Zheng Guorui, Yang Tingting, Lin Weihao, Yang Yueran, Wang Ruiming
Philosophy and Social Science Laboratory of Reading and Development in Children and Adolescents, Ministry of Education, & Center for Studies of Psychological Application, School of Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024 Sep 18:17470218241279047. doi: 10.1177/17470218241279047.
Previous studies using cognates with the same writing system have found cognate facilitation effect in the lexical processes of spoken and typewritten productions and cognate interference effect in the sub-lexical process of typewritten production. This study focused on cross-script cognates, Chinese-English, which have different writing systems, and explored cognate effects based on the input and output modalities by using a Chinese-English translation task. Experiment 1 was under visual input modality and investigated the cross-script cognate effect in all three output modalities: spoken, typewritten and handwritten. Results revealed a cognate facilitation effect in the lexical processes across all three output modalities. However, it showed a cognate facilitation effect rather than a cognate interference effect in the sub-lexical process of typewritten production. Experiment 2 was under auditory input modality and focused on exploring cross-script cognate effect on typewritten and handwritten modalities, finding a consistent result on cognate effects with Experiment 1. Both experiments showed higher accuracy for cognates, and there was no significant difference in cgnate effect between visual and auditory inputs. In summary, these findings indicated that the use of cross-script cognates could effectively mitigate cognate interference. While spoken, handwritten and typewritten production share lexical processes, differences emerge in sub-lexical processes, with spoken production being less influenced by orthography. Furthermore, combining the results of Experiments 1 and 2, typewritten production may lean towards the phonological route while handwritten production may favour the direct lexical-orthographic route in the sub-lexical processes.
以往使用具有相同书写系统的同源词的研究发现，在口语和打字产出的词汇过程中存在同源词促进效应，而在打字产出的次词汇过程中存在同源词干扰效应。本研究聚焦于具有不同书写系统的跨书写系统同源词，即汉英同源词，并通过汉英翻译任务，基于输入和输出模态探究同源词效应。实验1采用视觉输入模态，考察了在口语、打字和手写这三种输出模态下的跨书写系统同源词效应。结果显示，在所有三种输出模态的词汇过程中均存在同源词促进效应。然而，在打字产出的次词汇过程中显示出的是同源词促进效应，而非同源词干扰效应。实验2采用听觉输入模态，重点探究跨书写系统同源词在打字和手写模态上的效应，得到了与实验1一致的同源词效应结果。两个实验均显示同源词的准确率更高，并且视觉和听觉输入在同源词效应上没有显著差异。总之，这些发现表明，使用跨书写系统同源词可以有效减轻同源词干扰。虽然口语、手写和打字产出共享词汇过程，但在次词汇过程中存在差异，口语产出受正字法的影响较小。此外，综合实验1和实验2的结果，在次词汇过程中，打字产出可能倾向于语音路径，而手写产出可能更青睐直接的词汇-正字法路径。
