title: Effects of orthography on speech production in Chinese.
abstract: The potential role of orthographic representations on spoken word production was investigated with speakers of Chinese, a non-alphabetic and orthographically non-transparent language. Using the response generation procedure, we obtained the well-known facilitation from word-initial phonological overlap, but this effect was unaffected by whether or not responses shared the initial character. In a study which manipulated the visual similarity of the word-initial character, a significant inhibitory effect of orthography was found. However, this effect disappeared when prompt stimuli were presented auditorily, suggesting that the orthographic effect might be attributable to the memorization stage of the response generation task, rather than reflecting processes genuine to speaking. By contrast, a reliable orthographic effect was found in an oral reading task, suggesting that orthography plays a role only when it is relevant to the word production task. Furthermore, the present findings show that the orthographic effect is tied to the correspondence between orthography and phonology of a language when orthography is relevant to the task used.
authors.affiliation: Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 4A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China. zhangqf@psych.ac.cn
authors.forename: Qingfang
authors.initials: Q
authors.lastname: Zhang
authors.forename: Markus F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Damian
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual / Q000502:physiology*; D011578:Psycholinguistics / Q000379:methods*; D011581:Psychological Tests; D011932:Reading; D013060:Speech / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Cognition. 2007 Mar;102(3):341-60
references.pmid: 16480971
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1981 May;7(3):170-80
references.pmid: 7241059
references.citation: Lang Speech. 2010;53(Pt 3):321-41
references.pmid: 21033650
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 2003 May;94(Pt 2):143-74
references.pmid: 12803812
references.citation: Br J Psychol. 1984 May;75 ( Pt 2):243-55
references.pmid: 6733397
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2004 Jul;32(5):732-41
references.pmid: 15552350
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2005 Sep;42(5):493-507
references.pmid: 16176372
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2005 Dec;59(4):240-54
references.pmid: 16459895
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2009 Jul;46(4):739-46
references.pmid: 19386047
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Mar;9(1):132-8
references.pmid: 12026945
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):33-7
references.pmid: 16724765
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Jun;14(3):460-5
references.pmid: 17874588
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1998 Jan;123(1):71-99
references.pmid: 9461854
references.citation: Cognition. 2007 Mar;102(3):464-75
references.pmid: 16545792
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Jun;16(3):555-60
references.pmid: 19451384
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2009 Jan;21(1):169-79
references.pmid: 18476763
references.citation: Lang Speech. 2009;52(Pt 1):113-26
references.pmid: 19334418
references.citation: Can J Psychol. 1982 Sep;36(3):349-67
references.pmid: 7172126
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 1995 Jun;49(2):264-71
references.pmid: 9183977