Tongue Twister Effect of Chinese Reading in Deaf College Students: The Influence of Oral Experience and Reading Ability

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.01.004

Abstract

Abstract:

It is a hot issue in the field of deaf reading whether they activate phonological information in reading. This study used eye-tracking technology, and selected tongue twister sentences as materials to investigate the effects of oral experience and reading ability on phonological activation during Chinese sentence reading in deaf college students. The results showed that the tongue twister effects of the deaf students with more oral experience and higher reading ability (OHRH) were greater than that of the deaf students with less oral experience and higher reading ability (OLRH). The tongue twister effects of OLRH deaf students were greater than that of the deaf students with less oral experience and lower reading ability (OLRL). The local analyses of eye movement measures showed that the tongue twister effects of the OHRH and OLRH deaf students were observed in the early and late measures, while the tongue twister effects of the OLRL deaf students were only observed in the late measures. These results suggest that oral experience and reading ability affect phonological activation during sentence reading in deaf college students.

Key words: deaf college students, tongue twister effects, phonological activation, oral experience, reading ability

摘要：

听障者阅读时是否激活语音信息是听障者阅读研究领域的热点问题之一。本研究使用眼动技术，采用绕口令材料，考察口语经验和阅读能力对听障大学生汉语阅读中语音激活的影响。结果发现，口语经验较多且阅读能力较高(OHRH)的听障大学生的绕口令效应大于口语经验较少但阅读能力较高(OLRH)的听障大学生，OLRH组的绕口令效应大于口语经验较少且阅读能力较低(OLRL)的听障大学生。局部指标分析发现OHRH和OLRH组在早期和晚期指标上均存在绕口令效应，OLRL组只在晚期指标上才出现绕口令效应。结果表明，口语经验和阅读能力影响听障大学生汉语阅读中的语音激活。

关键词: 听障大学生, 绕口令效应, 语音激活, 口语经验, 阅读能力

CLC Number:

B842

Zebo LAN, Ziming SONG, Kun JIANG, Guoli YAN. Tongue Twister Effect of Chinese Reading in Deaf College Students: The Influence of Oral Experience and Reading Ability[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(1): 20-27.

兰泽波, 宋子明, 姜琨, 闫国利. 听障大学生汉语阅读中的绕口令效应：口语经验和阅读能力的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 20-27.

Figures/Tables 6

References

	程亚华, 伍新春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, 2018, 34 (3): 314- 321.
	兰泽波, 梁晓伟, 王正光, 姜琨, 孟珠, 闫国利听障大学生句子阅读中语音加工的眼动研究. 心理科学, 2020, 43 (4): 997- 1003.
	兰泽波, 林梅, 宋子明, 孟珠, 姜琨, 闫国利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, 2022, 45 (2): 491- 497.
	李丹, 胡克定, 陈国鹏, 金瑜, 李眉瑞文测验联合型(CRT)上海市区试测报告. 心理科学通讯, 1988, (4): 29- 33.
	王克瑞, 杜丽华. (2012). 播音员主持人训练手册: 绕口令. 北京: 中国广播电视出版社.
	王志强, 王雁. (2016). 语音与字形在高频汉字识别中的作用——基于听障大学生与健听大学生的比较研究. 中国特殊教育, (11), 26–31, 43.
	闫国利, 兰泽波, 孟珠, 王影超, 王正光听障者语音编码的研究范式述评. 心理科学, 2019, 42 (2): 500- 505.
	闫国利, 宋子明, 刘璐, 孟珠绕口令效应对汉语阅读影响的眼动研究. 心理科学, 2017, 40 (2): 290- 295.
	昝飞, 谭和平聋生汉字识别的同音判断与启动效应实验研究. 心理科学, 2005, 28 (5): 1089- 1095.
	张喜燕. (2014). 绕口令小辞典. 北京: 商务印书馆国际有限公司.
	Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from arXiv:1506.04967v2
	Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 2014, 67 (1): 1- 48.
	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.
	Bélanger, N. N., Mayberry, R. I., & Rayner, K. Orthographic and phonological preview benefits: Parafoveal processing in skilled and less-skilled deaf readers. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2013, 66 (11): 2237- 2252. DOI
	Blythe, H. I., Dickins, J. H., Kennedy, C. R., & Liversedge, S. P. Phonological processing during silent reading in teenagers who are deaf/hard of hearing: An eye movement investigation. Developmental Science, 2018, 21 (5): e12643. DOI
	Elliott, E. A., Braun, M., Kuhlmann, M., & Jacobs, A. M. A dual-route cascaded model of reading by deaf adults: Evidence for grapheme to viseme conversion. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2012, 17 (2): 227- 243. DOI
	Fariña, N., Duñabeitia, J. A., & Carreiras, M. Phonological and orthographic coding in deaf skilled readers. Cognition, 2017, 168, 27- 33. DOI
	Friesen, D. C., & Joanisse, M. F. Homophone effects in deaf readers: Evidence from lexical decision. Reading and Writing, 2012, 25 (2): 375- 388. DOI
	Hanson, V. L., Goodell, E. W., & Perfetti C. A. Tongue-twister effects in the silent reading of hearing and deaf college students. Journal of Memory and Language, 1991, 30 (3): 319- 330. DOI
	Harris, M., & Moreno, C. Speech reading and learning to read: A comparison of 8-year-old profoundly deaf children with good and poor reading ability. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2006, 11 (2): 189- 201.
	Harris, M., Terlektsi, E., & Kyle, F. E. Concurrent and longitudinal predictors of reading for deaf and hearing children in primary school. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2017, 22 (2): 233- 242. DOI
	Hermans, D., Knoors, H., Ormel, E., & Verhoeven, L. Modeling reading vocabulary learning in deaf children in bilingual education programs. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2008, 13 (2): 155- 174. DOI
	Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 2017, 82 (13): 1- 26.
	Kyle, F. E. (2015). Research methods in studying reading and literacy development in deaf children who sign. In E. Orfanidou, B. Woll, & G. Morgan (Eds.), Research methods in sign language studies: A practical guide (pp. 300–318). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
	Li, D. G., & Lin, K. DHH students’ phoneme repetition awareness in sentence reading. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2020, 25 (4): 505- 516. DOI
	Li, P., Zhang, F., Yu, A. Y., & Zhao, X. W. Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2020, 23 (5): 938- 944. DOI
	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.
	McCutchen, D., & Perfetti, C. A. The visual tongue-twister effect: Phonological activation in silent reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1982, 21 (6): 672- 687. DOI
	Meteyard, L., & Davies, R. A. I. Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. Journal of Memory and Language, 2020, 112, 104092. DOI
	Morey, R. D., Rouder, J. N., & Jamil, X. (2015). BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. Version 0.9.12. Retrieved December 1, 2021, from http://bayesfactorpcl.r-forge.r-project.org
	Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. Cross-language effects in written word recognition: The case of bilingual deaf children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2012, 15 (2): 288- 303. DOI
	Perfetti, C. A., & Sandak, R. Reading optimally builds on spoken language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2000, 5 (1): 32- 50. DOI
	Thierfelder, P., Wigglesworth, G., & Tang, G. Orthographic and phonological activation in Hong Kong deaf readers: An eye-tracking study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2020, 73 (12): 2217- 2235. DOI
	Transler, C., & Reitsma, P. Phonological coding in reading of deaf children: Pseudohomophone effects in lexical decision. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2005, 23 (4): 525- 542. DOI
	Yan, G. L., Lan, Z. B., Meng, Z., Wang, Y. C., & Benson, V. Phonological coding during sentence reading in Chinese deaf readers: An eye-tracking study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2021, 25 (4): 287- 303. DOI
	Yao, P. P., Staub, A. & Li, X. S. Predictability eliminates neighborhood effects during Chinese sentence reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2022, 29 (2): 243- 252.
	Zhang, S., & Perfetti, C. A. (1993). The tongue-twister effect in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1082–1093.
	Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Lété, B., & Grainger, J. Orthographic and phonological contributions to reading development: Tracking developmental trajectories using masked priming. Developmental Psychology, 2014, 50 (4): 1026- 1036. DOI

人口学变量	OHRH(n=25)	OLRH(n=24)	OLRL(n=14)	F
年龄(岁)	22.34(0.28)	22.91(0.25)	22.34(0.37)	1.34
口语使用比例	0.75(0.03)	0.19(0.02)	0.10(0.04)	148.30***
手语使用比例	0.25(0.03)	0.81(0.02)	0.90(0.04)	148.30***
口语水平	0.64(0.03)	0.32(0.03)	0.14(0.05)	51.66***
手语水平	0.49(0.04)	0.72(0.02)	0.63(0.03)	12.60***
智力(IQ)	113.00(2.53)	111.79(2.92)	112.75(4.39)	0.05
阅读流畅性(字/分钟)	453.40(20.87)	444.53(19.91)	264.05(13.88)	21.76***
听力损失程度(dB)	95.64(3.04)	102.29(2.61)	107.36(3.61)	3.40*
听障时间(岁)	1.18(0.22)	1.02(0.17)	0.82(0.29)	0.59

人口学变量	OHRH(n=25)	OLRH(n=24)	OLRL(n=14)	F
年龄(岁)	22.34(0.28)	22.91(0.25)	22.34(0.37)	1.34
口语使用比例	0.75(0.03)	0.19(0.02)	0.10(0.04)	148.30***
手语使用比例	0.25(0.03)	0.81(0.02)	0.90(0.04)	148.30***
口语水平	0.64(0.03)	0.32(0.03)	0.14(0.05)	51.66***
手语水平	0.49(0.04)	0.72(0.02)	0.63(0.03)	12.60***
智力(IQ)	113.00(2.53)	111.79(2.92)	112.75(4.39)	0.05
阅读流畅性(字/分钟)	453.40(20.87)	444.53(19.91)	264.05(13.88)	21.76***
听力损失程度(dB)	95.64(3.04)	102.29(2.61)	107.36(3.61)	3.40*
听障时间(岁)	1.18(0.22)	1.02(0.17)	0.82(0.29)	0.59

句子类型	示例
绕口令	史老师时常讲时事而石老师时常读报纸。
控制句	王老师经常讲政治而何老师经常读报纸。

句子类型	示例
绕口令	史老师时常讲时事而石老师时常读报纸。
控制句	王老师经常讲政治而何老师经常读报纸。

眼动指标	OHRH		OLRH		OLRL
眼动指标	正常句	绕口令	正常句	绕口令	正常句	绕口令
阅读速度(字/分钟)	189(3)	160(3)	196(4)	168(4)	160(4)	148(4)
平均注视时间(ms)	243(1)	248(1)	262(2)	269(2)	247(2)	251(1)
注视次数(次)	30.80(0.65)	35.97(0.79)	27.72(0.58)	31.59(0.66)	35.63(1.04)	38.00(1.10)
回视次数(次)	9.25(0.25)	11.01(0.29)	8.60(0.25)	9.78(0.28)	12.30(0.44)	12.91(0.46)