A number of previous studies using picture–word interference (PWI) tasks conducted with speakers of Western languages have demonstrated non-additive effects of semantic and form overlap between pictures and words, which may indicate underlying non-discrete processing stages in lexical retrieval. The present study used Mandarin speakers and presented Chinese characters as distractors. In two experiments, we crossed semantic relatedness with “pure” phonological (i.e., orthographically unrelated) relatedness and found statistically additive effects. In a third experiment, semantic relatedness was crossed with orthographic overlap (phonological overlap was avoided), and once again we found an additive pattern. The results are discussed with regard to possible cross-linguistic differences between Western and non-Western languages in terms of phonological encoding, as well as concerning the locus of relatedness effects in PWI tasks.
BalotaD. A., & PaulS. T. (1996). Summation of activation: Evidence from multiple primes that converge and diverge within semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 827–845.
2.
BiY. C., XuY. D., & CaramazzaA. (2009). Orthographic and phonological effects in the picture-word interference paradigm: Evidence from a logographic language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 637–658. doi: 10.1017/S0142716409990051
3.
ChenT.-M., DellG. S., & ChenJ.-Y. (2004). A cross-linguistic study of phonological units: Syllables emerge from the statistics of Mandarin Chinese but not from the statistics of English. Proceedings of the 26th Annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 216–220.
4.
Chinese Linguistic Data Consortium. (2003). 现代汉语通用词表 [Chinese lexicon] (CLDC-LAC-2003-001). Beijing, China: Tsinghua University, State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Automation.
5.
CholinJ., LeveltW. J., & SchillerN. O. (2006). Effects of syllable frequency in speech production. Cognition, 99, 205–235. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.009
6.
DamianM. F., & MartinR. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345–361.
7.
DeFrancisJ. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
8.
DellG. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.283
9.
Dell'AcquaR., SessaP., PeressottiF., MulattiC., NavarreteE., & GraingerJ. (2010). ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture–word interference paradigm. Frontiers in psychology, 1, 177. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00177
10.
GlaserW. R., & DüngelhoffF. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 640–654.
LeveltW. J. M., RoelofsA., & MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
13.
LeveltW. J. M., & WheeldonL. (1994). Do speakers have access to a mental syllabary? Cognition, 50, 239–269. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)90030-2
14.
LupkerS. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 485–495. doi: 10.3758/BF03198265
15.
LupkerS. J. (1982). The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture-word interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 349–367. doi: 10.1037/h0080652
16.
MahonB. Z., CostaA., PetersonR., VargasK. A., & CaramazzaA. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 503–535.
17.
Marslen-WilsonW. D., & WarrenP. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101, 653–675. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.653
18.
MassonM. E. (2011). A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 679–690. doi: 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5
19.
McClellandJ. L., & RumelhartD. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375
20.
MelingerA., & Abdel RahmanR. (2004). Investigating the interplay between semantic and phonological distractor effects in picture naming. Brain and Language, 90, 213–220. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00434-6
21.
MelingerA., & KoenigJ.-P. (2007). Part-of-speech persistence: The influence of part-of-speech information on lexical processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 472–489. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.001
22.
MeyerA. S., & SchriefersH. (1991). Phonological facilitation in picture-word interference experiments: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and types of interfering stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 1146–1160.
23.
MorsellaE., & MiozzoM. (2002). Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 555–563.
24.
O'SeaghdhaP. G., ChenJ.-Y., & ChenT.-M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282–302. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.001
25.
PechmannT., & GarrettM., & ZerbstD. (2004). The time course of recovery for grammatical category information during lexical processing for syntactic construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 723–728.
26.
PerfettiC. A., & TanL. H. (1998). The time course of graphic, phonological, and semantic activation in Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 101–118.
27.
PosnanskyC. J., & RaynerK. (1978). Visual vs. phonemic contributions to importance of initial letter in word identification. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 188–190. doi: 10.3758/BF03336803
28.
RafteryA. E. (1999). Bayes factors and BIC: Comment on “A critique of the Bayesian information criterion for model selection”. Sociological Methods & Research, 27, 411–427. doi: 10.1177/0049124199027003005
29.
RaynerK., & SpringerC. J. (1986). Graphemic and semantic similarity effects in the picture word interference task. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 207–222. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb01995.x
30.
RoelofsA. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
31.
RoelofsA. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00027-9
32.
RoelofsA. (2004). Comprehension-based versus production-internal feedback in planning spoken words: A rejoinder to Rapp and Goldrick (2004). Psychological Review, 111, 579–580. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.579
33.
RoelofsA. (2015). Modeling of phonological encoding in spoken word production: From Germanic languages to Mandarin Chinese and Japanese. Japanese Psychological Research, 57, 22–37. doi:10.1111/jpr.12050
34.
RoelofsA., MeyerA. S., & LeveltW. J. M. (1996). Interaction between semantic and orthographic factors in conceptually driven naming: Comment on Starreveld and La Heij (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 246–251. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.246
35.
SchriefersH., MeyerA. S., & LeveltW. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 86–102. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
36.
SpinksJ. A., LiuY., PerfettiC. A., & TanL. H. (2000). Reading Chinese characters for meaning: The role of phonological information. Cognition, 76, B1–B11. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
37.
StarreveldP. A., & La HeijW. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686–698. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686
38.
StarreveldP. A., & La HeijW. (1996a). The locus of orthographic-phonological facilitation: Reply to Roelofs, Meyer, and Levelt (1996). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 252–255. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.252
39.
StarreveldP. A., & La HeijW. (1996b). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 896–918. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896
40.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90055-9
41.
TaylorJ., & BurkeD. (2002). Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: Naming in the picture-word interference task. Psychology and Aging, 17, 662–676. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.662
42.
UnderwoodG., & BriggsP. (1984). The development of word recognition processes. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 243–255. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01896.x
43.
WongA. W. K., & ChenH.-C. (2008). Processing segmental and prosodic information in Cantonese word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1172–1190. doi:10.1037/a0013000
44.
WongA. W. K., & ChenH. -C. (2009). What are effective phonological units in Cantonese spoken word planning?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 888–892. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.5.888
45.
ZhangQ, ChenH. -C., WeekesB. S., & YangY. (2009). Independent effects of orthographic and phonological facilitation on spoken word production in Mandarin. Language Speech, 52, 113–126. doi:10.1177/0023830908099885
46.
ZhangQ., & WeekesB. S. (2009). Orthographic facilitation effects on spoken word production: Evidence from Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 1082–1096. doi:10.1080/01690960802042133
47.
ZhangQ., & YangY. (2003). The determiners of picture naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35, 447–454(in Chinese).
48.
ZhaoH., La HeijW., & SchillerN. O. (2012). Orthographic and phonological facilitation in speech production: New evidence from picture naming in Chinese. Acta Psychologica, 139, 272–280. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.001
49.
ZhouY. G. (1978). To what degree are the “phonetics” of present day Chinese characters still phonetic?Zhongguo Yuwen, 3, 172–177.
50.
ZhuX., DamianM. F., & ZhangQ. (2015). Seriality of semantic and phonological processes during overt speech in Mandarin as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 144, 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.007
