title: The proximate phonological unit of Chinese-English bilinguals: proficiency matters.
abstract: An essential step to create phonology according to the language production model by Levelt, Roelofs and Meyer is to assemble phonemes into a metrical frame. However, recently, it has been proposed that different languages may rely on different grain sizes of phonological units to construct phonology. For instance, it has been proposed that, instead of phonemes, Mandarin Chinese uses syllables and Japanese uses moras to fill the metrical frame. In this study, we used a masked priming-naming task to investigate how bilinguals assemble their phonology for each language when the two languages differ in grain size. Highly proficient Mandarin Chinese-English bilinguals showed a significant masked onset priming effect in English (L2), and a significant masked syllabic priming effect in Mandarin Chinese (L1). These results suggest that their proximate unit is phonemic in L2 (English), and that bilinguals may use different phonological units depending on the language that is being processed. Additionally, under some conditions, a significant sub-syllabic priming effect was observed even in Mandarin Chinese, which indicates that L2 phonology exerts influences on L1 target processing as a consequence of having a good command of English.
authors: Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan. rinusverdonschot@gmail.com
authors: Rinus Gerardus
authors: RG
authors: Verdonschot
authors: Mariko
authors: M
authors: Nakayama
authors: Qingfang
authors: Q
authors: Zhang
authors: Katsuo
authors: K
authors: Tamaoka
authors: Niels Olaf
authors: NO
authors: Schiller
mesh_terms: D000161:Acoustic Stimulation; D000328:Adult; D044466:Asian People; D002681:China; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007802:Language; D008297:Male; D019303:Multilingualism; D010700:Phonetics; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011930:Reaction Time; D055815:Young Adult
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e48776
references: 23144965
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Aug 28;109(35):14265-70
references: 22891321
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Oct;16(5):888-92
references: 19815794
references: Cogsci. 2009 Jul-Aug;2009:68-73
references: 26744737
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jan 2;110(1):E3
references: 23223681
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46595
references: 23056360
references: Behav Res Methods. 2007 Aug;39(3):445-59
references: 17958156
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Nov;37(6):1458-73
references: 21895391
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):33-7
references: 16724765
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2000 Mar;7(1):133-41
references: 10780027
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Mar;26(2):512-28
references: 10764109
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2007 Jun;14(3):460-5
references: 17874588
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Sep;32(5):1102-19
references: 16938049
references: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Sep;34(5):1172-90
references: 18763899
references: Behav Brain Sci. 1999 Feb;22(1):1-38; discussion 38-75
references: 11301520
references: Cognition. 2010 May;115(2):282-302
references: 20149354
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Feb;20(1):154-62
references: 23065764