听障大学生词汇识别过程的特异性：语言经验和阅读能力的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00954

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

听障者词汇识别过程是否表现出特异性一直是研究者关注的焦点问题, 然而当前观点并不一致。本研究采用语义相关性判断任务, 通过两个实验探讨语言经验和阅读能力对听障大学生词汇识别中字形、语音和手语表征激活的影响。实验1比较不同语言经验和阅读能力的听障大学生在形似干扰字、同音干扰字和无关干扰字条件下的表现, 实验2比较他们在手语相关和无关条件下的表现。实验1结果显示, 在正确率和反应时指标上, 不同语言经验和阅读能力的听障大学生表现出相似的字形干扰效应(与无关干扰字相比, 形似干扰字条件下正确率更低、反应时更长), 均未出现语音干扰效应。实验2结果显示, 在正确率指标上, 当控制听障大学生阅读能力时, 阅读能力高的手语组表现出显著的手语干扰效应(与无关条件相比, 手语相关条件下正确率更低), 阅读能力高的口语组未出现手语干扰效应。当控制听障大学生语言经验, 阅读能力高的手语组和阅读能力低的手语组表现出相似的手语干扰效应。综合两个实验的结果可以发现, 语言经验影响听障大学生的词汇表征, 阅读能力不影响听障大学生的词汇表征。在此基础上, 本研究尝试提出听障大学生中文词汇识别的认知加工模型。

关键词: 听障大学生, 书面词汇识别, 字形表征, 语音表征, 手语表征

Abstract:

Compared with hearing readers, orthographic information and phonological information may play different roles in the word recognition process for hearing-impaired readers. As a communication mode for hearing-impaired readers, sign language may also affect their word recognition process. A large number of studies have examined the activation of orthographic representation, phonological representation, and sign language representation during visual word recognition in hearing-impaired readers. Previous studies have found that hearing-impaired readers could activate stable orthographic representations, but there were inconsistent results in the activation of phonological representations, whereas studies on hearing-impaired readers who primarily use sign language have found that they can activate stable sign language representations. Hearing-impaired readers grow up in a complex language environment, which leads to great individual differences in language experience and reading ability. However, previous works have not clearly identified the effect of language experience and reading ability on the cognitive mechanism of reading in hearing-impaired readers. Continuous attention to this problem will help to provide a reference to guide reading instruction for hearing-impaired readers.
This study conducted two semantically related decision tasks to investigate the activation of orthographic, phonological, and sign language representations during Chinese visual word recognition in hearing-impaired college students. Orthographic and phonological representations play an important role in word recognition for hearing readers, but sign language representations are a phenomenon unique to deaf readers. In the current study we investigated the activation of orthographic and phonological representation in Experiment 1 and the activation of sign language representation in Experiment2. To investigate the effects of individual differences, according to their language experience and reading fluency, hearing-impaired college students were divided into deaf college students with oral language experience and higher reading ability (Skilled Oral Deaf, SOD), deaf college students with sign language experience but higher reading ability (Skilled Sign Deaf, SSD), and deaf college students with sign language experience and lower reading ability (Less-Skilled Sign Deaf, LSSD).
The results of Experiment 1 showed that (a) hearing students showed a stable orthographic interference effect, whereas the phonological interference effect was weak. (b) The SOD group and the SSD group showed similar performance. Both showed a stable orthographic interference effect but did not show a significant phonological interference effect. (c) The SSD group and the LSSD group showed similar performance. Both groups showed a stable orthographic interference effect but did not show a phonological interference effect. Experiment 2 found that (a) hearing students did not show a sign language interference effect. (b) The SOD group and the SSD group differed in performance. The SSD group exhibited a sign language interference effect, whereas this effect was absent in the SOD group. (c) The SSD group performed similarly to the LSSD group. Both groups showed a stable sign language interference effect. Taken together, the following conclusions were drawn from the two studies: (a) after controlling for reading ability, language experience affected Chinese lexical recognition in deaf college students; lexical representation of oral deaf college students was similar to that of hearing readers., orthographic representations were mainly activated; and the activation of phonological and sign language representations was weak. Deaf college students who used sign language developed a unique cognitive mechanism, and they activated stable orthographic and sign language representations during visual word recognition. (b) After controlling for language experience, reading ability did not affect lexical representation during Chinese word recognition in hearing-impaired college students. (c) Based on the results of this study, combined with the representation and processing models of Chinese word recognition, we attempted to construct a cognitive model of Chinese word recognition for hearing-impaired college readers.

Key words: hearing-impaired college students, visual word recognition, orthographic representation, phonological representation, sign language representation

中图分类号:

B842
B844

兰泽波, 郭梅华, 姜琨, 吴俊杰, 闫国利. (2023). 听障大学生词汇识别过程的特异性：语言经验和阅读能力的影响. 心理学报, 55(6), 954-967.

