Kognition, 8 (2), 65–71.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Tan, L. H. (1998). The time course of graphic, phonological, and semantic activation in Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24 (1), 101–118.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1991). Phonological processing in reading Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17 (4), 633–643.Google Scholar
Psychology Software Tools, I. (2015). E-Prime 2.0. Retrieved from [URL]
Qian, Y. (2018). A Study of Sino-Korean Phonology: Its Origin, Adaptation and Layers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2002). On the complexities of measuring naming. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human perception and performance, 28 (2), 307–314.Google Scholar
Roon, K. (2013). The dynamics of phonological planning. (Ph.D.), New York University.Google Scholar
Sakuma, N., Fushimi, T., & Tatsumi, I. (1997). Measurement of naming latency of Kana characters and words based on speech analysis: Manner of articulation of a word-initial phoneme considerably affects naming latency. Japanese Journal of Neuropsychology, 13 (2), 126–136.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Casas, R. M., García-Albea, J. E., & Davis, C. W. (1992). Bilingual lexical processing: Exploring the cognate-noncognate distinction. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4 (4), 293–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, A., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22 (1), 106–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sholl, A., Sankaranarayanan, A., & Kroll, J. F. (1995). Transfer between picture naming and translation: A test of asymmetries in bilingual memory. Psychological Science, 6 (1), 45–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean Language. Cambridge; New York Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, L. H., Hoosain, R., & Peng, D.-L. (1995). Role of early presemantic phonological code in Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (1), 43–54.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G., & de Groot, A. M. B. (1998). Disentangling context availability and concreteness in lexical decision and word translation. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51 (2), 41–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voga, M., & Grainger, J. (2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35 (5), 938–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, A., Yeon, J., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Yan, M. (2015). Cross-language parafoveal semantic processing: Evidence from Korean–Chinese bilinguals. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23 (1), 285–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, K., Mecklinger, A., Hofmann, J., & Weng, X. (2010). From orthography to meaning: an electrophysiological investigation of the role of phonology in accessing meaning of Chinese single-character words. Neuroscience, 165 1, 101–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, A. K., Wu, Y., & Chen, H. C. (2014). Limited role of phonology in reading Chinese two-character compounds: Evidence from an ERP study. Neuroscience, 256 (3), 342–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Wu, C., Zhou, T., & Meng, Y. (2019). Cognate facilitation priming effect is modulated by writing system: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23 (2), 553–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, H., Chen, B., Yang, M., & Dunlap, S. (2010). Language nonselective access to phonological representations: Evidence from Chinese–English bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 1, 2051–2066. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). Sublexical processing in reading Chinese. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff, & H. C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese Scripts: A Cognitive Analysis (pp. 37–63). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar