Meta-megastudies

References

1. Adelman, J.S. , Johnson, R.L. , McCormick, S.F. , McKague, M. , Kinoshita, S. , Bowers, J.S. , Perry, J.R. , Lupker, S.J. , Forster, K.I. , Cortese, M.J. , Scaltritti, M. , Aschenbrenner, A.J. , Coane, J.H. , White, L. , Yap, M.J. , Davis, C. , Kim, J. , & Davis, C.J
   (2014) A behavioral database for masked form priming. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1052–1067. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0442‑y
   https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0442-y [Google Scholar]
2. Alario, F.X. , Perre, L. , Castel, C. , & Ziegler, J.C
   (2007) The role of orthography in speech production revisited. Cognition, 102(3), 464–475. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.002
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.002 [Google Scholar]
3. Aronoff, M. , Meir, I. , & Sandler, W
   (2005) The paradox of sign language morphology. Language, 81(2), 301–344. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0043
   https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0043 [Google Scholar]
4. Baayen, R.H. , Davidson, D.J. , & Bates, D.M
   (2008) Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
5. Bader, M. , & Häussler, J
   (2010) Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics, 46(2), 273–330. doi: 10.1017/S0022226709990260
   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990260 [Google Scholar]
6. Bailey, T.M. , & Hahn, U
   (2001) Determinants of wordlikeness: Phonotactics or lexical neighborhoods?Journal of Memory & Language, 44, 569–591. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2756
   https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2756 [Google Scholar]
7. Balota, D.A. , Yap, M.J. , Cortese, M.J. , Hutchison, K.A. , Kessler, B. , Loftis, B. , Neely, J.H. , Nelson, D.L. , Simpson, G.B. , & Treiman, R
   (2007) The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459. doi: 10.3758/BF03193014
   https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014 [Google Scholar]
8. Balota, D.A. , Yap, M.J. , Hutchison, K.A. , & Cortese, M.J
   (2012) Megastudies: What do millions (or so) of trials tell us about lexical processing?In J.S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition (vol. 1, pp.90–115). London: Psychology Press Psychology Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bates, E. , D’Amico, S. , Jacobsen, T. , Székely, A. , Andonova, E. , Devescovi, A. , Herron, D. , Lu, C.-C. , Pechmann, T. , Pléh, C. , Wicha, N. , Federmeier, K. , Gerdjikova, I. , Gutierrez, G. , Hung, D. , Hsu, J. , Iyer, G. , Kohnert, K. , Mehotcheva, T. , Orozco-Figueroa, A. , Tzeng, A. , & Tzeng, O
   (2003) Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2), 344–380. doi: 10.3758/BF03196494
   https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196494 [Google Scholar]
10. Bates, E. , Devescovi, A. , & Wulfeck B
    (2001) Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 369–396. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.369
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.369 [Google Scholar]
11. Benkí, J.R
    (2003) Quantitative evaluation of lexical status, word frequency, and neighborhood density as context effects in spoken word recognition. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(3), 1689–1705. doi: 10.1121/1.1534102
    https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1534102 [Google Scholar]
12. Bi, Y. , Wei, T. , Janssen, N. , & Han, Z
    (2009) The contribution of orthography to spoken word production: Evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 555–560. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.3.555
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.555 [Google Scholar]
13. Bickel, B
    (2015) Distributional typology: Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (2nd ed., pp.901–923). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bishop, S
    (2014) Science exposed. Scientific American, 311(4), 46. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1014‑46
    https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1014-46 [Google Scholar]
15. Brown, C.H. , Holman, E.W. , & Wichmann, S
    (2013) Sound correspondences in the world’s languages. Language, 89(1), 4–29. doi: 10.1353/lan.2013.0009
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0009 [Google Scholar]
16. Cai, Z.-Q
    (Ed.) (2008) How to read Chinese poetry: A guided anthology. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Caselli, N.K. , & Cohen-Goldberg, A.M
    (2014) Lexical access in sign language: A computational model. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 428. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00428
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00428 [Google Scholar]
18. Chen, J.-Y. , Chen, T.-M. , & Dell, G.S
    (2002) Word-form encoding in Mandarin Chinese as assessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 751–781. doi: 10.1006/jmla.2001.2825
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2825 [Google Scholar]
19. Chen, T.-M. , Dell, G. , & Chen, J.-Y
    (2007) A cross-linguistic study of phonological units: Syllables emerge from the statistics of Mandarin Chinese, but not from the statistics of English. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 137–144.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Clark, H
    (1973) The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335–359. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(73)80014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3 [Google Scholar]
21. Clauson, K.A. , Polen, H.H. , Boulos, M.N.K. , & Dzenowagis, J.H