LAN Zebo, GUO Meihua, JIANG Kun, WU Junjie, YAN Guoli. (2023). The distinctness of visual word recognition in hearing-impaired college readers: The effects of language experience and reading ability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(6), 954-967.

图/表 12

参考文献 46

[1]	Bai X. J., & Yan G. L. (2017). Psychology of reading. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.
	[白学军, 闫国利. (2017). 阅读心理学. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.]
[2]	Bates D., Kliegl R., Vasishth S., & Baayen H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1506. 04967.
[3]	Bélanger N. N., Baum S. R., & Mayberry R. I. (2012). Reading difficulties in adult deaf readers of French: Phonological codes, not guilty! Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(3), 263-285. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.568555 URL
[4]	Bélanger N. N., Mayberry R. I., & Rayner K. (2013). Orthographic and phonological preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(11), 2237-2252. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.780085 URL
[5]	Blythe H. I., Dickins J. H., Kennedy C. R., & Liversedge S. P. (2018). Phonological processing during silent reading in teenagers who are deaf/hard of hearing: An eye movement investigation. Developmental Science, 21(5), e12643.
[6]	Cai Q., & Brysbaert M. (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE, 5(6), Article e10729.
[7]	Cardin V., Orfanidou E., Rönnberg J., Capek C. M., Rudner M., & Woll B. (2013). Dissociating cognitive and sensory neural plasticity in human superior temporal cortex. Nature Communications, 4(1), 1473.
[8]	Chen C. Y., Liu Z. F., Su Y. Q., & Cheng Y. H. (2018). The prediction effects for skill and less-skill deaf readers in Chinese reading: Evidence from eye movement. Psychological Development and Education, 34(6), 692-699.
	[陈朝阳, 刘志方, 苏永强, 程亚华. (2018). 高低阅读技能聋生词汇加工的语境预测性效应特点: 眼动证据. 心理发展与教育, 34(6), 692-699.]
[9]	Cheng Y. H., & Wu X. C. (2018). Reading fluency of first-graders predicted reading comprehension of second- and third-graders. Psychological Development and Education, 34(3), 314-321.
	[程亚华, 伍新春. (2018). 小学一年级阅读流畅性对二、三年级阅读理解的预测. 心理发展与教育, 34(3), 314-321.]
[10]	Coltheart M., Rastle K., Perry C., Langdon R., & Ziegler J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204-256. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204 pmid: 11212628
[11]	Dehaene S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The new science of how we read. New York: Penguin.
[12]	Elliott E. A., Braun M., Kuhlmann M., & Jacobs A. M. (2012). A dual-route cascaded model of reading by deaf adults: Evidence for grapheme to viseme conversion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(2), 227-243. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr047 pmid: 22159409
[13]	Emmorey K., & Lee B. (2021). The neurocognitive basis of skilled reading in prelingually and profoundly deaf adults. Language and Linguistics Compass, 15(2), e12407.
[14]	Fariña N., Duñabeitia J. A., & Carreiras M. (2017). Phonological and orthographic coding in deaf skilled readers. Cognition, 168, 27-33. doi: S0010-0277(17)30177-4 pmid: 28646750
[15]	Feng M., Han Y., & Guo Q. (2017). An experimental study of the activation of sign language in hearing-impaired persons' Chinese characters recognition. Chinese Journal of Special Education, (11), 25-31.
	[冯敏, 韩媛, 郭强. (2017). 聋生汉语词汇识别过程中手语激活的实验研究. 中国特殊教育, (11), 25-31.]
[16]	Friesen D. C., & Joanisse M. F. (2012). Homophone effects in deaf readers: Evidence from lexical decision. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 375-388. doi: 10.1007/s11145-010-9275-6 URL
[17]	Hermans D., Knoors H., Ormel E., & Verhoeven L. (2008). Modeling reading vocabulary learning in deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(2), 155-174. pmid: 18048369
[18]	Hirshorn E. A., Dye M. W. G., Hauser P. C., Supalla T. R., & Bavelier D. (2014). Neural networks mediating sentence reading in the deaf. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 394. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00394 pmid: 24959127
[19]	Koo D., Crain K., LaSasso C., & Eden G. F. (2008). Phonological awareness and short-term memory in hearing and deaf individuals of different communication backgrounds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1145(1), 83-99.
[20]	Kubus O., Villwock A., Morford J. P., & Rathmann C. (2014). Word recognition in deaf readers: Cross-language activation of German Sign Language and German. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(4), 831-854. doi: 10.1017/S0142716413000520 URL
[21]	Lan Z. B., Liang X. W., Wang Z. G., Jiang K., Meng Z., & Yan G. L. (2020). Phonological processing during sentence reading in deaf college students: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(4), 997-1003.
	[兰泽波, 梁晓伟, 王正光, 姜琨, 孟珠, 闫国利. (2020). 听障大学生句子阅读中语音加工的眼动研究. 心理科学, 43(4), 997-1003.]
[22]	Lan Z. B., Lin M., Song Z. M., Meng Z., Jiang K., & Yan G. L. (2022). Phonological activation during reading in deaf college students: Evidence from the tongue-twister effect. Journal of Psychological Science, 45(2), 491-497.
	[兰泽波, 林梅, 宋子明, 孟珠, 姜琨, 闫国利. (2022). 听障大学生阅读中的语音激活:来自绕口令效应的证据. 心理科学, 45(2), 491-497.]
