This study investigated the hypothesis of nonselective access to phonological representations in an integrated lexicon across logographic and alphabetic writing systems among Chinese L1 (first language)–English L2 (second language) bilinguals. We employed three experiments to test this hypothesis, including a lexical decision task (LDT) and a word naming task in Experiments 1 and 2 using the masked priming paradigm, and a self-paced sentence reading task in Experiment 3. Results from the LDT and the word naming task showed a significant homophone priming effect from L1 to L2, but not from L2 to L1. In the sentence reading task, we compared processing time between homophone error words and control words in the critical and spill-over regions. A slower processing effect in the homophone condition was observed in the spill-over region. Overall, these findings suggest that phonological priming occurs across a logographic and an alphabetic script in different tasks, whether reading isolated words or sentences. Bilingual reading involves an integrated bilingual lexicon that is independent of script similarity.
AndoE.JaredD.NakayamaM.HinoY. (2014). Cross-script phonological priming with Japanese Kanji primes and English targets. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(8), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.971026
2.
AndoE.MatsukiK.SheridanH.JaredD. (2015). The locus of Katakana–English masked phonological priming effects. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(1), 101–117psyh. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000121
3.
AsscheE. V.DuyckW.HartsuikerR. J. (2012). Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article e00174. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00174
4.
BaayenR. H.PiepenbrockR.GulikersL. (1996). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). University of Pennsylvania.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), Article i01. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
BelsleyD. A.KuhE.WelschR. E. (2005). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. John Wiley & Sons.
8.
BordagD.GorK.OpitzA. (2022). Ontogenesis model of the L2 lexical representation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000250
9.
BrysbaertM.Van DyckG.Van de PoelM. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals: Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 137–148psyh. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.137
10.
CaiQ.BrysbaertM. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLOS ONE, 5(6), Article e0010729. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0010729
11.
CarreirasM.FerrandL.GraingerJ.PereaM. (2005). Sequential effects of phonological priming in visual word recognition. Psychological Science, 16(8), 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01579.x
12.
ChiangT. (1979). Some interferences of English intonation with Chinese tones. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 17(3), 245–250.
13.
ChoiW.NamK.LeeC. H. (2010). Nonselective access of phonological lexicon for two different orthographies: Korean and English. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110(3), 693–698. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.110.3.693-698
14.
CookS. V.PandžaN. B.LancasterA. K.GorK. (2016). Fuzzy nonnative phonolexical representations lead to fuzzy form-to-meaning mappings. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article e01345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01345
15.
CutlerA.DahanD.Van DonselaarW. (1997). Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech, 40(2), 141–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383099704000203
16.
DaviesM. (2019). Word frequency data from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). https://www.wordfrequency.info
17.
DavisC. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37(1), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206399
18.
De LeeuwJ. R. (2015). JsPsych: A JavaScript library for creating behavioral experiments in a Web browser. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0458-y
19.
DijkstraT.GraingerJ.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (1999). Recognition of cognates and interlingual homographs: The neglected role of phonology. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 496–518. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2654
20.
DijkstraT.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(3), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728902003012
21.
DimitropoulouM.DuñabeitiaJ. A.CarreirasM. (2011). Phonology by itself: Masked phonological priming effects with and without orthographic overlap. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.477811
DuyckW.DiependaeleK.DriegheD.BrysbaertM. (2004). The size of the cross-lingua masked phonological priming effect does not depend on second language proficiency. Experimental Psychology, 51(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.51.2.116
24.
FengC.YueY.ZhangQ. (2019). Syllables are retrieved before segments in the spoken production of Mandarin Chinese: An ERP study. Scientific Reports, 9(1), Article 11773. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48033-3
25.
ForsterK. I.ForsterJ. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(1), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195503
26.
ForsterK. I.MohanK.HectorJ. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In ForsterK. I.MohanK.HectorJ. (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 2–20). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203502846
27.
FriesenD. C.WardO.BohnetJ.CormierP.JaredD. (2020). Early activation of cross-language meaning from phonology during sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 46(9), 1754–1767. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000849
28.
FriesenD. C.WhitfordV.TitoneD.JaredD. (2020). The impact of individual differences on cross-language activation of meaning by phonology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000142
29.
FrostR. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123(1), 71–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.1.71
30.
GollanT. H.ForsterK. I.FrostR. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1122–1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122
31.
HaighC. A.JaredD. (2007). The activation of phonological representations by bilinguals while reading silently: Evidence from interlingual homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.623
32.
JaredD.KrollJ. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words?. Journal of memory and language, 44(1), 2–31.
33.
JiangN. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728999000152
JiangN. (2023). The study of bilingual language processing. Oxford University Press.
36.
JiangN.ForsterK. I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2737
37.
KimJ.DavisC. (2003). Task effects in masked cross-script translation and phonological priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 484–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00093-7
38.
LeeC. H.NamK.KatzL. (2005). Nonselective access of spelling-sound knowledge for Korean-English bilinguals. International Journal of Psychology, 40(6), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590500188157
39.
