Skip to main content

My research: psycholinguistics

In my websites I describe myself as a psycholinguist, so you may wonder what that means. Well, I study the processing of language in the brain, including how linguistic information is represented in the mind, cognitive processes behind language, and the psychology of reading.

My dissertation project deals with Chinese character reading - how people make use of the linguistic information in characters in the process of reading. When you read a word in English (or other alphabetic languages), you translate the letters into sounds, and from the sounds you access the word in your mental lexicon, where words are stored in your brain. But at the same time you also are looking up words directly based on the spelling. Depending on how regular the spelling is and how frequent the word is, one of those routes - the phonological or orthographic - will end up retrieving the word from the mental lexicon. That's the standard dual route model of reading in psychology.

But what about Chinese? That's more complicated, and while a number of studies have looked at how readers access words from the different types of linguistic information in characters, many of the studies have not been designed carefully enough, with enough statistical and linguistic controls, so a lot of issues remain unclear. Also, many of the studies are done by people in one of two extreme opposite theoretical camps, and their strong theoretical views have also hindered research progress in this area.

First of all, forget what you might have heard about Chinese being pictographic or ideographic, with characters iconically representing what they mean. That only works for a few characters referring to physical objects ('sun, moon, water', etc.). After all, how could you picture words like these: "donate", "exist", "green", "curious", "uh", "darn" -- or most words of a language? Chinese script is actually logographic - each character represents a single syllable, which is also a single morpheme [word element] (usually). Most characters are composites, consisting of multiple components which form one character. These character components provide approximate cues about the meaning (semantic) or character pronunciation (phonetic/phonological).

About 90% of Chinese characters consist of a phonetic plus a semantic. Often the phonetic element, or phonogram in my terminology, provides a very rough pronunciation cue, since the characters were developed a couple of thousand years ago, and many sound changes have occurred in the language since then. So there's some variability in phonogram-to-character correspondence, but how that affects reading times and the ability of readers to use those as cues is not fully understood.

A small minority of characters consist of two or more semantic elements, with no phonogram - called huiyi in Chinese, or co-significs, or bisemantics and polysemantics in my terminology. For phonogram-semantic composite characters and [bi/poly-] semantic composites, very little is known about how Chinese readers make use of the semantic content, how useful it is, the types of semantic information that can be used, and such.

So my research is trying to look at these issues, using linguistic surveys, and mostly, experimental psychology experiments at our lab. Later I'll post more on this, and my theories about some of these issues, and other interesting linguistic questions.

For now, my poster from the 5th Intl. Mental Lexicon Conference in Montreal last Oct. will be on my research page soon. It presents the results of my linguistic survey of ratings of semantic transparency of Chinese characters (3100 characters) and the 214 character radicals. The results, after controlling for various variables, will lead to indices for radical transparency, semantic cross-character radical consistency, and character-radical semantic relatedness, for use as covariates in future semantic priming experiments.


Popular posts from this blog

Gossip, accusation and spiritual warfare

Paul once wrote to the Corinthians, “For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder” [1 Cor. 12:20]. Gossip is diagnosed as a serious spiritual problem, not a harmless form of conversation and social entertainment, as many in the secular world would view it.God views it differently. Gossip is the opposite of the love and grace that God wants to display in our lives.
Gossip is often exaggerated (and thus, untrue), or outright fabricated. Even church people engage in gossip in a seemingly sanctimonious guise (“We really ought to pray for X – you wouldn’t believe what he told me yesterday!...”). Whether secular or “christianized,” gossip betrays trust. “A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy man keeps a secret” [Prov. 11:13]; “A perverse person stirs up dissension, and a gossip separates clo…

Portraits of Christ: John's gospel

John’s Gospel opens with a fascinating prose prologue in chapter 1 that essentially summarizes the themes of the entire book. It introduces Jesus in a manner that emphasizes his deity, then John the Baptist who prepared the way for Jesus’ ministry, and finally, the spiritual essence of Jesus’ public ministry and outreach, and his ultimate rejection.
John begins with the language of creation, showing that Jesus was always with the Father, was involved in creation, and was thus eternal. John describes him as the Word (logos in Greek), which conveys multiple meanings. For Jewish people, it meant the Scriptures, meaning that Jesus himself is the ultimate revelation of God to us, because he himself is God, more so that the written word of God (the Old Testament, at this time). It also reminds Jewish readers of how God spoke the world into existence in Genesis 1, as well as divine wisdom personified in the wisdom literature such as Proverbs (the personification of wisdom in Proverbs 1-10). …

Evangelicalism's gradual demise

The term "evangelical" was popularized by Martin Luther ("evangelisch" in German), which meant a follower of the gospel. The term was originally a very good and useful term, as it referred to someone who believed in a religion based on faith and following the teachings of Christ, rather than man-made religious rules. It was meaningful enough but also broad enough to encompass a general theological orientation and religious lifestyle. It could include and accommodate somewhat different views or interpretations of Christian belief, including those who focused more on the grace, spirituality and lifestyle of Christ. As such, it was not the exclusive property of one religious group or theological orientation. The meaning has been generally positive in modern church history.

However, in recent decades the term has been hijacked by fundamentalists who insist on a narrow interpretation of the term, insisting on a set of specific theological beliefs, while ignoring the Ch…