[23]	Lederberg A. R., Schick B., & Spencer P. E. (2012). Language and literacy development of deaf and hard-of-hearing children: Successes and challenges. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 15-30. doi: 10.1037/a0029558 URL
[24]	Li D., Hu K. D., Chen G. P., Jin Y., & Li M. (1988). Test report of Raven's Progressive Matrices (CRT) of Shanghai city. Journal of Psychological Science, (4), 29-33.
	[李丹, 胡克定, 陈国鹏, 金瑜, 李眉. (1988). 瑞文测验联合型(CRT)上海市区试测报告. 心理科学通讯, (4), 29-33.]
[25]	Li P., Zhang F., Yu A., & Zhao X. (2020). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 938-944. doi: 10.1017/S1366728918001153 URL
[26]	Li X., Huang L., Yao P., & Hyönä J. (2022). Universal and specific reading mechanisms across different writing systems. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 133-144. doi: 10.1038/s44159-022-00022-6
[27]	Marian V., Blumenfeld H. K., & Kaushanskaya M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940-967.
[28]	Mayberry R. I., del Giudice A. A., & Lieberman A. M. (2011). Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164-188. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enq049 pmid: 21071623
[29]	Morey R. D., Rouder J. N., Jamil T., Urbanek S., Forner K., & Ly A. (2018). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. Version 0.9.12. from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor
[30]	Morford J. P., Kroll J. F., Piñar P., & Wilkinson E. (2014). Bilingual word recognition in deaf and hearing signers: Effects of proficiency and language dominance on cross- language activation. Second Language Research, 30(2), 251-271. doi: 10.1177/0267658313503467 pmid: 32982006
[31]	Morford J. P., Occhino-Kehoe C., Piñar P., Wilkinson E., & Kroll J. F. (2017). The time course of cross-language activation in deaf ASL-English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 337-350. doi: 10.1017/S136672891500067X URL
[32]	Morford J. P., Wilkinson E., Villwock A., Piñar P., & Kroll J. F. (2011). When deaf signers read English: Do written words activate their sign translations? Cognition, 118(2), 286-292. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.006 pmid: 21145047
[33]	Ormel E. (2008). Visual word recognition in bilingual deaf children (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.
[34]	Ormel E., & Giezen M. (2014). Bimodal bilingual cross- language interaction:Pieces of the puzzle. In M. Marschark, G. Tang, & H. Knoors (Eds.), Bilingualism and bilingual deaf education (pp. 74-101). Oxford University Press.
[35]	Ormel E., Hermans D., Knoors H., & Verhoeven L. (2012). Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(2), 288-303. doi: 10.1017/S1366728911000319 URL
[36]	Pavani F., & Bottari D. (2012). Visual abilities in individuals with profound deafness:A critical review. In Murray, M. M., & Wallace, M. T. (Ed.), The neural bases of multisensory processes (pp. 421-445). CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
[37]	Perfetti C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357-383. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530730 URL
[38]	Ren G. Q., Han Y. C., & Yu Z. (2012). The activation of orthography and phonology during Chinese sentence reading: Evidence from eye movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(4), 427-434.
	[任桂琴, 韩玉昌, 于泽. (2012). 句子语境中汉语词汇形、音作用的眼动研究. 心理学报, 44(4), 427-434.]
[39]	Sterne A., & Goswami U. (2000). Phonological awareness of syllables, rhymes, and phonemes in deaf children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 41(5), 609-625.
[40]	Thierfelder P., Wigglesworth G., & Tang G. (2020a). Sign phonological parameters modulate parafoveal preview effects in deaf readers. Cognition, 201, 104286. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104286 URL
[41]	Thierfelder P., Wigglesworth G., & Tang G. (2020b). Orthographic and phonological activation in Hong Kong deaf readers: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(12), 2217-2235. doi: 10.1177/1747021820940223 URL
[42]	Traxler C. B. (2000). The Stanford Achievement Test: National norming and performance standards for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5(4), 337-348. pmid: 15454499
[43]	Villwock A., Wilkinson E., Piñar P., & Morford J. P. (2021). Language development in deaf bilinguals: Deaf middle school students co-activate written English and American sign language during lexical processing. Cognition, 211, 104642. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104642 URL
[44]	Xu Y., Pollatsek A., & Potter M. C. (1999). The activation of phonology during silent Chinese word reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(4), 838-857.
[45]	Yao P., Staub A., & Li X. (2022). Predictability eliminates neighborhood effects during Chinese sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(1), 243-252. doi: 10.3758/s13423-021-01966-1
[46]	Zhou X. L. (1997). The limitation of the phonology in semantic activation. In Peng, D. L., Shu, H., & Chen, H. -C. (Eds.), Cognitive Research on Chinese Language. Jinan, China: Shandong Education Press.
	[周晓林. (1997). 语义激活中语音的有限作用. 见:彭聃龄, 舒华, 陈烜之 (编). 汉语认知研究. 济南: 山东教育出版社..]

