Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 32, Issue 4, pp 1085–1106 | Cite as

Is the consonant primacy script-universal or script-specific? Evidence from non-Roman script Korean Hangul

  • Hye K. PaeEmail author
  • Sungbong Bae
  • Kwangoh Yi
Article

Abstract

Given the well-documented consonant primacy established in Roman script, this study examined the role of consonants and vowels in lexical decision of Korean Hangul among skilled Korean readers in order to identify whether the salient role of consonants over vowels would be script-universal or script-specific. Three experiments were carried out to investigate how consonant primes facilitated word recognition using related and unrelated consonant primes (e.g., ㅇㄴㅅㅁ 인삼 vs. ㅈㅎㅂㄱ 인삼, respectively; Experiment 1), consonant and vowel primes in linearity (e.g.,ㅅㄴㅂㄹ – 손발 vs. ㅜㅗ – 운동, respectively; Experiment 2), and consonant and vowel primes in syllabic blocks (e.g., Open image in new window – 침술, Open image in new window – 불법, respectively; Experiment 3). Results showed that significant consonant priming effects were not found, in comparison to those of vowels, in either linear or block formats. Taken together, the findings suggest that the consonant primacy effect may not apply to non-Roman script Hangul recognition and may be script-specific.

Keywords

Lexical decision task Korean Hangul Consonants Vowels Words 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the 2011 Yeungnam University research grant.

References

  1. 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, 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baek, S. (2014). Sub-syllabic processing in young Korean–English bilinguals: Semivowel placement differences between Korean and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 43, 507–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berent, I., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A rose is a REEZ: The two cycles model of phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102, 146–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blythe, H. I., Johnson, R. L., Liversedge, S. P., & Rayner, K. (2014). Reading transposed text: Effects of transposed letter distance and consonant–vowel status on eye movements. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 2424–2440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonatti, L. L., Peña, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2005). Linguistic constraints on statistical computations: The role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science, 16, 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Molinaro, N. (2009). Consonants and vowels contribute differently to visual word recognition: ERPs of relative position priming. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2659–2670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carreiras, M., & Price, C. J. (2008). Brain activation for consonants and vowels. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1727–1735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carreiras, M., Vergara, M., & Perea, M. (2009). ERP correlates of transposed-letter priming effects: The role of vowels vs. consonants. Psychophysiology, 46, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colombo, L., Zorzi, M., Cubelli, R., & Brivio, C. (2003). The status of consonants and vowels in phonological assembly: Testing the two-cycles model with Italian. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 405–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, C. J. (2010). SOLAR versus SERIOL revisited. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 695–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. (2011). The relative position priming effect depends on whether letters are vowels or consonants. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(5), 1143–1163.Google Scholar
  12. Ferrand, L., Segui, J., & Grainger, J. (1996). Masked priming of word and picture naming: The role of syllabic units. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 708–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster, K. I., & Foster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grainger, J. (2008). Cracking the orthographic code: An introduction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grainger, J., Grainer, J. P., Farioli, F., Van Assche, E., & van Heuven, W. (2006). Letter position information and printed word perception: The relative-position priming constraint. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 865–884.Google Scholar
  16. Hochmann, J.-R., Benavides-Varela, S., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2011). Consonants and vowels: Different roles in early language acquisition. Developmental Science, 14, 1445–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Humphreys, G. W., Evett, L. J., & Quinlan, P. T. (1990). Orthographic processing in visual word identification. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 517–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, H. S. (2005). The frequency of modern Korean use. Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, Y., & Goldrick, M. (2008). The emergence of sub-syllabic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. New, B., Araujo, V., & Nazzi, T. (2008). Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science, 19, 1223–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pae, H. K. (2011). Is Korean a syllabic alphabet or an alphabetic syllabary? Writing Systems Research, 3(2), 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pae, H. K. (Ed.). (2018). Written language, East-Asian scripts, and cross-linguistic influences. In Writing systems, reading processes, and cross-linguistic influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese and Korean languages (pp. 1–21). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.7.01pae.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pae, H. K., Kim, S-A., & Luo, X. (2018). Constituent processing or gestalt processing? How native Korean speakers read mutilated words in English. In H. K. Pae (Ed.). Writing systems, reading processes, and cross-linguistic influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese and Korean languages (pp. 427–445). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.7.21pae.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pae, H. K., Kim, S-A., Mano, Q. R., & Wang, M. (2018). Another look at the role of vowel letters in word reading in L2 English among native Korean readers. Journal of Neurolinguistics.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.01.004.Google Scholar
  25. Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peressotti, F., & Grainger, J. (1995). Letter position coding in random consonant arrays. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 875–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peressotti, F., & Grainger, J. (1999). The role of letter identity and letter position in orthographic priming. Perception and Psychophysics, 61, 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Taylor, I., & Taylor, M. M. (Rev. Eds.). (2014). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Toro, J. M., Nespor, M., Mehler, J., & Bonatti, L. L. (2008). Finding words and rules in a speech stream: Functional differences between vowels and consonants. Psychological Science, 19, 137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Assche, E., & Grainger, J. (2006). A study of relative-position priming with superset primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Winskel, H., & Perea, M. (2013). Consonant/vowel asymmetries in letter position coding during normal reading: Evidence from parafoveal previews in Thai. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yi, K. (1995). The internal structure of Kulca and its relation to syllable in Korean. Korean Journal of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 7, 57–69.Google Scholar
  33. Yi, K. (1998). The internal structure of Korean syllables: Rhyme or body? Korean Journal of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 10, 67–83.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Yeungnam UniversityGyeongsanSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations