Chapter published in:
Writing Systems, Reading Processes, and Cross-Linguistic Influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese and Korean Languages
Edited by Hye K. Pae
[Bilingual Processing and Acquisition 7] 2018
► pp. 373–390

Subunit priming effects on lexical decision in Korean

Both body and rime units are important in Korean

| Yeungnam University, South Korea
| University of Cincinnati, U.S.A.
| Yeungnam University, South Korea
There have been conflicting results in the literature regarding the dominant linguistic unit (body-coda units vs. onset-rime units) in reading Korean Hangul. In an attempt to resolve the contradictory views between the phonotactic constraint (support for body-coda) and the universal rime bias (support for onset-rime) in reading, this chapter examines subunit priming effects on rapid word recognition among native Korean readers. Thirty five university students participated in a lexical decision task using Korean words and nonwords as targets. Primes included related and unrelated bodies, rimes, and consonants of disyllabic targets. Results of a linear mixed model showed that both body and rime units played significant roles in response time. Rime primes also affected accuracy of rapid lexical decision. Unlike previous research that showed body primacy, the results indicated that both body and rime units are important in reading Korean.
Keywords: Korean Hangul, phonotactic constraints, universal rime bias
Published online: 10 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/bpa.7.18bae
References

References

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
Berg, T., & Koops, C.
(2010) The interplay of left- and right-branching effects: A phonotactic analysis of Korean syllable structure. Lingua, 120, 35–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Phonotactic constraints and sub-syllabic structure: A difficult relationship. Journal of Linguistics, 51, 3–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonatti, L. L., Pena, M., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J.
(2005) Linguistic constraints on statistical computations the role of consonants and vowels in continuous speech processing. Psychological Science, 16(6), 451–459.Google Scholar
Broekhuyse, M. & Taft, M.
(2018) L1-referenced phonological processing in Japanese-English bilinguals. In H. K. Pae (Ed.), Writing systems, reading processes, and cross-linguistic influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages. (pp. 201–220) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., & Price, C. J.
(2008) Brain activation for consonants and vowels. Cerebral Cortex, 18(7), 1727–1735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, M., Vergara, M., & Perea, M.
(2009) ERP correlates of transposed‐letter priming effects: The role of vowels versus consonants. Psychophysiology, 46(1), 34–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carreiras, M., Gillon-Dowens, M., Vergara, M., & Perea, M.
(2009) Are vowels and consonants processed differently? ERP evidence with a delayed letter paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 275–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cara, B., & Goswami, U.
(2002) Similarity relations among spoken words: The special status of rimes in English. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 34, 416–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Derwing, B., Yoon, Y-B., & Cho, S-W.
(1993) The organization of the Korean syllable: Experimental evidence. In P. M. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese / Korean Linguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 223–238). Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Havy, M., Serres, J., & Nazzi, T.
(2014) A consonant/vowel asymmetry in word-form processing: Evidence in childhood and in adulthood. Language and Speech, 57(2), 254–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hochmann, J. R., Benavides‐Varela, S., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J.
(2011) Consonants and vowels: different roles in early language acquisition. Developmental Science, 14(6), 1445–1458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, B., & Treiman, R.
(1997) Syllable structure and the distribution of phonemes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 295–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Relationships between sounds and letters in English monosyllables. Journal of memory and Language, 44(4), 592–617. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. S.
(2005) The frequency of modern Korean use. Seoul: National Institute of the Korean Language.Google Scholar
Kim, J. & Davis, C.
(2002) Using Korean to investigate phonological priming effects without the influence of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 569–591. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y-S.
(2007) Phonological awareness and literacy skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role of body-coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 69–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J-K.
(1972) Mathematical analysis of the structure of Korean characters (IV). The Magazine of the IEEE, 9(4), 25–32.Google Scholar
Lee, S-O.
(1989) A study in the phonological and morphological structure of the Korean lexicon: A quantitative survey by glottometrics. Language Research, 25(1), 111–128.Google Scholar
Lee, Y., & Goldrick, M.
(2008) The emergence of sub-syllabic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 155–168. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lukatela, G., & Turvey, M. T.
(1994) Visual lexical access is initially phonological: 2. Evidence from phonological priming by homophones and pseudohomophones. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lupker, S. J., Perea, M., & Davis, C. J.
(2008) Transposed-letter effects: Consonants, vowels and letter frequency. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(1), 93–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Korean Language
(1999) Standard Korean language dictionary. Seoul, Korea: Doosan Dong-A.Google Scholar
New, B., Araújo, V., & Nazzi, T.
(2008) Differential processing of consonants and vowels in lexical access through reading. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1223–1227. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pae, H. K.
(2018) The Korean language, writing system Hangul, and word reading. In H. K. Pae (Ed.), Writing systems, reading processes, and cross-linguistic influences: Reflections from the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean languages. (pp. 1–21) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J.
(2004) Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of memory and language, 51(2), 231–246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stenneken, P., Conrad, M., & Jacobs, A. M.
(2007) Processing of syllables in production and recognition tasks. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 65–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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(2), 137–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljacbabic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E. D.
(1995) The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 124, 107–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Treiman, R., Fowler, C. A., Gross, J., Berch, D., & Weatherston, S.
(1995) Syllable structure or word structure? Evidence for onset and rime units with disyllabic and trisyllabic stimuli. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 132–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yi, K.
(1995) The internal structure of kulja and its relation to syllable in Korean. Korean Journal of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 7, 57–69Google Scholar
(1998) The internal structure of Korean syllables: Rhyme or body? Korean Journal of Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, 10, 67–83.Google Scholar
Yoon, Y. B., & Derwing, B. L.
(2001) A language without a rhyme: Syllable structure experiments in Korean. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique, 46(3–4), 187–237.Google Scholar