Is there phonologically based priming in the same−different task? Evidence from Japanese−English bilinguals.

Abstract

Norris and colleagues (Kinoshita & Norris, 2009; Norris & Kinoshita, 2008; Norris, Kinoshita, & van Casteren, 2010) have suggested that priming effects in the masked prime same-different task are based solely on prelexical orthographic codes. This suggestion was evaluated by examining phonological priming in that task using Japanese-English bilinguals. Targets and reference words were English words with the primes written in Katakana script, a syllabic script that is orthographically quite different from the Roman letter script used in writing English. Phonological priming was observed both when the primes were Japanese cognate translation equivalents of the English target/reference words (Experiment 1) and when the primes were phonologically similar Katakana nonwords (Experiment 2), with the former effects being substantially larger than the noncognate translation priming effects reported by Lupker, Perea, and Nakayama (2015). These results indicate that the same-different task is influenced by phonological information. One implication is that, due to the fact that phonology and orthography are inevitably confounded in Roman letter languages, previously reported priming effects in those languages may have been at least partly due to phonological, rather than orthographic, similarity. The potential extent of this problem, the nature of the matching process in the same-different task, and the implications for using this task as a means of investigating the orthographic code in reading are discussed.

Evidence for cross-script abstract identities in learners of Japanese kana

“…Thompson thus concluded that the use of abstract, form-invariant representations in the Roman alphabet appears to develop slowly. Both Perea et al's (2015) lexical decision experiment with Spanish-speaking children and Thompson's review of English-speaking children suggest that the acquisition of abstract letter identities in the Roman alphabet is not fully in place after 2 years of formal reading instruction.…”

“…We noted in the introduction that although early studies (e.g., Posner & Mitchell, 1967) assumed that nominal letter identity match is based on phonological (Bname^) codes, subsequent studies have conclusively argued against this view and explained why the letter match task is well-suited to investigate the priming of abstract letter identities. Despite this body of existing evidence, some still question the orthographic basis of allograph priming effects in the same-different match task (e.g., Lupker, Nakayama, & Perea, 2015). 4 Specifically, the equal-sized priming effects found with visually similar (e.g., c-C) and visually dissimilar (e.g., g-G) prime-target letter pairs are also consistent with a phonological priming effect, based on allographs sharing the same letter name and/or sound (e.g., g-G are both linked to Bgee^and to /g/).…”

“…Lupker, Nakayama, and Perea (2015) recently argued that responses in same-different match tasks are based on phonological codes, on the basis of the finding that Japanese-English bilinguals asked to match English words (e.g., south/SOUTH) showed facilitation from masked primes that were transliterations in Japanese katakana (e.g., サウス, /sa.u.su/). However, their study's finding of a phonological influence from cross-language primes in word matching bears little relevance for within-language cross-case (or -script) letter-matching tasks, in which no word-level phonological information is involved Lupker et al (2015;. see also Lupker, Nakayama, & Yoshihara, 2018) did not directly test whether the priming produced by allograph primes within the same writing system was due to phonological priming.…”

Orthographic and phonological priming effects in the same–different task.

“…The conclusion that can be drawn from this body of work is that masked priming effects in both lexical decision and the same–different task inform us about the role of orthographic representations at the level of abstract letter identities. However, recently, Lupker et al (2015a) reported a finding (to be described shortly) using the same–different task which, they suggested, implies that previously reported priming effects with the Roman alphabet may have been due to phonological, rather than orthographic, similarity. If true, this poses a serious challenge to the previous interpretations that have come to be well-accepted—for example, that TL similarity effects are orthographic—rather than phonological (e.g., Grainger, 2008 ; Perea & Carreiras, 2006 ); also, as noted above, the priming effects observed in the letter match task are interpreted as evidence for abstract letter identities, which are orthographic, not phonological representations.…”

Brand name confusion: Subjective and objective measures of orthographic similarity.

“…In line with the small and variable effects of a vowel match in Experiments 1 and 2, there was no compelling evidence for a larger priming effect when the stressed vowels of the prime and target were the same rather than different. Masked phonological priming effects have been observed in the same-different task (Lupker, Nakayama, & Perea, 2015), so a vowel-match may not produce sufficient phonological similarity. With respect to beginning vs. end overlap, priming benefits were larger for beginning overlap than end overlap pairs.…”