Because of their ideographic nature, some visual forms of Chinese characters resemble the concepts they represent for trained readers. In addition, Chinese encodes a natural spoken language just as alphabetic scripts do. We review the graphemic, phonological, morphological, and semantic properties of the Chinese writing system to add some nuance to Morin's arguments and to convey a clearer understanding of the unique features of the language. We focus on language-universal and -specific cognitive processes during Chinese reading with reference to recent psycholinguistic research and conclude that, because of its fundamental difference from alphabetic scripts with respect to the relations between orthography, phonology, semantics, and morphology, Chinese offers unique opportunities to test theoretical accounts based on cross-language comparisons of scripts.

In the Western point of view, Chinese typically uses pictures for concepts. For example, some characters are of a more “ideographic” nature, largely recognizable even by untrained eyes (e.g., 山 for mountain and 田 for farmland). These characters include the so-called pictograms, simple ideograms, and compound ideographs. Presumably, they are derived from the earliest character forms, often found on ancient artifacts such as ox bones and turtle shells. Mostly, these characters are visually simple and represent common and concrete concepts, therefore, they are optimized for fast semantic access. Indeed, the first experimental evidence for parafoveal semantic processing was based on such characters (Yan, Richter, Shu, & Kliegl, Reference Yan, Richter, Shu and Kliegl2009). However, these characters are rare and not representative of the language. The majority (i.e., over 80%) of modern Chinese characters are compound phonograms (DeFrancis, Reference DeFrancis1989), which are comparatively less “ideographic.” These compound phonograms include two or more “mini-characters,” called radicals. A semantic radical often transparently indicates the meaning category of the whole character, whereas a phonetic radical merely provides an unreliable clue to its pronunciation (Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, & Xuan, Reference Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu and Xuan2003; Zhou, Reference Zhou1980). Thus, Chinese characters are formed according to different principles and vary in their degrees of ideography, but generally provide no clues to their pronunciations, or clues that are unreliable, indicating that the language prioritizes semantic knowledge (Hoosain, Reference Hoosain1991).

Written Chinese was not created initially to encode a natural spoken language. The first nationally standardized Chinese character set, the small seal script, was promulgated during the Qin dynasty in about 220 BC (Diringer, Reference Diringer1982). By then, bamboo boards were the primary media for carrying text, implying that the actual speech flow must have been abstracted before the costly process of carving down characters. For this reason, Chinese (and Japanese kanji) characters were designed to convey clear meanings and ideas, whereas phonological distinguishability was not a major concern. Traces of such a characteristic can still be found in modern Chinese: A high degree of homophony in Chinese makes it a terrible language in which to encode pronunciation, as a syllable by itself can be morpho-semantically ambiguous. For instance, Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den, a famous passage composed of 94 homophonic characters all pronounced as /shi/ in Mandarin Chinese, illustrates that phonology does not necessarily mediate semantic access in Chinese; the passage is fully intelligible in print but incomprehensible when read aloud. Relatedly, pronunciations of Chinese characters are vulnerable, with large variations across time and regions. The same character can have very different pronunciations in different dialects and languages; therefore, it is not orally communicable. In contrast, the orthographic forms and their meanings are highly standardized, so that cross-dialect communication via printed media is largely feasible. To some degree, even cross-language communication using written Chinese, such as between Chinese and Japanese, is possible. Indeed, some studies have demonstrated that morphological awareness (i.e., the ability to disambiguate homographic/homophonic characters) plays a more important role than phonological awareness (i.e., the ability to be aware of and to manipulate phonological structures) for literacy development in Chinese (McBride-Chang et al., Reference McBride-Chang, Cho, Liu, Wagner, Shu, Zhou and Muse2005).

The linguistics-related features reviewed above imply that phonological and semantic activation in Chinese reading can be rather unique, as also pointed out in the target article. In alphabetic scripts, the activation of phonological representation often temporally precedes that of semantic properties (e.g., Frost, Reference Frost1998; Perfetti & Bell, Reference Perfetti and Bell1991; Van Orden, Reference Van Orden1987). In contrast, although there is phonological activation in Chinese, its role during lexical access is still under debate. Although some studies suggest phonology is activated earlier than semantics (e.g., Tan, Hoosain, & Peng, Reference Tan, Hoosain and Peng1995), many favor a late phonological activation. For example, in isolated word recognition, phonological priming effects suggest a late phonological activation among Chinese adults (Chen & Shu, Reference Chen and Shu2001; Zhou & Marslen-Wilson, Reference Zhou and Marslen-Wilson1999, Reference Zhou and Marslen-Wilson2000; Zhou, Marslen-Wilson, Taft, & Shu, Reference Zhou, Marslen-Wilson, Taft and Shu1999). Thus, semantic access may not depend on phonological activation in Chinese. There is also a theoretical debate about parafoveal lexical processing during natural sentence reading. Based on fixation durations measured in the gaze-contingent boundary paradigm (Rayner, Reference Rayner1975), several studies concluded that semantics is more important than phonology, that earlier and larger parafoveal semantic than phonological priming effects were found for Chinese adults during silent reading (e.g., Pan, Yan, & Yeh, Reference Pan, Yan and Yeh2022; Tsai, Kliegl, & Yan, Reference Tsai, Kliegl and Yan2012; Yan et al., Reference Yan, Richter, Shu and Kliegl2009).

The theoretical aim of exploring lexical processing during reading of Chinese is not only the specific script, but a language-universal model of reading (Frost, Reference Frost2012). For instance, for decades there was no evidence for parafoveal semantic effects for reading of English before the first report based on Chinese reading appeared. The findings of these Chinese studies then led to numerous extensions in alphabetic scripts, yielding positive evidence in German (Hohenstein & Kliegl, Reference Hohenstein and Kliegl2014; Hohenstein, Laubrock, & Kliegl, Reference Hohenstein, Laubrock and Kliegl2010), Korean (Kim, Radach, & Vorstius, Reference Kim, Radach and Vorstius2012; Yan, Wang, Song, & Kliegl, Reference Yan, Wang, Song and Kliegl2019), and English (Schotter, Reference Schotter2013; Veldre & Andrews, Reference Veldre and Andrews2016). These cross-language findings then, in turn, inspired new developments of computational models of reading to capture parafoveal effects and other individual differences such as those related to aging (e.g., E-Z Reader: McGowan & Reichle, Reference McGowan and Reichle2018, and SWIFT: Laubrock, Kliegl, & Engbert, Reference Laubrock, Kliegl and Engbert2006; Risse & Kliegl, Reference Risse and Kliegl2011). Cross-language comparative results, revealing differences in the temporal dynamics at which various types of information become available, might provide additional constraints to test theoretical distinctions such as the learning and standardization accounts contrasted in the target article.