Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T10:50:54.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of the orthographic depth hypothesis to Chinese-English bilingual word recognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Thomas W.T. Sim ,
Frances Martin  and
Peter Ball
Thomas W.T. Sim
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, AUSTRALIA
Frances Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, AUSTRALIA
Peter Ball
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Tasmania, AUSTRALIA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigated the nature of bilingual word recognition in English monolinguals and Chinese-English bilinguals. It has been argued that bilinguals have two interdependent language systems and that ability in one language can affect performance in the other according to orthographic depth (Frost & Katz, 1992) of the respective scripts. Reaction time and accuracy were recorded while participants (n=40) completed a continuous recognition task in which the orthographic depth of stimuli were varied. Results indicated that English monolinguals were more accurate than Chinese-English bilinguals at the phonological task, but less accurate at logographic (orthographic) tasks, while both groups performed at the same level with the English real word task. These results suggest that the orthographic depth of a bilingual's original language affects performance in the second language.

Type
Part III. Psycholinguistics
Information
South Pacific Journal of Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Asia-Pacific Language Research , 1999 , pp. 76 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © University of Papua New Guinea and the Centre for Southeast Asian Studies, Northern Territory University, Australia 1999

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

Attenberg, E.P., & Cairns, H.S. (1983). The effects of phonotactic constraints on lexical processing in bilingual and monolingual subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 174–188.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (1973). Phonemic stage not necessary for reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 241–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. & McKillop, B.J. (1975). Individual differences in speed of phonemic analysis, visual analysis, and reading. Acta Psychologica, 39, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, H.C. & Tsoi, K.C. (1990). Symbol-word interference in Chinese and English. Acta Psychologica, 75, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In Underwood, G. (Ed.). Strategies of information processing (pp. 112–170). NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100, 589–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, M., & Rastle, K.(1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: Evidence for dualroute models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1197–1211.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Frauenfelder, U-H., & Schreuder, R. (1993). Bidirectional grapheme-phoneme activation in a bimodal detection task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 931–950.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Roelofs, A., & Fieuws, S. (1995). Orthographic Effects on Phoneme Monitoring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Francis, W. N.. & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Frost, R., & Katz, L. (1992). The reading process is different for different orthographies: The orthographic depth hypothesis. In Frost, R. & Katz, L. (Eds.) Orthography, Phonology, Morphology, and Meaning (pp. 67–84). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Glushko, R.J. (1979). The organisation and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 674–691.Google Scholar
Kay, J., Lesser, R., & Coltheart, M. (1992). PALPA: An introduction. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Keatley, C.W., Spinks, J.A., & deGelder, B. (1994). Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory & Cognition, 22, 70–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magiste, E. (1979). The competing language systems of the multilingual: a developmental study of decoding and encoding processes. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magiste, E. (1980). Memory for numbers in monolinguals and bilinguals. Acta Psychologica, 46, 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I. (1990). Foundations of cognition science. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ransdell, S.E. & Fischler, I. (1987). Memory in a monolingual mode: When are bilinguals at a disadvantage? Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 392–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M.S. & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Orden, G.C. (1987). A ROWS is a ROSE: Spelling, sound and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15, 181–198.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Orden, G.C., Johnston, J.C., & Hale, B.L. (1988). Word identification in reading proceeds from sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 371–386.Google ScholarPubMed