Guorui Zheng, Tingting Yang, Weihao Lin, Yueran Yang, Ruiming Wang
{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The cross-script cognate effect in spoken and written second language production: A study based on Chinese-English bilinguals.
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.
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.