| 21 |
Semantic Priming English and Chinese Words (RTs and Accuracy) by Participants- Ng & Suarez ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 22 |
Semantic Priming English and Chinese Words - Errors - Ng & Suarez ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 23 |
Semantic Priming English and Chinese Words (RTs and Accuracy) - Li & Suarez ...
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 25 |
Above, on, or shang (上)? Language and spatial representations among English–Mandarin bilinguals
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 26 |
Conceptual representation changes in Indonesian-English bilinguals
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 27 |
Cross-sectional study on the relationship between music training and working memory in adults
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 28 |
Consequences of language on spatial representations among English-Mandarin Bilinguals
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 29 |
Recognition memory for new characters and words by bilinguals with different writing systems
|
|
|
|
Abstract:
Distinct orthographies demand and promote specific cognitive skills to a different extent. For example, greater visual memory ability has been associated with reading logographic languages (Tavassoli, 2002), and better phonological awareness with alphabetic languages (Rickard Liow, 2014). Moreover, while bilingualism has been associated with general advantage during third-language acquisition (Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009), some studies have focused on how the use of different scripts affect the learning of new logographic words (i.e., characters). For instance, Ehrich and Meuter (2009) found faster response latencies during new-character recognition by bilinguals with Chinese as a first language (L1), as compared to bilinguals who possessed alphabetic languages (English and French). However, the bilinguals' performance was equal regarding recognition accuracy and syntactic processing speed. Those results suggested that a logographic-L1 background might facilitate basic processes involved in character identification (e.g., visual speed and storage of visuospatial information) rather than higher-order processes involved in lexical access. The current study explored the influence of the use of different writing systems on basic processes of visual memory and recognition of new characters and words (see Table 1). Participants were English monolinguals, and bilinguals were literate in English and another alphabetic, alphasyllabic, or logographic language. The first hypothesis predicted that logographic users would show visuospatial memory enhancement, associated with an advantage at recognising new characters. Results (see Table 1) showed that logographic users performed better than the average of the other three groups in visuospatial memory tasks. However, discrimination and response latencies of characters were similar between logographic users and the average of the other three groups. This indicated that language background and visuospatial memory enhancement did not facilitate the learning of new logographic forms, contrary to previous findings (e.g., Ehrich & Meuter, 2009). It could be that the visuospatial memory advantage is evidenced only in tasks that require focused attention and short-term memory (a few seconds) as compared to tasks (character-recognition) that require recognition responses after a few minutes. Experience in reading Chinese might have facilitated rapid processing and storage in short-term memory, but not long-term memory retention of complex stimuli. The second hypothesis compared biscriptal bilinguals (English-Chinese and English-Tamil [or Hindi]) on visual memory and character learning ability in order to understand whether memory enhancement was related to the use of Chinese or the use of two scripts. The results revealed that greater memory and character-learning performance (but not speed) were associated with the use of Chinese and not alphasyllabic language. Alphasyllabic-language users discriminated characters very poorly as compared to the rest; it could be that experience with alphasyllabic script might have prompted the participants to use inadequate strategies when learning new character-like forms. The third hypothesis tested bilinguals' learning facilitation of new phonological forms (i.e., spoken words). The results showed that bilinguals' new-word recognition response latencies and accuracy were higher than the monolinguals'. This supported previous findings (e.g., Kaushanskaya & Marian, 2009), which relate bilinguals' enhanced phonological capacity to a broader phonological repertoire stored in long-term memory, as compared to monolinguals.
|
|
URL: https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/39119/6/39119%20Suarez%202015.pdf
|
|
BASE
|
|
Hide details
|
|
|
| 30 |
Pinyin interference effects during Mandarin word recognition
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 31 |
Are bilinguals full-time translators? The evidence of implicit automatic translation in Indonesian-English bilinguals
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 34 |
Visuo-spatial memory and language acquisition skills of bilinguals with different writing systems
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
| 40 |
The biscriptal language background advantage during foreign language word acquisition
|
|
|
|
BASE
|
|
Show details
|
|
|
|
|
