The effect of levels of processing on recognition of Chinese characters by non-native readers Introduction Recently, the number of non-native speakers

learning Mandarin has soared (Mandarin learning soars, 2007). However, little research exists on how Chinese characters are remembered by nonnative speakers. Substantial research does exist on how levels of processing influence memory. One important theory is that deep processing produces better recall and recognition than shallow processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972). Processing orthographic features of words, e.g. font, is described as shallow. Semantic processing is regarded as deep. Craik and Tulving state that even simple semantic processing benefits more than extensive structural analysis (Craik & Tulving, 1975). Morris et al. (1977) showed that a relatively shallow processing task (deciding if words rhyme) was more effective than a semantic task, when rhyming retrieval was required. However, both Lockhart (2002) and Craik (2002) pointed out that the most effective combination for recognition in the above study was semantic coding with semantic retrieval. Craik & Tulvings orthographic tasks are simple, e.g. deciding if words are printed in capital letters, whereas semantic analysis in the experiments is complex, for example, deciding whether words fit into sentences. Chinese characters provide opportunities for complex orthographic tasks due to their visual complexity (Schmidt, Pan & Tavassoli, 1994). By using Chinese characters we can compare complex orthographic tasks with semantically simple tasks and investigate whether simple semantic analysis really benefits more than complex visual analysis. Craik & Tulving (1975) show experiments using known English words to native speakers of English. Another difference between the present study and that of Craik and Tulving is that we are presenting new vocabulary to non-native speakers of a language. In addition, Chinese may well be processed in different areas of the brain to English due to its structural differences (Schmidt, Pan & Tavassoli, 1994), so this experiment presents an opportunity to find out whether Craik & Tulvings hypothesis is supported under different conditions. The hypothesis for this experiment is that simple semantic processing will produce better recognition of Chinese characters than complex orthographic processing. The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in recognition between the two conditions.

Method Design A repeated measures design was adopted. The independent variable was processing depth, with the orthographic task being shallow and the semantic task being deep. The dependent variable was the number of characters correctly recognised. Participants

16 participants took part in the study. Participants were recruited from work colleagues and the UDo website. They completed tasks in the form of an internet survey. Overall figures for age and sex of participants was unknown as some completed the survey anonymously. Materials Ten Chinese characters were chosen based on complexity and meaning. The complexity of a Chinese character can be measured by number of pen-strokes required for writing (Schmidt, Pan & Tavassoli, 1994). Four-stroke characters were chosen as having an appropriate difficulty level. Characters with concrete meanings (e.g. fire, moon) were chosen so participants could find associated words easily. An online questionnaire was created. Example pages are in the appendix. Procedure In part one, participants were shown characters. They were asked either to describe them orthographically in as much detail as possible, or write up to five associations with the meaning of the character. Participants were not informed that they would be tested on their recognition of the characters until part two, when they were given meanings and asked to select the correct character from a choice of four. This is so that incidental learning was tested. Craik & Lockhart (1972) point out that under incidental learning conditions, the researcher has a control over the processing which he does not have if learning is intentional. Results The number of items correctly recognised was higher for the visual task than for the semantic, supporting the null hypothesis. Mean number correct 4.375 4.0 Standard Deviation 0.71880 0.36515

Visual task Semantic task

In fact, there was a large effect size opposite to the direction expected (d=-0.99). Data was nonparametric (kurtosis for semantic questions = 7.5, outliers present). A Wilcoxons T-test showed that the effect in the opposite direction was not significant (Wilcoxons T(N=10)=14, p=0.145, two-tailed). Conclusion The study did not support the hypothesis that a simple semantic task produces better recognition than a complex orthographic task. This may have been due to the recognition task, or to the experimental design. Recognition involved being given the (English) meaning and choosing the correct character from four options, so it was a visual task. Participants could also have been tested by being given characters and asked for the meaning. However, the experiment was limited to one DV. There were several ways the study could have been more tightly controlled. Timing relied on asking the user to take no more than 15 minutes overall. Using timed questions would increase reliability, however the free version of the survey software did not offer this option.

Using multiple choice questions in the recognition phase was not ideal, as there was no way to control for the amount of guesswork participants had done. It would be possible to increase the validity of the test by adding a dont know option to the choices, and subtracting a percentage of the number of incorrect answers to account for guesswork. The overall difficulty level of the task was too easy some participants scored full marks in both categories. It would have been useful to introduce a delay between the processing questions and the memory test. The number of questions, and the difficulty of the characters, could have been increased.