    (2008) Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42(12), 1814–1821. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L474
    https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1L474 [Google Scholar]
22. Cohen-Goldberg, A.M
    (2012) Phonological competition within the word: Evidence from the phoneme similarity effect in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 184–198. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
23. Coleman, T. , & Greif, S
    (2013) Discover meteor. URL: www.discovermeteor.com.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Costa, A. , Alario, F.X. , & Sebastián-Gallés, N
    (2007) Cross-linguistic research on language production. In M.G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.531–546). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Cutler, A
    (1981) Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we be able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990?Cognition, 10, 65–70. doi: 10.1016/0010‑0277(81)90026‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90026-3 [Google Scholar]
26. Cutler, A
    (1985) Cross-language psycholinguistics. Linguistics, 23, 659–667.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Cysouw, M
    (2005) Quantitative methods in typology. In R. Kohler , G. Altmann , & R.G. Piotrowski (Eds.), Quantitative Linguistik: Ein internationales Handbuch [Quantitative linguistics: An international handbook] (pp.554–578). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
28. DeFrancis, J
    (1989) Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Dryer, M.S
    (1992) The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–138. doi: 10.1353/lan.1992.0028
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1992.0028 [Google Scholar]
30. Dryer, M.S
    (2011) The evidence for word order correlations. Linguistic Typology, 15(2), 335–380. doi: 10.1515/lity.2011.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2011.024 [Google Scholar]
31. Dufau, S. , Duñabeitia, J.A. , Moret-Tatay, C. , McGonigal, A. , Peeters, D. , Alario, F.X. , Balota, D.A. , Brysbaert, M. , Carreiras, M. , Ferrand, L. , Ktori, M. , Perea, M. , Rastle, K. , Sasburg, O. , Yap, M.J. , Ziegler, J.C. , & Grainger, J
    (2011) Smart phone, smart science: How the use of smartphones can revolutionize research in cognitive science. PloS One, 6(9), e24974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024974
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024974 [Google Scholar]
32. Durrett, G. , & DeNero, J
    (2013) Supervised learning of complete morphological paradigms. Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL) , pp.1185–1195.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Erlewine, M.Y. , & Kotek, H
    (2016) A streamlined approach to online linguistic surveys. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 34(2), 481–495. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑015‑9305‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-015-9305-9 [Google Scholar]
34. Ernestus, M. , & Cutler, A
    (2015) Baldey: A database of auditory lexical decisions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1469–1488. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2014.984730
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.984730 [Google Scholar]
35. Evans, N. , & Levinson, S.C
    (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(5), 429–492. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X [Google Scholar]
36. Feng, G. , Miller, K. , Shu, H. , & Zhang, H
    (2001) Rowed to recovery: The use of phonological and orthographic information in reading Chinese and English. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(4), 1079–1100. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.27.4.1079
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.4.1079 [Google Scholar]
37. Fenlon, J. , Schembri, A. , Rentelis, R. , Vinson, D. , & Cormier, K
    (2014) Using conversational data to determine lexical frequency in british sign Language: The influence of text type. Lingua, 143, 187–202. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.003 [Google Scholar]
38. Ferrand, L. , New, B. , Brysbaert, M. , Keuleers, E. , Bonin, P. , Méot, A. , Augustinova, M. , & Pallier, C
    (2010) The French Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 38,840 French words and 38,840 pseudowords. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 488–496. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.488
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.488 [Google Scholar]
39. Forster, K.I
    (2000) The potential for experimenter bias effects in word recognition experiments. Memory & Cognition, 28(7), 1109–1115. doi: 10.3758/BF03211812
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211812 [Google Scholar]
40. Fox, R.A
    (1984) Effect of lexical status on phonetic categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(4), 526–540. doi: 10.1037/0096‑1523.10.4.526
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.4.526 [Google Scholar]
41. Fromkin, V.A
    (1971) The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47(1), 27–52. doi: 10.2307/412187
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412187 [Google Scholar]
42. Gandour, J. , Xu, Y. , Wong, D. , Dzemidzic, M. , Lowe, M. , Li, X. , & Tong, Y
    (2003) Neural correlates of segmental and tonal information in speech perception. Human Brain Mapping, 20(4), 185–200. doi: 10.1002/hbm.10137
    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.10137 [Google Scholar]
43. Graham, J. , Nosek, B.A. , Haidt, J. , Iyer, R. , Koleva, S. , & Ditto, P.H
