1887
New Questions for the Next Decade
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Cross-linguistic data have always been of interest to mental lexicon researchers, but only now are technological developments beginning to make it possible to treat language as a random variable, in an approach we dub meta-megastudies. A meta-megastudy uses regression techniques to tease apart not just factors that are partially confounded across items within languages, as in traditional megastudies, but also factors partially confounded across languages. While large-scale meta-megastudies will be logistically challenging, they promise great theoretical benefits and are becoming ever more feasible via Web-based coordination between independent research groups.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.3.01mye
2016-12-16
2019-12-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ml.11.3.01mye
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese , cross-linguistic , megastudies and typology
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error