Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:04:31.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Orthographic and phonological effects in the picture–word interference paradigm: Evidence from a logographic language

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2009

YANCHAO BI ,
YAODA XU  and
ALFONSO CARAMAZZA
YANCHAO BI*
Affiliation:
Beijing Normal University
YAODA XU
Affiliation:
Harvard University
ALFONSO CARAMAZZA
Affiliation:
Harvard University and University of Trento
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Yanchao Bi, State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, People's Republic of China. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One important finding with the picture–word interference paradigm is that picture-naming performance is facilitated by the presentation of a distractor (e.g., CAP) formally related to the picture name (e.g., “cat”). In two picture-naming experiments we investigated the nature of such form facilitation effect with Mandarin Chinese, separating the effects of phonology and orthography. Significant facilitation effects were observed both when distractors were only orthographically or only phonologically related to the targets. The orthographic effect was overall stronger than the phonological effect. These findings suggest that the classic form facilitation effect in picture–word interference is a mixed effect with multiple loci: it cannot be attributed merely to the nonlexical activation of the target phonological segments from the visual input of the distractor. It seems instead that orthographically only related distractors facilitate the lexical selection process of picture naming, and phonologically only related distractors facilitate the retrieval of target phonological segments.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 637 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bi, Y., Han, Z., Weekes, B. S., & Shu, H. (2007). The interaction between the semantic and the nonsemantic routes of reading: Evidence from Chinese. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2660–2673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bub, D., Cancelliere, A., & Kertesz, A. (1985). Whole-word and analytic translation of spelling-to-sound in a non-semantic reader. In Patterson, K. E., Marshall, J. C., & Coltheart, M. (Eds.), Surface dyslexia. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caramazza, A., Costa, A., Miozzo, M., & Bi, Y. (2001). The specific-word frequency effect: Implications for the representation of homophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1430–1450.Google ScholarPubMed
Caramazza, A., & Miozzo, M. (1997). The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: Evidence from the “tip-of-the-tongue” phenomenon. Cognition, 64, 309–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, H.-C., Cheung, S. L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1995). Orthographic and phonological activation in recognizing Chinese characters. Psychological Research, 58, 144–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, C. M., & Shih, S. I. (1998). The nature of lexical access in Chinese: Evidence from experiments on visual and phonological priming in lexical judgement. In Liu, I. M., Chen, H. C., & Chen, M.-J. (Eds.), Cognitive aspects of the Chinese language (Vol. 1, pp. 1–14). Hong Kong: Asian Research Service.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In Underwood, G. (Ed.), Strategies of information processing. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish: Implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 178–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Mahon, B., Savova, V., & Caramazza, A. (2003). Level of categorization effect: A novel effect in the picture–word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 205–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345–361.Google ScholarPubMed
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feng, G., Miller, K., Shu, H., & Zhang, H. (2001). Rowed to recovery: The use of phonological and orthographic information in reading Chinese and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1079–1100.Google ScholarPubMed
Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42, 790–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, K. I. (1976). Accessing the mental lexicon. In Wales, R. J. & Walker, E. W. (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms (pp. 257–287). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrett, M. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In Language production: Vol. 1. Speech and talk. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Glaser, W. R., & Dungelhoff, F. J. (1984). The time course of picture–word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 640–654.Google ScholarPubMed
Glaser, W. R., & Glaser, M. O. (1989). Context effects on Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 13–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harley, T. A. (1999). Will one stage and no feedback suffice in lexicalization? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Converging evidence for trhe interation of semantic and sublexical phonological information in accessing lexical prepresentations for spoken output. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 187–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hue, C.-W. (1992). Recognition processes in character naming. In Chen, H.-C. & Tzeng, O. J. L. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 93–107). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Language Teaching and Research. (1986). Xiandai Hanyu Pinlv Cidian (Modern Chinese frequency dictionary). Beijing: Beijing Language Institute Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, N., Schirm, W., Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). The semantic interference effect in the picture–word interference paradigm: Evidence for the response selection hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 249–256.Google Scholar
Law, S. P., & Wong, R. (2005). A model-driven treatment of a Cantonese-speaking dyslexic patient with impairment to the semantic and nonsemantic pathways. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C. Y., Tsai, J. L., Kuo, W. J., Yeh, T. C., Wu, Y. T., Ho, L. T., et al. (2004). Neuronal correlates of consistency and frequency effects on Chinese character naming: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 23, 1235–1245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, C. Y., Tsai, J. L., Su, S. C., Tzeng, O., & Hung, D. (2005). Consistency, regularity and frequency effects in naming Chinese characters. Language and Linguistics, 6, 175–197.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, D. (1993). A study of Chinese characters. Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
Li, G. Y., & Liu, R. S. (1988). Hanzi Xinxi Zidian (Chinese character information dictionary). Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar
Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994a). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: I. Evidence from associative priming by words, homophones, and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 107–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T. (1994b). Visual lexical access is initially phonological: I. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 331–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lupker, S. J. (1982). The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture–word interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 349–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Vargas, K., & Caramazza, A. (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.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1987). Functional parallellism in spoken word recognition. Cognition, 25, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In Altmann, G. T. M. (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W., & Cohen, M. M. (1991). Integration versus interactive activation: The joint influence of stimulus and context in perception. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 558–614.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. S., & Schriefers, H. (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.Google Scholar
Miozzo, M., & Caramazza, A. (2003). When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture–word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 228–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological Review, 76, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, D., Yang, H., & Chen, Y. (1994). Consistency and phonetic independency effects in naming task of Chinese phonograms. In Jing, Q. C., Zhang, H. C., & Peng, D. L. (Eds.), Information processing of Chinese language. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Publishing.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Tan, L. 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.Google Scholar
Perfetti, C. A., & Zhang, S. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 24–33.Google Scholar
Posnansky, C. J., & Rayner, K. (1978). Visual vs. phonemic contributions to the importance of the initial letter in word identification. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 188–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, B., & Goldrick, M. (2000). Discreteness and interactivity in spoken word production. Psychological Review, 107, 460–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42, 107–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, A., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. 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.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S. (1985). The time course of phonological code activation in two writing systems. Cognition, 19, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidenberg, M. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 546–554.Google Scholar
Shen, D., & Forster, K. I. (1999). Masked phonological priming in reading Chinese words depends on the task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 429–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shu, H., & Zhang, H. (1987). The phonological processing of Chinese characters in skilled readers. Acta Psychologia Sinica, 3, 297–304.Google Scholar
Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.Google ScholarPubMed
Starreveld, P. A. (2000). On the interpretation of onsets of auditory context effects in word production. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 686–698.Google Scholar
Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W. (1996). The locus of orthographic–phonological facilitation: Reply to Roelofs, Meyer, and Levelt (1996). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 252–255.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, L. H., Hoosain, R., & Peng, D.-L. (1995). Role of early presemantic phonological code in Chinese character identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 43–54.Google Scholar
Wang, W. S.-Y. (1973). The Chinese language. Scientific American, 228, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weekes, B. S., & Chen, H. (1999). Surface dyslexia in Chinese. Neurocase, 5, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weekes, B. S., Davies, R. A., & Chen, M.-J.,(2002). Picture–word interference effects on naming in Chinese. In Kao, H. S. R., Leong, C. K., & Gao, D.-G. (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience studies of the Chinese language (pp. 101–127). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, K. F. E., & Chen, H.-C. (1999). Orthographic and phonological processing in reading Chinese text: Evidence from eye fixations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, B., & Rohsenow, J. S. (1994). Modern Chinese characters. Beijing: Sinolingua.Google Scholar
Yin, W., & Butterworth, B. (1992). Deep and surface dyslexia in Chinese. In Chen, H. C. & Tzeng, O. J. L. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 349–366). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999a). Phonology, orthography, and semantic activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999b). Sublexical processing in reading Chinese. In Wang, J., Inhoff, A., & Chen, H.-C. (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 37–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zhou, X., Marslen-Wilson, W., Taft, M., & Shu, H. (1999). Morphology, orthography, and phonology in reading Chinese compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 525–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, X., Shu, H., Bi, Y., & Shi, D. (1999). Is there phonologically mediated access to lexical semantics in reading Chinese? In Wang, J., Inhoff, A., & Chen, H.-C. (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 135–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zhou, X., Zhuang, J., Wu, J., & Yang, D. (2003). Phonological, orthographic and semantic activation in the speech production of Chinese. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 6, 712–718.Google Scholar
Zhu, X. (1988). Analysis of cueing function of phonetic components in modern Chinese. In Yuan, X. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Chinese Language and Characters (pp. 85–99). Beijing: Guang Ming Daily Press.Google Scholar