The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Original Article

Early event‐related potentials differences in orthographic processing of native and non‐native Chinese readers

Yen Na Yum

Corresponding Author

E-mail address: yyum@eduhk.hk

Department of Special Education and Counseling, The Education University of Hong Kong, , Hongkong

Center for Brain and Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, , Hongkong

Address for correspondence: Yen Na Yum, Department of Special Education and Counseling, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong. E‐mail:

yyum@eduhk.hk

Search for more papers by this author
Sam‐Po Law

Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, , Hongkong

Search for more papers by this author
Cheuk Fung Lee

Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, , Hongkong

Search for more papers by this author
Mark Shiu Kee Shum

Division of Chinese Language and Literature, The University of Hong Kong, , Hongkong

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 15 May 2017

Abstract

Efficient Chinese character reading requires rapid access to orthographic representations of radical form and position. This study identified the temporal sequence of radical form, radical position and lexicality processing in adult first language (L1) and intermediate second language (L2) Chinese readers. Event‐related potential responses in a one‐back repetition detection task were submitted to linear mixed‐effects models. Violation of radical position produced P100 effects that were left‐lateralized for L1 readers and right‐lateralized for L2 readers. When controlling for P100 activation, radical position produced a left‐lateralized effect at the N170 for L2 readers but no additional activities for L1 readers. Radical form effects were found at the N270 for L1 readers, where radical form violation produced larger N270. Results suggested that radical representations are position‐specific in initial orthographic processing for both groups. However, different temporal dynamics and topographic distributions suggested divergent radical processing for native versus non‐native readers from the beginning.