变量	SOD组(n = 24)	SSD组(n = 24)	LSSD组(n = 16)	F
年龄	22.34 (0.30)	22.76 (0.26)	22.38 (0.35)	0.66
口语使用比例	0.77 (0.03)	0.17 (0.02)	0.10 (0.03)	182.90^***
手语使用比例	0.23 (0.03)	0.83 (0.02)	0.90 (0.03)	182.90^***
口语水平	0.66 (0.03)	0.31 (0.03)	0.14 (0.05)	58.90^***
手语水平	0.50 (0.05)	0.71 (0.03)	0.64 (0.03)	9.90^***
智力(IQ)	114.48 (2.37)	112.19 (2.78)	111.16 (4.07)	0.32
阅读流畅性(字/分)	462.65 (22.41)	449.25 (19.32)	262.50 (12.14)	26.53^***
听力损失程度(dB)	94.10 (2.83)	101.46 (2.57)	106.44 (3.21)	4.48^*
听障时间	1.16 (0.21)	1.04 (0.17)	0.84 (0.26)	0.52

变量	SOD组(n = 24)	SSD组(n = 24)	LSSD组(n = 16)	F
年龄	22.34 (0.30)	22.76 (0.26)	22.38 (0.35)	0.66
口语使用比例	0.77 (0.03)	0.17 (0.02)	0.10 (0.03)	182.90^***
手语使用比例	0.23 (0.03)	0.83 (0.02)	0.90 (0.03)	182.90^***
口语水平	0.66 (0.03)	0.31 (0.03)	0.14 (0.05)	58.90^***
手语水平	0.50 (0.05)	0.71 (0.03)	0.64 (0.03)	9.90^***
智力(IQ)	114.48 (2.37)	112.19 (2.78)	111.16 (4.07)	0.32
阅读流畅性(字/分)	462.65 (22.41)	449.25 (19.32)	262.50 (12.14)	26.53^***
听力损失程度(dB)	94.10 (2.83)	101.46 (2.57)	106.44 (3.21)	4.48^*
听障时间	1.16 (0.21)	1.04 (0.17)	0.84 (0.26)	0.52

变量	线索词	目标字	形似干扰字	同音干扰字	无关干扰字
示例	舒展	伸	坤	深	娴
词频/字频^a	96.80 (59.1)	21.20 (11)	21.20 (4.45)	16.50 (3.61)	15.10 (2.13)
笔画数	17.10 (0.51)	10 (0.30)	9.96 (0.30)	9.50 (0.25)	9.73 (0.21)
字形相似性	-	-	4.04 (0.04)	1.21 (0.02)	1.18 (0.02)

变量	线索词	目标字	形似干扰字	同音干扰字	无关干扰字
示例	舒展	伸	坤	深	娴
词频/字频^a	96.80 (59.1)	21.20 (11)	21.20 (4.45)	16.50 (3.61)	15.10 (2.13)
笔画数	17.10 (0.51)	10 (0.30)	9.96 (0.30)	9.50 (0.25)	9.73 (0.21)
字形相似性	-	-	4.04 (0.04)	1.21 (0.02)	1.18 (0.02)

干扰字类型	Hearing		SOD		SSD		LSSD
干扰字类型	正确率	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率	反应时
形似干扰字	0.81 (0.01)	717 (8)	0.76 (0.02)	754 (9)	0.73 (0.02)	776 (11)	0.72 (0.02)	756 (14)
同音干扰字	0.90 (0.01)	694 (8)	0.90 (0.01)	739 (9)	0.89 (0.01)	740 (10)	0.84 (0.02)	728 (13)
无关干扰字	0.94 (0.01)	689 (7)	0.93 (0.01)	721 (9)	0.90 (0.01)	736 (9)	0.87 (0.02)	704 (10)