| Literature DB >> 34609234 |
Rinus G Verdonschot1, Hoàng Thị Lan Phương2, Katsuo Tamaoka2.
Abstract
In English, Dutch, and other Germanic languages the initial phonological unit used in word production has been shown to be the phoneme; conversely, others have revealed that in Chinese this is the atonal syllable and in Japanese the mora. The current paper is, to our knowledge, the first to report chronometric data on Vietnamese phonological encoding. Vietnamese, a tonal language, is of interest as, despite its Austroasiatic roots, it has clear similarities with Chinese through extended contact over a prolonged period. Four experiments (i.e., masked priming, phonological Stroop, picture naming with written distractors, picture naming with auditory distractors) have been conducted to investigate Vietnamese phonological encoding. Results show that in all four experiments both onset effects as well as whole syllable effects emerge. This indicates that the fundamental phonological encoding unit during Vietnamese language production is the phoneme despite its apparent similarities to Chinese. This result might have emerged due to tone assignment being a qualitatively different process in Vietnamese compared to Chinese.Entities:
Keywords: Language production; Vietnamese; phonological Stroop; phonological encoding; priming; prosodification
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34609234 PMCID: PMC9131412 DOI: 10.1177/17470218211053244
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove) ISSN: 1747-0218 Impact factor: 2.138
RTs and accuracy information for Experiment 1.
| Target (e.g., NỒI ‘pot’) | RT ( | E (in %) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-overlap (e.g., nấm—‘mushroom’) | 427 (59) | 0.3 | 16 |
| C-control (e.g., beo—‘leopard’) | 443 (60) | 0.7 | |
| CV-Overlap (e.g., nón—‘hat’) | 425 (58) | 0.3 | 13 |
| CV-Control (e.g., mục—‘catalogue’) | 438 (59) | 0.6 | |
| Full-Overlap (e.g., nôi—‘crib’) | 418 (58) | 1.0 | 19 |
| Full-Control (e.g., bàn—‘table’) | 437 (55) | 0.7 |
SD: standard deviation, RT: reaction times, E: error.
Coefficients of the main effects of the final model, together with the standard error, t-values and p-values (Experiment 1).
| Estimate |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 6.064074 | 0.015248 | 397.695 | <.001 |
| Trial (centred) | −0.008303 | 0.001683 | −4.932 | <.001 |
| Congruency (Overlap) | −0.034068 | 0.006163 | −5.528 | <.001 |
| OverlapSize (CV) | −0.006958 | 0.004114 | −1.691 | 0.0908 |
| OverlapSize (FULL) | −0.017560 | 0.004128 | −4.254 | <.001 |
| Congruency: OverlapSize (CV) | 0.002758 | 0.008227 | 0.335 | 0.7375 |
| Congruency: OverlapSize (FULL) | −0.011033 | 0.008255 | −1.337 | 0.1814 |
SE: standard error.
RTs and accuracy information for Experiment 2.
| Target (ex. XANH, ‘blue’) | RT ( | E (in %) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-overlap (e.g., XỈM) | 546 (108) | 0.8 | 33 |
| C-control (e.g., PỈM) | 579 (121) | 0.9 | |
| CV-Overlap (e.g., XÁU) | 504 (91) | 0.4 | 49 |
| CV-Control (e.g., PÁU) | 553 (111) | 0.8 | |
| Full-Overlap (e.g., XÀNH) | 484 (79) | 0.5 | 52 |
| Full-Control (e.g., QÀNH) | 536 (102) | 0.8 |
SD: standard deviation, RT: reaction times, E: error.
Coefficients of the main effects of the final model, together with the standard error, t-values and p-values (Experiment 2).
| Estimate |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −1.84706 | 0.03342 | −55.276 | <.001 |
| Congruency (Overlap) | −0.10202 | 0.02489 | −4.098 | <.001 |
| OverlapSize (CV) | −0.11272 | 0.01758 | −6.413 | <.001 |
| OverlapSize (FULL) | −0.17407 | 0.01756 | −9.914 | <.001 |
| Congruency: OverlapSize (CV) | −0.07063 | 0.03515 | −2.009 | <.05 |
| Congruency: OverlapSize (FULL) | −0.09180 | 0.03512 | −2.614 | <.01 |
SE: standard error.
RTs and accuracy information for Experiment 3 (picture naming with visual distractors).
| Target (ex. CUA, ‘crab’) | RT ( | E (in %) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-overlap (e.g., CÓT) | 664 (141) | 1.3 | 16 |
| C-control (e.g., VÓT) | 680 (146) | 1.4 | |
| Full-Overlap (e.g., CỤA) | 567 (98) | 0.6 | 72 |
| Full-Control (e.g., VỤA) | 639 (139) | 0.7 |
SD: standard deviation, RT: reaction times, E: error.
Coefficients of the main effects of the final model, together with the standard error, t-values and p-values (Experiment 3).
| Estimate |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −1.52397 | 0.03097 | −49.21 | <.001 |
| Trial | −0.07179 | 0.00369 | −19.42 | <.001 |
| Congruency (Overlap vs. Control) | −0.03583 | 0.01053 | −3.402 | <.001 |
| OverlapSize (C vs. FULL) | −0.104519 | 0.010500 | −9.955 | <.001 |
| Congruency: OverlapSize (FULL) | −0.147736 | 0.014778 | −9.997 | <.01 |
SE: standard error.
RTs and accuracy information for Experiment 4 (picture naming with auditory distractors).
| Target (ex. CUA, ‘crab’) | RT ( | E (in %) | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| C-overlap (e.g., CÓT) | 684 (146) | 1.3 | 8 |
| C-control (e.g., VÓT) | 692 (138) | 1.4 | |
| Full-Overlap (e.g., CỤA) | 638 (110) | 0.6 | 50 |
| Full-Control (e.g., VỤA) | 688 (133) | 0.7 |
SD: standard deviation.
Coefficients of the main effects of the final model, together with the standard error, t-values and p-values (Experiment 4).
| Estimate |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −1.5425723 | 0.0277469 | −55.594 | <.001 |
| Trial | 0.0020525 | 0.0003183 | 6.449 | <.001 |
| Congruency (Overlap vs. Control) | −0.0675846 | 0.0073300 | −9.220 | <.001 |
| OverlapSize (C vs. FULL) | −0.0050432 | 0.0104391 | −0.483 | .629 |
| Congruency: OverlapSize (FULL) | −0.0860832 | 0.0146613 | −5.871 | <.001 |
SE: standard error.
Figure 1.Illustration (following Roelofs, 2015) of the Vietnamese (compound) word cá mập “shark” during the prosodification stage of the Levelt et al. (1999) model (o = onset, n = nucleus, c = coda). The words sắc and nặng above the tonal frame indicate the Vietnamese tone names, the numbers 1–3 indicate the position of the segments in the respective morphemes.