    (2011) Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. doi: 10.1037/a0021847
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847 [Google Scholar]
44. Greenberg, J.H
    (1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J.H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp.73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Haspelmath, M. , Dryer, M.S. , Gil, D. , & Comrie, B
    (Eds.) (2005) The world atlas of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Heylighen, F
    (2007) Why is open access development so successful? Stigmergic organization and the economics of information. In B. Lutterbeck , M. Bärwolff , & R.A. Gehring (Eds.), Open source jahrbuch 2007. Berlin: Technical University of Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Hutchison, K.A. , Balota, D.A. , Neely, J.H. , Cortese, M.J. , Cohen-Shikora, E.R. , Tse, C.S. , Yap, M.J. , Bengson, J.J. , Niemeyer, D. , & Buchanan, E
    (2013) The semantic priming project. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1099–1114. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0304‑z
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0304-z [Google Scholar]
48. Iacoponi, L. , & Savy, R
    (2011) Sylli: Automatic phonological syllabification for Italian. Interspeech2011, 641–644.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Jaeger, T.F. , & Norcliffe, E.J
    (2009) The cross-linguistic study of sentence production. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3/4, 866–887. doi: 10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00147.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00147.x [Google Scholar]
50. Keuleers, E. , & Balota, D.A
    (2015) Megastudies, crowdsourcing, and large datasets in psycholinguistics: An overview of recent developments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68 (8), 1457–1468. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1051065
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1051065 [Google Scholar]
51. Keuleers, E. , & Brysbaert, M
    (2010) Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator. Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 627–633. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.627
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.627 [Google Scholar]
52. Keuleers, E. , Diependaele, K. , & Brysbaert, M
    (2010) Practice effects in large-scale visual word recognition studies: A lexical decision study on 14,000 Dutch mono-and disyllabic words and nonwords. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 174. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00174 [Google Scholar]
53. Keuleers, E. , Lacey, P. , Rastle, K. , & Brysbaert, M
    (2012) The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 287–304. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0118‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0118-4 [Google Scholar]
54. Keuleers, E. , Stevens, M. , Mandera, P. , & Brysbaert, M
    (2015) Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1665–1692. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1022560
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1022560 [Google Scholar]
55. Kirby, J.P. , & Yu, A.C.L
    (2007) Lexical and phonotactic effects on wordlikeness judgments in Cantonese. Proceedings of the International Congress of Phonetic Sciences , 16, 1389–1392.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Klein, D. , Zatorre, R.J. , Milner, B. , & Zhao, V
    (2001) A cross-linguistic PET study of tone perception in Mandarin Chinese and English speakers. Neuroimage, 13(4), 646–653. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0738
    https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2000.0738 [Google Scholar]
57. Kupferberg, N. , & Protus, B.M
    (2011) Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: An assessment. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99(4), 310–313. doi: 10.3163/1536‑5050.99.4.010
    https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.99.4.010 [Google Scholar]
58. Lee, H.-H
    (2016) A comparative study of the phonology of Taiwan Sign Language and Signed Chinese. Unpublished National Chung Cheng University Ph.D. thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Lemhöfer, K. , Dijkstra, T. , Schriefers, H. , Baayen, R.H. , Grainger, J. , & Zwitserlood, P
    (2008) Native language influences on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (1), 12–31. doi: 10.1037/0278‑7393.34.1.12
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.1.12 [Google Scholar]
60. Levelt, W.J. , Roelofs, A. , & Meyer, A.S
    (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(01), 1–38.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Lewis, M.P. , Simons, G.F. , Fennig, C.D
    (Eds.) (2014) Ethnologue: Languages of the world (7th ed.). Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version: www.ethnologue.com/17/.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Light, T
    (1977) The Cantonese final: An exercise in indigenous analysis. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 5(1), 75–102.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Luce, P.A. , & Large, N.R
    (2001) Phonotactics, density, and entropy in spoken word recognition. Language & Cognitive Processes, 16(5/6), 565–581. doi: 10.1080/01690960143000137
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000137 [Google Scholar]
64. Malins, J.G. , & Joanisse, M.F
    (2010) The roles of tonal and segmental information in Mandarin spoken word recognition: An eyetracking study. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(4), 407–420. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.004 [Google Scholar]
