Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 923–934 | Cite as

The Effect of Pinyin Input Experience on the Link Between Semantic and Phonology of Chinese Character in Digital Writing

  • Jingjun Chen
  • Rong Luo
  • Huashan Liu


With the development of ICT, digital writing is becoming much more common in people’s life. Differently from keyboarding alphabets directly to input English words, keyboarding Chinese character is always through typing phonetic alphabets and then identify the glyph provided by Pinyin input-method software while in this process which do not need users to produce orthography spelling, thus it is different from traditional written language production model based on handwriting process. Much of the research in this domain has found that using Pinyin input method is beneficial to Chinese characters recognition, but only a small part explored the effects of individual’s Pinyin input experience on the Chinese characters production process. We ask whether using Pinyin input-method will strengthen the semantic-phonology linkage or semantic-orthography linkage in Chinese character mental lexicon. Through recording the RT and accuracy of participants completing semantic-syllable and semantic-glyph consistency judgments, the results found the accuracy of semantic-syllable consistency judgments in high Pinyin input experienced group was higher than that in low-experienced group, and RT was reversed. There were no significant differences on semantic-glyph consistency judgments between the two groups. We conclude that using Pinyin input method in Chinese digital writing can strengthen the semantic-phonology linkage while do not weakening the semantic-orthography linkage in mental lexicon at the same time, which means that Pinyin input method is beneficial to lexical processing involving Chinese cognition.


Chinese Character Consistence Ratio Mental Lexicon Semantic System Word Production 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Compliance with ethical standards


This study was funded by MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanity and Social Science (grant number 16YJCZH067) and Education Science “11th Five-Year” planning project of Hunan Province of China (grant number XJK011BGD005).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Aristei, S., Melinger, A., & Rahman, R. A. (2011). Electrophysiological chronometry of semantic context effects in language production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(7), 1567–1586.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Betsy, S., Jenny, L., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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(4), 688–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, J. J. (2015). The influence of digital language experience on word cognition in adolescent students (in Chinese). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China.Google Scholar
  5. Merchant, G. (2008). Digital writing in the early years. Handbook of research on new literacies, 751-774. Retrived from
  6. Ouellette, G., & Tims, T. (2014). The write way to spell: Printing versus typing effects on orthographic learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 117. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00117.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Qian, H., & Feng, C. Z. (2004). The influence of typewriting on the processing of Chinese characters. Psychological Science, 27(6), 1368–1370. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  8. Segaert, K., Menenti, L., Weber, K., Petersson, K. M., & Hagoort, P. (2012). Shared syntax in language production and language comprehension—An fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 22(7), 1662–1670.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Tan, L. H., Xu, M., Chang, C. Q., & Siok, W. T. (2013). China’s language input system in the digital age affects children’s reading development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(3), 1119–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Weekes, B. S., Yin, W., Su, I. F., & Chen, M. J. (2006). The cognitive neuropsychology of reading and writing in Chinese. Language and Linguistics, 7(3), 595–617.Google Scholar
  11. Zhang, J. J., & Li, M. (2010). The effects of Chinese input methods on the links among the orthography, phonology and meaning of Chinese characters (in Chinese). Psychological Science, 33(4), 835–838.Google Scholar
  12. Zhang, Q. F., & Yang, Y. F. (2003). The determiners of picture–naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 447–454. (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  13. Zhu, Z. X., Liu, L., Ding, G. S., & Peng, D. L. (2009). The influence of Pinyin typewriting experience on orthographic and phonological processing of Chinese characters (in Chinese). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(9), 785–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyHunan University of Science and technologyXiangtan CityChina
  2. 2.School of Foreign LanguageHunan University of Science and technologyXiangtanChina
  3. 3.School of PsychologyCentral China Normal UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations