The cross-script cognate effect in spoken and written second language production: A study based on Chinese-English bilinguals.

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Guorui Zheng, Tingting Yang, Weihao Lin, Yueran Yang, Ruiming Wang
{"title":"The cross-script cognate effect in spoken and written second language production: A study based on Chinese-English bilinguals.","authors":"Guorui Zheng, Tingting Yang, Weihao Lin, Yueran Yang, Ruiming Wang","doi":"10.1177/17470218241279047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Previous studies using cognates with the same writing system have found cognate facilitation effect in the lexical processes of spoken and typewritten productions and cognate interference effect in the sub-lexical process of typewritten production. This study focused on cross-script cognates, Chinese-English, which have different writing systems, and explored cognate effects based on the input and output modalities by using a Chinese-English translation task. Experiment 1 was under visual input modality and investigated the cross-script cognate effect in all three output modalities: spoken, typewritten and handwritten. Results revealed a cognate facilitation effect in the lexical processes across all three output modalities. However, it showed a cognate facilitation effect rather than a cognate interference effect in the sub-lexical process of typewritten production. Experiment 2 was under auditory input modality and focused on exploring cross-script cognate effect on typewritten and handwritten modalities, finding a consistent result on cognate effects with Experiment 1. Both experiments showed higher accuracy for cognates, and there was no significant difference in cgnate effect between visual and auditory inputs. In summary, these findings indicated that the use of cross-script cognates could effectively mitigate cognate interference. While spoken, handwritten and typewritten production share lexical processes, differences emerge in sub-lexical processes, with spoken production being less influenced by orthography. Furthermore, combining the results of Experiments 1 and 2, typewritten production may lean towards the phonological route while handwritten production may favour the direct lexical-orthographic route in the sub-lexical processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"17470218241279047"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241279047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous studies using cognates with the same writing system have found cognate facilitation effect in the lexical processes of spoken and typewritten productions and cognate interference effect in the sub-lexical process of typewritten production. This study focused on cross-script cognates, Chinese-English, which have different writing systems, and explored cognate effects based on the input and output modalities by using a Chinese-English translation task. Experiment 1 was under visual input modality and investigated the cross-script cognate effect in all three output modalities: spoken, typewritten and handwritten. Results revealed a cognate facilitation effect in the lexical processes across all three output modalities. However, it showed a cognate facilitation effect rather than a cognate interference effect in the sub-lexical process of typewritten production. Experiment 2 was under auditory input modality and focused on exploring cross-script cognate effect on typewritten and handwritten modalities, finding a consistent result on cognate effects with Experiment 1. Both experiments showed higher accuracy for cognates, and there was no significant difference in cgnate effect between visual and auditory inputs. In summary, these findings indicated that the use of cross-script cognates could effectively mitigate cognate interference. While spoken, handwritten and typewritten production share lexical processes, differences emerge in sub-lexical processes, with spoken production being less influenced by orthography. Furthermore, combining the results of Experiments 1 and 2, typewritten production may lean towards the phonological route while handwritten production may favour the direct lexical-orthographic route in the sub-lexical processes.

表达:第二语言口语和书面语中的跨文字同义词效应:基于汉英双语者的研究。
以往使用书写系统相同的同源物进行的研究发现,同源物在口语和打字制作的词汇过程中具有促进效应,而在打字制作的次词汇过程中具有干扰效应。本研究以书写系统不同的汉英跨文字同源语为研究对象,通过汉英翻译任务探讨了基于输入和输出模式的同源语效应。实验 1 采用视觉输入模式,研究了口语、打字和手写三种输出模式下的跨文字认知效应。结果显示,在所有三种输出模式的词汇过程中都存在同义词促进效应。然而,在打字制作的次级词汇过程中,出现的是认知促进效应,而不是认知干扰效应。实验 2 是在听觉输入模式下进行的,重点是探索打字和手写模式下的跨文字认知效应,结果发现认知效应与实验 1 一致。两个实验都显示,同义词的准确率更高,而且视觉输入和听觉输入的同义词效应没有显著差异。总之,这些研究结果表明,使用跨文字同义词可以有效缓解同义词干扰。虽然口语、手写和打字都有共同的词汇过程,但在次词汇过程中出现了差异,口语表达受正字法的影响较小。此外,综合实验 1 和实验 2 的结果,打字制作可能更倾向于语音途径,而手写制作在次词汇过程中可能更倾向于直接的词汇-正字法途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信