The influence of the matching of modality presentation mode and perceptual learning style on the bidialectal switching cost of Cantonese-Mandarin

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01059

Abstract

Abstract:

Proficient cantonese-mandarin bilinguals with different perceptual learning styles were compared on the performance of naming tasks in different channel presentation modes. In this study, the effects of perceived learning style and channel representation on the switching cost of skilled bilinguals were investigated. The results showed that the switching cost of visual cue was lower than that of auditory cue, and the switching cost of bilingualism was lower when the perceptual learning style matched the channel presentation. The results show that the fit between perceptual learning style and channel presentation can adjust the switching cost of bilingualism.

Key words: bidialectal, switching cost, modality presentation mode, perception learning style

XING Qiang, WU Xiao, WANG Jiawei, ZHANG Zhonglu. (2021). The influence of the matching of modality presentation mode and perceptual learning style on the bidialectal switching cost of Cantonese-Mandarin. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(10), 1059-1070.

Figures/Tables 9

References 23

[1]	Bonfieni M., Branigan H. P., Pickering M. J., & Sorace A. (2019). Language experience modulates bilingual language control: The effect of proficiency, age of acquisition, and exposure on language switching. Acta Psychologica, 193, 160-170. doi: S0001-6918(17)30590-5 pmid: 30640064
[2]	Chang X., Bai H., & Wang P. (2017). The influenced factors of bilinguals’ language switching costs. Advances in Psychological Science, 25(9), 1469-1478. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2017.01469 URL
[3]	Chen B. G., & Peng D. L. (2001). The time course of graphic, phonological and semantic information processing in Chinese character recognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 33(1), 1-6.
[4]	Costa A., & Santesteban M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and l2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(4), 491-511. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002 URL
[5]	Costa A., Santesteban M., & Ivanova I. (2006). How do highly proficient bilinguals control their lexicalization process? Inhibitory and language-specific selection mechanisms are both functional. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1057-1074. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1057 URL
[6]	Declerck M., Stephan D. N., Koch I., & Philipp A. M. (2015). The other modality: Auditory stimuli in language switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(6), 685-691. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2015.1026265 URL
[7]	Derakhshan A., & Shakki F. (2018). An investigation into the relationship between Iranian EFL high- and low-proficient learners and their learning styles. SAGE Open, 8, 2158244018809408.
[8]	Ding D. Q., & Luo Y. M. (2009). The effect of cognitive style and information' s presentation format on cognitive load. Psychological Exploration, 29(3), 37-40+68.
[9]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods*, 41, 1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL
[10]	Filippi R., Karaminis T., & Thomas M. S. C. (2014). Language switching in bilingual production: Empirical data and computational modelling. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 294-315. doi: 10.1017/S1366728913000485 URL
[11]	Guo A. P. (2004). The effect of audio processing on English vocabulary retention. Journal of Taiyuan University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 22(3), 80-82.
[12]	Hernandez A. E., & Kohnert K. J. (2015). Investigations into the locus of language-switching costs in older adult bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(1), 51-64. doi: 10.1017/S136672891300045X URL
[13]	Kinsella K. (1995). Perceptual learning preferences survey. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom (pp. 221e238). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
[14]	Leahy W., & Sweller J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943-951. doi: 10.1002/acp.v25.6 URL
[15]	Liu X. Y., He C. D., Chen J., & Deng Q. L. (2015). The bilingual cognitive control mechanism of highly proficient Cantonese-Mandarin speakers: Evidence from a dual-task switching paradigm. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(4), 439-454. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00439 URL
[16]	Liu Y. (2008). Error types and sequencing of Putonghua characters by Cantonese area: a quantitative analysis. Applied Linguistics, 66(2), 67-71.
[17]	Liu Y. (2014). An effect of perceptual learning style on the modality effect (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hebei University, China.
[18]	Mayer R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[19]	O'Brien L. (1989). Learning styles: Make the student aware. NASSP Bulletin, 73(519), 85-89.
[20]	Wang F. X., Xie H. P., & Li H. (2016). Visual text or narration? Meta-analysis of the modality effect in multimedia learning. Advances in Psychological Science, 24(3), 335-350. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2016.00335 URL
[21]	Zhang Q. F, Yang Y, F. (2003). The determiners of picture-naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 447-454.
[22]	Zhang J. J., & Wang Y. (2012). The proficient Chinese-English bilinguals’ mechanism of language switching in phrase level. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(2), 166-178. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.00166 URL
[23]	Zhang J. J., & Zhang F. L. (2010). The asymmetric effect of bilingualism and diglossia on picture naming and picture classification. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 42(4), 452-466. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2010.00452 URL

Channel presentation	Familiarity		Consistency
Channel presentation	M	SD	M	SD
Auditory Presentation	6.58	0.35	6.17	0.68
Visual presentation	6.63	0.42	6.32	0.46

Channel presentation	Familiarity		Consistency
Channel presentation	M	SD	M	SD
Auditory Presentation	6.58	0.35	6.17	0.68
Visual presentation	6.63	0.42	6.32	0.46

Language type	Task type	Auditory Presentation			Visual presentation
Language type	Task type	Accuracy Rate	Switching cost	Reaction Time	Switching cost	Accuracy Rate	Switching cost	Reaction Time	Switching cost
Cantonese	Repeat tasks	0.72 ± 0.10	-0.01	2503 ± 519	67	0.95 ± 0.06	-0.04	1383 ± 244	-3
Cantonese	Switching tasks	0.71 ± 0.12	-0.01	2570 ± 381	67	0.91 ± 0.08	-0.04	1380 ± 218	-3
Mandarin	Repeat tasks	0.73 ± 0.11	-0.04	2358 ± 304	126	0.96 ± 0.05	-0.05	1351 ± 258	-20
Mandarin	Switching tasks	0.69 ± 0.13	-0.04	2484 ± 351	126	0.91 ± 0.10	-0.05	1331 ± 249	-20

Language type	Task type	Auditory Presentation			Visual presentation
Language type	Task type	Accuracy Rate	Switching cost	Reaction Time	Switching cost	Accuracy Rate	Switching cost	Reaction Time	Switching cost
Cantonese	Repeat tasks	0.72 ± 0.10	-0.01	2503 ± 519	67	0.95 ± 0.06	-0.04	1383 ± 244	-3
Cantonese	Switching tasks	0.71 ± 0.12	-0.01	2570 ± 381	67	0.91 ± 0.08	-0.04	1380 ± 218	-3
Mandarin	Repeat tasks	0.73 ± 0.11	-0.04	2358 ± 304	126	0.96 ± 0.05	-0.05	1351 ± 258	-20
Mandarin	Switching tasks	0.69 ± 0.13	-0.04	2484 ± 351	126	0.91 ± 0.10	-0.05	1331 ± 249	-20

Perceptual learning style	Channel presentation	Cantonese			Mandarin
Perceptual learning style	Channel presentation	Repetitive tasks	Switching tasks	Switching cost	Repetitive tasks	Switching tasks	Switching cost
Auditory type	Auditory Presentation	2226 ± 205	2317 ± 292	91	2102 ± 228	2256 ± 301	154
Auditory type	Visual presentation	1287 ± 201	1336 ± 237	49	1271 ± 185	1293 ± 248	22
Visual type	Visual presentation	2542 ± 319	2561 ± 384	19	2466 ± 281	2493 ± 245	27
Visual type	Auditory Presentation	1158 ± 208	1157 ± 267	-1	1084 ± 203	1105 ± 214	21