65. Malmqvist, G
    (1994) Chinese linguistics. In G. Lepschy (Ed.), History of linguistics: Volume I: The Eastern traditions of linguistics (pp.1–24). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
66. McBride-Chang, C. , Tong, X. , Shu, H. , Wong, A.M.Y. , Leung, K.W. , & Tardif, T
    (2008) Syllable, phoneme, and tone: Psycholinguistic units in early Chinese and English word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12(2), 171–194. doi: 10.1080/10888430801917290
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430801917290 [Google Scholar]
67. Meier, R.P
    (2002) Why different, why the same? Explaining effects and non-effects of modality upon linguistic structure in sign and speech. In R.P. Meier & K. Cormier (Eds.), Modality and structure in signed and spoken languages (pp.1–25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486777.001 [Google Scholar]
68. Moscoso del Prado Martín, F. , Kostić, A. , & Baayen, R.H
    (2004) Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition, 94(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.015 [Google Scholar]
69. Myers, J
    (2007) Generative morphology as psycholinguistics. In G. Jarema & G. Libben (Eds.), The mental lexicon: Core perspectives (pp.105–128). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1163/9780080548692_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080548692_007 [Google Scholar]
70. Myers, J
    (2012) Chinese as a natural experiment. In G. Libben , G. Jarema , & C. Westbury (Eds.), Methodological and analytic frontiers in lexical research (pp.155–169). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/bct.47.09mye
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.47.09mye [Google Scholar]
71. Myers, J
    (2015) Markedness and lexical typicality in Mandarin acceptability judgments. Language & Linguistics, 16(6). doi: 10.1177/1606822X15602606
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X15602606 [Google Scholar]
72. Myers, J. , & Chen, T.-Y
    (2016) The time course of sociolinguistic influences on wordlikeness judgments. In A. Botinis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Tutorial and Research Workshop on Experimental Linguistics (pp.119–122). International Speech Communication Association.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Myers, J. , & Tsay, J
    (2005) The processing of phonological acceptability judgments. Proceedings of Symposium on 90–92 NSC Projects (pp.26–45). Taipei, Taiwan, May.
    [Google Scholar]
74. Nathan, D
    (2013) Access and accessibility at ELAR, a social networking archive for endangered languages documentation. In M. Turin , C. Wheeler , & E. Wilkinson (Eds.), Oral literature in the digital age: Archiving orality and connecting with communities. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Newmeyer, F.J
    (2005) Possible and probable languages: A generative perspective on linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
76. Nielsen, M
    (2012) Reinventing discovery: The new era of networked science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Norcliffe, E. , Harris, A.C. , & Jaeger, T.F
    (2015) Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development: Early beginnings and recent advances. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1009–1032. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1080373 [Google Scholar]
78. Norris, D. , & Cutler, A
    (1988) The relative accessibility of phonemes and syllables. Perception & Psychophysics, 43(6), 541–550. doi: 10.3758/BF03207742
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207742 [Google Scholar]
79. O’Brien, R.M
    (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for Variance Inflation Factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690. doi: 10.1007/s11135‑006‑9018‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 [Google Scholar]
80. O’Seaghdha, P.G. , Chen, J.-Y. , & Chen, T.-M
    (2010) Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115, 282–302. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.001 [Google Scholar]
81. O’Seaghdha, P.G. , Chen, J.-Y. , & Chen, T.-M
    (2013) Close but not proximate: The significance of phonological segments in speaking depends on their functional engagement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(1), E3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217032110
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217032110 [Google Scholar]
82. Qu, Q. , Damian, M.F. , & Kazanina, N
    (2012) Sound-sized segments are significant for Mandarin speakers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(35), 14265–14270. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1200632109
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1200632109 [Google Scholar]
83. Qu, Q. , Damian, M.F. , & Kazanina, N
    (2013) Reply to O’Seaghdha et al.: Primary phonological planning units in Chinese are phonemically specified. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(1), E4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217601110
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1217601110 [Google Scholar]
84. Rastle, K. , McCormick, S.F. , Bayliss, L. , & Davis, C.J
    (2011) Orthography influences the perception and production of speech. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(6), 1588–1594. doi: 10.1037/a0024833
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024833 [Google Scholar]
85. Rentzepopoulos, P.A. , & Kokkinakis, G.K
    (1996) Efficient multilingual phoneme-to-grapheme conversion based on HMM. Computational Linguistics, 22(3), 351–376.
