Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 147–173 | Cite as

Exploring the role of logographemes in Chinese handwritten word production

  • Markus F. Damian
  • Qingqing QuEmail author
Article

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that abstract orthographic representations such as morphemes, syllables, and graphemes, influence handwritten production in languages with alphabetic scripts. The orthographic representations involved in the written production of non-alphabetic languages such as Chinese are less well understood. Chinese words consist of one or more characters which typically contain embedded radicals, with radicals themselves composed of strokes. A logographemic representational level, in between radical and strokes, has also been postulated. Here we report four experiments using a form preparation task (“implicit priming”) to test for the presence of radical and logographemic priming effects in writers of simplified Chinese characters. We found strong evidence for radical-based effects, but only weak evidence for logographemic priming effects, which contrasts with recent positive logographemic priming effects reported by Chen and Cherng (2013) for writers of traditional characters. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed in terms of potential differences between simplified and traditional scripts, as well as other procedural differences.

Keywords

Handwriting Orthographic production Chinese Logographemes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), No. 31400967, and the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) in joint project Crossmodal Learning, DFG TRR-169/NSFC No. 61621136008 to the corresponding author.

References

  1. Afonso, O., & Alvarez, C. J. (2011). Phonological effects in handwriting production: Evidence from the implicit priming paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alario, F. X., Perre, L., Castel, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2007). The role of orthography in speech production revisited. Cognition, 102(3), 464–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates, D. M. (2005). Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News (pp. 27–30).Google Scholar
  7. Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.
  8. Bates, D. M., & Maechler, M. (2016). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using ‘Eigen’ and S4. R package version 1.1-12. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.
  9. Bonin, P., Peereman, R., & Fayol, M. (2001). Do phonological codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming? Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 688–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caramazza, A., & Miceli, G. (1990). The structure of graphemic representations. Cognition, 37, 243–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, J.-Y., & Chen, T.-M. (2007). Form encoding in Chinese word production does not involve morphemes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 1001–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, J.-Y., Chen, T.-M., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Word-form encoding in Mandarin Chinese as assessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 751–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chen, J. Y., & Cherng, R. J. (2013). The proximate unit in Chinese handwritten character production. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(517), 10–3389.Google Scholar
  14. Chinese Linguistic Data Consortium. (2003). 现代汉语通用词表 (Chinese lexicon) (CLDC-LAC-2003-001). Beijing: Tsinghua University, State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Automation.Google Scholar
  15. Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Damian, M. F., & Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. (2009). Advance planning of form properties in the written production of single and multiple words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ding, G., Peng, D.-L., & Taft, M. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 Scholar
  19. Fu, Y. H. (1991). Hanzi de bujian (Logographemes of Chinese characters). Yuwenjianshe, 12, 3–6.Google Scholar
  20. Han, Z., Zhang, Y., Shu, H., & Bi, Y. (2007). The orthographic buffer in writing Chinese characters: Evidence from a dysgraphic patient. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24(4), 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho, C. S.-H., Yau, P. W.-Y., & Au, A. (2003). Development of orthographic knowledge and its relationship with reading and spelling among Chinese kindergarten and primary school children. In C. McBride-Chang & H.-C. Chen (Eds.), Chinese children’s reading development (pp. 51–72). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jeffreys, H. (1961). The theory of probability (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kandel, S., Álvarez, C. J., & Vallée, N. (2006a). Syllables as processing units in handwriting production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 18–31.Google Scholar
  25. Kandel, S., Álvarez, C., & Vallée, N. (2008). Morphemes also serve as processing units in handwriting production. In M. Baciu (Ed.), Neuropsychology and cognition of language—Behavioural, neuropsychological and neuroimaging studies of spoken and written language (pp. 87–100). Kerala: Research Signpost.Google Scholar
  26. Kandel, S., Hérault, L., Grosjacques, G., Lambert, E., & Fayol, M. (2009). Orthographic vs. phonological syllables in handwriting production. Cognition, 110, 440–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kandel, S., Soler, O., Valdois, S., & Gros, C. (2006b). Graphemes as motor units in the acquisition of writing skills. Reading and Writing, 19, 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kandel, S., & Spinelli, E. (2010). Processing complex graphemes in handwriting production. Memory & Cognition, 38(6), 762–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kliegl, R., Masson, M. E., & Richter, E. M. (2010). A linear mixed model analysis of masked repetition priming. Visual Cognition, 18(5), 655–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. (2016). lmerTest: Tests in linear mixed effects models. R package version 2.0-30. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lmerTest.