LeeY.JangE.ChoiW. (2018). L2-L1 translation priming effects in a lexical decision task: Evidence from low proficient Korean-English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article e00267. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00267
40.
LemhöferK.BroersmaM. (2012). Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0
41.
LiC.LinC. Y.WangM.JiangN. (2013). The activation of segmental and tonal information in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 773–779. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0395-2
42.
LimJ. H.ChristiansonK. (2023). Cross-script L1–L2 and L2–L1 masked translation priming and phonological priming: Evidence from unbalanced Korean–English bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069221142405
43.
MarianV.BlumenfeldH. K.KaushanskayaM. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/067)
44.
NakayamaM.SearsC. R.HinoY.LupkerS. J. (2012). Cross-script phonological priming for Japanese-English bilinguals: Evidence for integrated phonological representations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 1563–1583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.606669
45.
OtaM.HartsuikerR. J.HaywoodS. L. (2009). The KEY to the ROCK: Near-homophony in nonnative visual word recognition. Cognition, 111(2), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.12.007
46.
OtaM.HartsuikerR. J.HaywoodS. L. (2010). Is a FAN always FUN? Phonological and orthographic effects in bilingual visual word recognition. Language and Speech, 53(3), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830910371462
47.
PerfettiC. A.BellL. C. (1991). Phonemic activation during the first 40 ms of word identification: Evidence from backward masking and priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 473–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90017-E
48.
PerfettiC. A.LiuY.TanL. H. (2005). The lexical constituency model: Some implications of research on Chinese for general theories of reading. Psychological Review, 112(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.43
49.
PerfettiC. A.ZhangS. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.24
50.
PexmanP. M.LupkerS. J.RegginL. D. (2002). Phonological effects in visual word recognition: Investigating the impact of feedback activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 572–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.3.572
51.
PollatsekA. (2015). The role of sound in silent reading. In PollatsekA.TreimanR. (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 185–201). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199324576.013.12
52.
RastleK.BrysbaertM. (2006). Masked phonological priming effects in English: Are they real? Do they matter?Cognitive Psychology, 53(2), 97–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.01.002
53.
RastleK.HarringtonJ.ColtheartM. (2002). 358,534 nonwords: The ARC nonword database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(4), 1339–1362. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980244000099
54.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
55.
RouxF.ArmstrongB. C.CarreirasM. (2017). Chronset: An automated tool for detecting speech onset. Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1864–1881. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0830-1
56.
SchwarzF.ZehrJ. (2021). Tutorial: Introduction to PCIbex—An open-science platform for online experiments: Design, data-collection and code-sharing. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1ng1q4c6
57.
ShenD.ForsterK. I. (1999). Masked phonological priming in reading Chinese words depends on the task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14(5–6), 429–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386149
58.
SlimM. S.HartsuikerR. J. (2022). Moving visual world experiments online? A web-based replication of Dijkgraaf, Hartsuiker, and Duyck (2017) using PCIbex and WebGazer.js. Behavior Research Methods. 1–19.
59.
TanL. H.HoosainR.PengD. (1995). Role of early presemantic phonological code in Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.1.43
60.
TanL. H.SpinksJ. A.FengC. M.SiokW. T.PerfettiC. A.XiongJ.GaoJ. H. (2003). Neural systems of second language reading are shaped by native language. Human brain mapping, 18(3), 158–166.
61.
Van OrdenG. C.GoldingerS. D. (1994). Interdependence of form and function in cognitive systems explains perception of printed words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(6), 1269–1291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1269
62.
VogaM.GraingerJ. (2007). Cognate status and cross-script translation priming. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 938–952. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193467
63.
WangX. (2013). Language dominance in translation priming: Evidence from balanced and unbalanced Chinese-English bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(4), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.716072
64.
WangX.ForsterK. (2015). Is translation priming asymmetry due to partial awareness of the prime?Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(4), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000650
65.
WangX.ForsterK. I. (2010). Masked translation priming with semantic categorization: Testing the Sense Model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990502
66.
WenY.Van HeuvenW. J. B. (2017). Non-cognate translation priming in masked priming lexical decision experiments: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 879–886. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1151-1
67.
XiaV.AndrewsS. (2015). Masked translation priming asymmetry in Chinese-English bilinguals: Making sense of the sense model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(2), 294–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.944195
68.
XuG.LinJ.DongY. (2021). Cross-script phonological activation Chinese-English bilinguals: The effect of SOA from masked priming of priming. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(4), 374–396.
69.
YanM.LuoY.PanJ. (2023). Monolingual and bilingual phonological activation in Cantonese. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1-11.
70.
ZhouH.ChenB.YangM.DunlapS. (2010). Language nonselective access to phonological representations: Evidence from Chinese-English bilinguals. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(10), 2051–2066. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003718705
71.
ZhouX.Marslen-WilsonW. (2000). The relative time course of semantic and phonological activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1245–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1245
72.
ZhouX.ShuH.BiY.ShiD. (1999). Is there phonologically mediated access to lexical semantics in reading Chinese? In WangJ.ChenH.-C.RadachR.InhoffA. (Eds.), Reading Chinese script (pp. 147–184). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410601483-11
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
