ENGL3051 Language and the Mind
P S Y C H O L I N G U I S T I C R E S E A R C H P R E S E N T A T I O N
20513015 Boxi Ding 20513271 Yiwen Cao
UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM 04/01/2026
01 Introduction
02 Study: Methods
03 Results
04 Discussion & Conclusions
01 Part I
I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W
01 / 04
01 Introduction
Task
Lexical Decision Task (LDT)
01
Participants decide whether a stimulus is a real word
Response time and accuracy reflect lexical processing
Why LDT?
LDT is sensitive to:
Orthography Phonology
02 Semantics Decision processes
Ideal for testing “how word-like a stimulus appears” (Harley, 2014)
01 Introduction
Semantic information in Conclusion from
lexical recognition previous work
• Semantically related stimuli are processed • Lexical decisions are not simple word lookups.
faster. (Harley, 2014) • They reflect the accumulation of orthographic
and semantic evidence.
• Even nonwords that are semantically similar
to real words:
Are harder to reject
Produce longer response times
(Hendrix & Sun, 2021)
01 Introduction
Properties of Chinese Character-level
High visual complexity processing
Opaque form–sound mapping Radicals and submorphemic
No spaces between words units influence character
(Reichle & Yu, 2018) recognition. (Taft & Zhu, 1997)
Why is
Chinese
Word-level processing special? Implication
Semantic activation occurs at Chinese strongly support a
least as early as phonology. direct route from orthography
(Zhou & Marslen-Wilson, 2000) to meaning.
01 Introduction
Semantic transparency Research Question
A • Whether word meaning can be derived
from its characters (Chen et al., 2025).
• Transparent words are easier to process
• Opaque words are harder to process
B Does semantic relatedness between two
characters affect the acceptability of Chinese
pseudo-words in a Lexical Decision Task?
Hypotheses
• Semantically related real words will be
C judged more accurately and faster
• Semantically unrelated pseudo-words will
be judged more accurately and faster
Key Concept / Research Question / Hypothesis
02 Part II
P A R T I C I P A N T S M A T E R I A L S A N D P R O C E D U R E
Chinese version of the Lexical Decision Task (LDT)
02 / 04
02 Study: Methods
Material
• 50 two-character Chinese stimuli:
25 real words, 25 pseudo-words
• Semantic manipulation:
Real words: 14 related, 11 unrelated;
e.g., 霪雨 (霪yín = drizzle, 雨yǔ = rain) long period of rain
金汤 (金jīn = gold, 汤tāng = soup) a city as well-defended and secure.
Pseudo-words: 13 related, 12 unrelated
e.g., 驰迅 (驰chí = dash, 迅xùn = rapid);
铃锚 (铃líng = bell, 锚máo = anchor; similar radical but unrelated meaning)
• Semantically related = semantically transparent (Tsang, Zou, & Tse, 2022)
Semantically unrelated = semantically opaque
02 Study: Methods
Procedure
• One stimulus per trial; stimuli presented in
random order
• Task: judge whether the item was a real word
or a pseudo-word
• Response time and accuracy recorded
Participant
s
• 8 native Chinese speakers
• Similar educational background
• Voluntary participation
03 Part III
D A T A P R E S E N T A T I O N
03 / 04
03 Results
CORRECT REAL WORDS INCORRECT REAL WORDS
Overall Accuracy
Average accuracy across 8 participants:
semantically
semantically related 59.75%
unrelated
semantically
related About 30 out of 50 stimuli were correctly
semantically
unrelated identified on average.
Correct Responses
CORRECT PSEUDO WORDS INCORRECT PSEUDO WORDS
Real words:
19 correctly identified, 63.33% of all
semantically correct responses
semantically unrelated
related 36% semantically
semantically Pseudo-words:
related
unrelated 64%
11 correctly identified, 36.67% of all
correct responses
03 Results
1.57s
1.6 1.41s
Response Time
1.32s
1.4
1.19s RR: Real–Related
1.2
RU: Real–Unrelated
1 PR: Pseudo–Related
Pseudo–Unrelated
0.8
For real words, semantically related items were
0.6
responded to faster than semantically
0.4 unrelated items.
For pseudo-words, semantically unrelated
0.2
items were responded to more slowly than
0 semantically related items.
RR RT RU RT PR RT PU RT
Average Response Time
04 Part IV
C O N C L U S I O N A N D S U M M A R Y O F T H E R E S E A R C H
04 / 04
04 Discussion & Conclusion
Accuracy
01 Real words
• Semantically related (transparent) real words were more likely to be judged as real.
a transparent semantic structure facilitates word recognition
02 Pseudo-words
• Semantically unrelated pseudo-words were more likely to be judged as pseudo-words.
semantically unrelated words do not conform to the common word formation
habits.
04 Discussion & Conclusion
Accuracy The accuracy results are consistent with our hypothesis
03 Overall pattern
• Participants were more accurate for real words than for pseudo-words.
• This suggests that real lexical forms are easier to access than non-lexical forms.
04 Interpretation
• Chinese readers rely not only on stored lexical knowledge. They also use character-
level semantics when judging word-likeness.
04 Discussion & Conclusion
Response Time
Real Words: Pseudo Words
A C
• Semantically related items were responded • Semantically related pseudo-words
to faster than semantically unrelated items. were often responded to faster than
• This matches the semantic facilitation effect unrelated ones.
(Chen et al., 2025). • This does not fully match our prediction.
Possible Explanation
Interpretation
B D
Semantic relatedness may make pseudo-
When the meanings of the two
words easier to process as a whole, even
characters are consistent, lexical access
though they are not real words.
is faster.
04 Discussion & Conclusion
Conclusion
• Chinese readers rely not only on stored lexical knowledge
• They also use the meanings of individual characters when deciding whether a word is real
Limitation Overall Findings
Stimuli were not strictly controlled for:
• A Chinese Lexical Decision Task was
• Word frequency
used to test the effect of semantic
• Character frequency
relatedness
• Familiarity
Semantic relatedness:
Classification of semantic transparency
• Facilitated recognition of real words
involved some subjectivity
• Interfered with correct rejection of
These factors may have blurred differences
pseudo-words
between conditions
Chen, M., Wang, L., Liu, S., & Liu, D. (2025). The role of format familiarity and semantic transparency in Chinese
reading: evidence from eye movements. BMC Psychology, 13(1). [Link]
Harley, T. A. (2014). The psychology of language : from data to theory / Trevor A. Harley. (4th edition). Psychology
Press.
Hendrix, P., & Sun, C. C. (2021). A Word or Two About Nonwords: Frequency, Semantic Neighborhood Density, and
Orthography-to-Semantics Consistency Effects for Nonwords in the Lexical Decision Task. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(1), 157–183. [Link]
Reichle, E. D., & Yu, L. (2018). Models of Chinese Reading: Review and Analysis. Cognitive Science, 42(S4),
1154–1165. [Link]
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. (1997). Submorphemic Processing in Reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(3), 761–775. [Link]
Tsang, Y.-K., Zou, Y., & Tse, C.-Y. (2022). Semantic Transparency in Chinese Compound Word Processing: Evidence
from Mismatch Negativity. Neuroscience, 490, 216–223. [Link]
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). The relative time course of semantic and phonological activation in reading
Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1245.
[Link]