  31. Lambert, E., Kandel, S., Fayol, M., & Espéret, E. (2008). The effect of the number of syllables when writing poly-syllabic words. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Law, S. P. (1994). The structure of orthographic representations of Chinese characters: From the perspective of the cognitive neuropsychological approach. Bulletin of Institute of History and Philology, 65, 81–130.Google Scholar
  33. Law, S. P. (2004). Writing errors of a Cantonese dysgraphic patient and their theoretical implications. Neurocase, 10, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law, S. P., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Cognitive processes in writing Chinese characters: Basic issues and some preliminary data. In B. de Gelder & J. Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: A comparative approach (pp. 143–190). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Law, S. P., & Leung, M. T. (2000). Structural representations of characters in Chinese writing: Evidence from a case of acquired dysgraphia. Psychologia, 43, 67–83.Google Scholar
  36. Law, S. P., Yeung, O., Wong, W., & Chiu, K. M. Y. (2005). Processing of semantic radicals in writing Chinese characters: Data from a Chinese dysgraphic patient. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 885–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38.Google Scholar
  38. Lui, H. M., Leung, M. T., Law, S. P., & Fung, R. S. Y. (2010). A database for investigating the logographeme as a basic unit of writing Chinese. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meyer, A. S. (1990). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: The encoding of successive syllables of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 524–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Meyer, A. S. (1991). The time course of phonological encoding in language production: Phonological encoding inside a syllable. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Seaghdha, P. G., Chen, J.-Y., & Chen, T.-M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Séaghdha, P. G., & Frazer, A. K. (2014). The exception does not rule: Attention constrains form preparation in word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 797–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Orliaguet, J. P., & Boë, L. J. (1993). The role of linguistics in the speed of handwriting movements: Effects of spelling uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 82, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Qu, Q. Q., & Damian, M. F. (2015). Cascadedness in Chinese written word production. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Qu, Q. Q., Damian, M. F., & Li, X. (2016). Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from a masked priming task. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31(2), 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qu, Q. Q., Damian, M. F., Zhang, Q. F., & Zhu, X. B. (2011). Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from written word production in a nonalphabetic script. Psychological Science, 22, 1107–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. R Core Team. (2015). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
  48. Rapp, B., & Caramazza, A. (1997). From graphemes to abstract letter shapes: Levels of representation in written spelling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1130–1152.Google Scholar
  49. Roelofs, A. (1996). Serial order in planning the production of successive morphemes of a word. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 854–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roelofs, A. (1997). The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64, 249–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roelofs, A. (1998). Rightward incrementality in encoding simple phrasal forms in speech production: Verb-particle combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 904–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roelofs, A. (1999). Phonological segments and features as planning units in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Roelofs, A. (2006). The influence of spelling on phonological encoding in word reading, object naming, and word generation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1998). Metrical structure in planning the production of spoken words. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 922–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shen, X. R., Damian, M. F., & Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H. (2013). Abstract graphemic representations support preparation of handwritten responses. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. State Language Commission. (1998). The Chinese character component standard of GB13000.1 character set for information processing. Beijing: Language & Culture Press.Google Scholar
  57. Su, P. C. (1994). Xiandai Hanzixue gangyao (An introduction to the study of contemporary Chinese characters). Beijing: Beijing University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Taft, M., Zhu, X., & Peng, D. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 498–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Casteren, M., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Mix: A program for pseudorandomization. Behaviour Research Methods, 38, 584–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zhang, P. (1984). Hanzi bujian fenxi de yuanjiu he lilun (The method and theory of analyzing logographemes in Chinese characters). Yuwenyanjiu, 1, 37–43.Google Scholar
  61. Zhang, Q., & Damian, M. F. (2012). Effects of orthography on speech production in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhou, Y. G. (1978). 现代汉字中声旁的表音功能问题 (To what degree are the “phonetics” of present-day Chinese characters still phonetic?). Zhongguo Yuwen, 146, 172–177.Google Scholar
  63. Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). The nature of sublexical processing in reading Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 819–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhu, X. (1988). 现代汉字声旁表音功能的动态 (Analysis of cuing function of phonetic components in modern Chinese). In X. Yuan (Ed.), Proceedings of the symposium on the Chinese language and characters (pp. 260–288). Beijing: Guang Ming Daily Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of PsychologyChinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations