2011
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0101-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The nature of orthographic–phonological and orthographic–semantic relationships for Japanese kana and kanji words

Abstract: It is generally assumed that orthographic-phonological (O-P) consistencies are higher for Japanese kana words than for kanji words and that orthographic-semantic (O-S) consistencies are higher for kanji words than for kana words. In order to examine the validity of these assumptions, we attempted to measure the O-P and O-S consistencies for 339 kana words and 775 kanji words. Orthographic neighbors were first generated for each of these words. In order to measure the O-P consistencies of the words, their neigh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
40
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the strong correlations between writing and semantic factors appear to be contrary to the distinctiveness of the dimensions, these close relationships are expected considering the highly consistent relationship between kanji orthography and semantics 32 . Even when the meaning of kanji is unknown, we can sometimes read them aloud.…”
Section: Multidimensionality Of Japanese Kanji Abilitiesmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Although the strong correlations between writing and semantic factors appear to be contrary to the distinctiveness of the dimensions, these close relationships are expected considering the highly consistent relationship between kanji orthography and semantics 32 . Even when the meaning of kanji is unknown, we can sometimes read them aloud.…”
Section: Multidimensionality Of Japanese Kanji Abilitiesmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…Thus, as with Chinese characters, many would argue that Kanji characters directly activate meaning, and, essentially, Kanji characters can be considered to be morphemes. Also worth noting is that, according to Tamaoka, Kirsner, Yanase, Miyaoka, and Kawakami (2002), more than 60% of Kanji characters possess multiple pronunciations (i.e., Kun-reading and On-reading pronunciations), making it difficult for Kanji-written words to activate semantics through a phonologically mediated route (but see Hino, Miyamura, & Lupker, 2011, for an evaluation of the similarity of the orthographic-phonological relationships for words written in Kana vs. Kanji).…”
Section: Orthographic and Phonological Neighbors Of Japanese Wordsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown in Table 1, the four prime types (i.e., match-related, match-control, mismatch-related, and mismatch-control) were matched on the following variables: (1) the number of morae, (2) word frequency counts (Amano & Kondo, 2003b), (3) orthographic familiarity ratings (Amano & Kondo, 2003a), (4) phonological familiarity ratings (Amano & Kondo, 2003a), (5) orthographic neighborhood sizes (calculated using a database from the National Language Research Institute, 1993), (6) summed character frequencies (calculated using Amano & Kondo, 2003b), (7) the number of strokes, and (8) orthography-to-phonology consistencies (based on Hino, Miyamura, & Lupker, 2011; all F s < 1.9)…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown in Table 6, the related and control primes were matched on the following variables (1) the numbers of morae, (2) word frequency counts (Amano & Kondo, 2003b), (3) orthographic familiarity ratings (Amano & Kondo, 2003a), (4) phonological familiarity ratings (Amano & Kondo, 2003a), (5) orthographic neighborhood sizes (calculated using a database from the National Language Research Institute, 1993), (6) summed character frequencies (calculated using Amano & Kondo, 2003b), (7) the numbers of strokes, and (8) orthographic–phonological consistencies (calculated based on Hino et al, 2011; all F s < 1.7). In addition, using the same procedure as in Experiments 1 and 2, the semantic relatedness ratings were also collected from another set of 26 participants who did not participate in Experiment 4.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%