The Nature of Character-Component Interaction in Chinese Character Perception

Abstract

The PISA (parallel input serial access) model assumes independence and competition of word-level and letter-level processing (Allen & Madden, 1990;Allen & Emerson, 1991), while the IA (interactive activation) model proposes that wordlevel and letter-level processing interactively exchange information (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981). This current study attempts to explore which of these two views characterizes the character-component relationship in Chinese character recognition using the component detection task. Experiment 1 found a high-frequency disadvantage for high-and medium-frequency components, a medium-frequency advantage for low-frequency components, and an overall character superiority effect. Experiment 2 cued and blocked the location of the target component and it ruled out an artifact account for findings from Experiment 1. The effect of character structure was also consistent across the two experiments. These findings are not consistent with the straightforward prediction of the PISA or the IA view of character-component relationship and an alternative explanation was considered.

Examining the Bias for Orthographic Components Using an Apparent Motion Detection Task

“…In addition to the dual-route account that assumes an active role for the reader in selectively setting a processing priority for the phonetic radical when the character frequency is low, the current findings can also be interpreted in terms of the results of a race between the character and the component channel of processing (Huang & Wang, 1992;Wang, 2002). The radical wins the race with the character channel only when the character frequency is low (Chen, 1986;Drewnowski & Healy, 1977;Wang, 2002). As such, the phonetic radical is activated more readily than the semantic radical probably because it is always internally represented (a stand-alone character) (Ding et al, 2004).…”

“…In this latter case, there would not be any effect of location. Character frequency and radical frequency are also manipulated in all experiments since past studies have demonstrated that they may interact with the activation of orthographic components in both English (Allen & Madden, 1990;Drewnowski & Healy, 1977;Healy & Drewnowski, 1983;Johnson, Allen, & Strand, 1989) and Chinese (Chen, 1986;Wang, 2002). Radical token frequency (i.e., radical frequency weighed by the frequency of the character in which the radical is present), rather than radical type frequency, is examined here because the former reflects the familiarity of the radical to the participant (Fang & Wu, 1989; and supposedly plays a role in the radical activation process (cf.…”

C-CAT: A computer software used to analyze and select Chinese characters and character components for psychological research

“…Linguistic frequency Ding, Peng, & Taft, 2004;Hue, 1992Hue, , 2003Kuo et al, 2003;Lee et al, 2004;Lee et al, 2005;Liu et al, 2006;Lo, Hue, & Tsai, 2007;Seidenberg, 1985;Taft & Zhu, 1997;Wang, 2002Wang, , 2006 Character complexity Chen, Allport, & Marshall, 1996;Perfetti & Tan, 1998;Seidenberg, 1985;Taft & Zhu, 1997;Tan, Feng, Fox, & Gao, 2001;Wang, 2002Wang, , 2006Weekes, Chen, & Lin, 1998 Type of characters Fang, Horng, & Tzeng, 1986;Hue, 1992;Leck, Weekes, & Chen, 1995;Wang, 2002Wang, , 2006Weekes et al, 1998;Weekes & Zhang, 1999 Orthographic, semantic, and phonological relationship in pairs of characters Leck et al, 1995;Liu et al, 2006;Perfetti & Tan, 1998;Weekes et al, 1998 Position of radical or phonetic component in character Chen et al, 1996;Ding et al, 2004;Feldman & Siok, 1997;Hsiao, Shillcock, & Lee, 2007;Lo et al, 2007;Wang, 2002Wang, , 2006 Character regularity Hue, 1992;Lee et al, 2005;Seidenberg, 1985;…”