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

Portraits of Christ: John’s Gospel, part 2

In John’s Gospel we have an emphasis on Jesus that is unique compared to the other gospels. John not only emphasizes his deity, but his mysteriousness. The reader is left with an impression of Jesus as a mystical teacher, in the sense that his words and actions are not only those of a profound religious teacher, but of one who is other-worldly. So often in this gospel we read of Jesus making statements that the crowds, the religious teachers, and even his own disciples sometimes could not fathom. For starters, there are the “I am” statements (e.g., I am the bread of life; I am the living water; I am the good shepherd; I am the way, the truth, and the life), which were clearly claims to divinity, for these statements in the Jewish context referred to God’s title “I am,” given when Moses inquired of his name at the burning bush. Jesus makes much use of mystical metaphors like these and others, like all the ‘day’ and ‘night’ references in this book, which portrays him as mystical or my

Book review: Green Eggs and Ham (Dr. Seuss)

Green eggs and ham, as a recolorized staple breakfast food, captures the reader's attention by turning this diurnal sustenance into an unexpected and apparently unappetizing foodstuff. It thus symbolizes the existential angst of modern life, wherein we are unfulfilled by modern life, and are repelled by something that might impart nourishment. The "protagonist" to be convinced of its desirability remains anonymous, while the other actor refers to himself with an emphatic identifier "Sam I am", formed with a pronominal subject and copular verb of existence. This character thus seeks to emphasize his existence and existential wholeness, and even establish a sense of self-existence, with an apparent Old Testament allusion to Elohim speaking to Moses as the "I Am". This emphatic personal identifier thus introduces a prominent theme of religious existentialism to the narrative, probably more in line with original Kierkegaardian religious existentialism, rat

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 goss