Combining eye-tracking technique with a revised visual world paradigm, this study examined how positional, phonological, and semantic information of radicals are activated in visual Chinese character recognition. Participants’ eye movements were tracked when they looked at four types of invented logographic characters including a semantic radical in the legal (e.g., ) and illegal positions (), a phonetic radical in the legal (e.g., ) and illegal positions (e.g., ). These logographic characters were presented simultaneously with either a sound-cued (e.g., /qiao2/) or meaning-cued (e.g., a picture of a bridge) condition. Participants appeared to allocate more visual attention towards radicals in legal, rather than illegal, positions. In addition, more eye fixations occurred on phonetic, rather than on semantic, radicals across both sound- and meaning-cued conditions, indicating participants’ strong preference for phonetic over semantic radicals in visual character processing. These results underscore the universal phonology principle in processing non-alphabetic Chinese logographic characters.
BaronJ.StrawsonC. (1976). Use of orthographic and word-specific knowledge in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 386–393.
2.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.
ChenH. C.d’ArcaisG. B. F.CheungS. L. (1995). Orthographic and phonological activation in recognizing Chinese characters. Psychological Research, 58, 144–153.
5.
ChenH. C.ShuH. (2001). Lexical activation during the recognition of Chinese characters: Evidence against early phonological activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 511–518.
6.
ChenM. J.WeekesB. S. (2004). Effects of semantic radicals on Chinese character categorization and character decision. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 46, 179–195.
7.
ColtheartM.CurtisB.AtkinsP.HallerM. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589–608.
8.
DingG.PengD.TaftM. (2004). The nature of the mental representation of radicals in Chinese: A priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 530–539.
9.
FerreiraF.FoucartA.EngelhardtP. E. (2013). Language processing in the visual world: Effects of preview, visual complexity, and prediction. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 165–182.
10.
HueC.-W. (1992). Recognition processes in character naming. In ChenH.-C.TzengO. J. L. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 93–107). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland Publishing.
11.
HungD. L.TzengO. J. L.TzengA. K. Y. (1992). Automatic activation of linguistic information in Chinese character recognition. Advances in Psychology, 94, 119–130.
12.
HungY. H.HungD. L.TzengJ. L.WuD. H. (2014). Tracking the temporal dynamics of the processing of phonetic and semantic radicals in Chinese character recognition by MEG. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 29, 42–65.
13.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
14.
PengD.YangH.ChengY. (1994). Consistency and phonetic-independency effects in naming tasks of Chinese phonograms. In JingQ.ZhangH.PengD. (Eds.), Information processing of the Chinese language (pp. 26–41). Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press.
15.
PerfettiC. A. (2003). The universal grammar of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 3–24.
16.
PerfettiC. A.LiuY.TanL. H. (2005). The lexical constituency model: Some implications of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. Psychological Review, 112, 43–59.
17.
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.
18.
PerfettiC. A.ZhangS. (1995). The universal word identification reflex. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 33, 159–189.
19.
PerfettiC. A.ZhangS.BerentI. (1992). Reading in English and Chinese: Evidence for a “universal” phonological principle. In FrostR.KatzL. (Eds.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 94, pp. 227–248). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland Publishing.
20.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (Version 3.3.3). Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
21.
SeidenbergM. S.McClellandJ. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.
22.
SuI. F.MakS. C. C.CheungL. Y. M.LawS. P. (2012). Taking a radical position: Evidence for position-specific radical representations in Chinese character recognition using masked priming ERP. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 333.
23.
TaftM.ZhuX. (1997). Submorphemic processing in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(3), 761–775.
24.
TaftM.ZhuX.PengD. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 498–519.
25.
TanL. H.HoosainR.PengD. L. (1995). Role of early presemantic phonological code in Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 43–54.
26.
TanL. H.PerfettiC. A. (1997). Visual Chinese character recognition: Does phonological information mediate access to meaning?Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 41–57.
27.
TanL. H.PerfettiC. A. (1998). Phonological codes as early sources of constraint in Chinese word identification: A review of current discoveries and theoretical accounts. Reading and Writing, 10, 165–200.
28.
TongX.McBrideC. (2018). Toward a graded psycholexical space mapping model: Sublexical and lexical representations in Chinese character reading development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51, 482–489.
29.
TongX.TongX.McBrideC. (2017). Radical sensitivity is the key to understanding Chinese character acquisition in children. Reading and Writing, 30, 1251–1265.
30.
WangX.PeiM.WuY.SuY. (2017). Semantic radicals contribute more than phonetic radicals to the recognition of Chinese phonograms: Behavioral and ERP evidence in a factorial study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2230.
31.
WilliamsC.BeverT. (2010). Chinese character decoding: A semantic bias?Reading and Writing, 23, 589–605.
32.
YangJ.McCandlissB. D.ShuH.ZevinJ. D. (2009). Simulating language-specific and language-general effects in a statistical learning model of Chinese reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 238–257.
33.
YinB.RohsenowJ. S. (1994). Xian dai han zi [Modern Chinese characters]. Beijing, China: Sinolingua.
34.
ZhangQ.DamianM. F. (2009). The time course of semantic and orthographic encoding in Chinese word production: An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1273, 92–105.
35.
ZhouX.Marslen-WilsonW. (1999). The nature of sublexical processing in reading Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 819–837.
) and illegal positions (
), a phonetic radical in the legal (e.g., 
) and illegal positions (e.g., 
). These logographic characters were presented simultaneously with either a sound-cued (e.g., /qiao2/) or meaning-cued (e.g., a picture of a bridge) condition. Participants appeared to allocate more visual attention towards radicals in legal, rather than illegal, positions. In addition, more eye fixations occurred on phonetic, rather than on semantic, radicals across both sound- and meaning-cued conditions, indicating participants’ strong preference for phonetic over semantic radicals in visual character processing. These results underscore the universal phonology principle in processing non-alphabetic Chinese logographic characters.