    [Google Scholar]
86. Rice, S. , Libben, G. , & Derwing, B
    (2002) Morphological representation in an endangered, polysynthetic language. Brain and Language, 81(1), 473–486. doi: 10.1006/brln.2001.2540
    https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2540 [Google Scholar]
87. Sampson, G
    (2015) A Chinese phonological enigma. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 43, 679–691. doi: 10.1353/jcl.2015.0014
    https://doi.org/10.1353/jcl.2015.0014 [Google Scholar]
88. Sandler, W
    (1999) Cliticization and prosodic words in a sign language. In T.A. Hall & U. Kleinhenz (Eds.), Studies on the phonological word (pp.223–255). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.174.09san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.174.09san [Google Scholar]
89. Sandler, W. , & Lillo-Martin, D
    (2006) Sign language and linguistic universals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139163910
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163910 [Google Scholar]
90. Silvertown, J
    (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9), 467–471. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 [Google Scholar]
91. Singleton, J.L. , & Newport, E.L
    (2004) When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology49, 370–407. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001 [Google Scholar]
92. Sze, W.P. , Liow, S.J.R. , & Yap, M.J
    (2014) The Chinese Lexicon Project: A repository of lexical decision behavioral responses for 2,500 Chinese characters. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 263–273. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑013‑0355‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0355-9 [Google Scholar]
93. Szekely, A. , Jacobsen, T. , D’Amico, S. , Devescovi, A. , Andonova, E. , Herron, D. , Lu, C.-C. , Pechmann, T. , Pléh, C. , Wicha, N. , Federmeier, K. , Gerdjikova, I. , Gutierrez, G. , Hung, D. , Hsu, J. , Iyer, G. , Kohnert, K. , Mehotcheva, T. , Orozco-Figueroa, A. , Tzeng, A. , Tzeng, O. , Arévalo, A. , Vargha, A. , Butler, A.C. , Buffngton, R. , & Bates, E
    (2004) A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 247–250. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.002 [Google Scholar]
94. Tse, C.-S. , Yap, M.J. , Chan, Y.-L. , Sze, W.-P. , Shaoul, C. , & Lin, D
    . (forthcoming). The Chinese Lexicon Project: A megastudy of lexical decision performance for 25,000+ traditional Chinese two-character compound words. Behavior Research Methods.
    [Google Scholar]
95. Tseng, C.-H. , Huang, K.-Y. , & Jeng, J.-Y
    (1996) The role of the syllable in perceiving spoken Chinese. Proceedings of the National Science Council, Part C: Humanities and Social Sciences , 6 (1), 71–86.
    [Google Scholar]
96. Vittinghoff, E. , & McCulloch, C.E
    (2007) Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710–718. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwk052
    https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwk052 [Google Scholar]
97. von Bastian, C.C. , Locher, A. , & Ruflin, M
    (2013) Tatool: A Java-based open-source programming framework for psychological studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 108–115. doi: 10.3758/s13428‑012‑0224‑y
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0224-y [Google Scholar]
98. Weskott, T. , & Fanselow, G
    (2011) On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language, 87(2), 249–273. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0041 [Google Scholar]
99. Wong, A.W.-K. , & Chen, H.-C
    (2008) Processing segmental and prosodic information in Cantonese word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 34(5), 1172–1190. doi: 10.1037/a0013000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013000 [Google Scholar]
100. Yap, M.J. , Liow, S.J.R. , Jalil, S.B. , & Faizal, S.S.B
     (2010) The Malay Lexicon Project: A database of lexical statistics for 9,592 words. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 992–1003. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.992
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.992 [Google Scholar]
101. Yu, L. , & Shu, H
     (2003) Hanyu yanyu chansheng de yuyin jiagong jizhi [Phonological processing mechanism in Chinese speech production]. Xinli Kexue, 26(5), 818–822.
     [Google Scholar]
102. Yu, M. , Mo, C. , & Mo, L
     (2014) The role of phoneme in Mandarin Chinese production: Evidence from ERPs. PloS one, 9(9), e106486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106486
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106486 [Google Scholar]
103. Yu, M. , Mo, C. , Li, Y. , & Mo, L
     (2015) Distinct representations of syllables and phonemes in Chinese production: Evidence from fMRI adaptation. Neuropsychologia, 77, 253–259. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.027
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.027 [Google Scholar]