The perception of simplified and traditional Chinese characters in the eye of simplified and traditional Chinese readers Tianyin Liu ([email protected]) Janet Hui-wen Hsiao ([email protected]) Department of Psychology, University of Hong Kong 604 Knowles Building, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR Abstract components and have better ability to ignore some unimportant configural information for recognition, such as Expertise in Chinese character recognition is marked by analytic/reduced holistic processing (Hsiao & Cottrell, 2009), exact distances between features (Ge, Wang, McCleery, & which depends mainly on readers’ writing rather than reading Lee, 2006) compared with novices (Ho, Ng, & Ng., 2003; experience (Tso, Au, & Hsiao, 2011). Here we examined Hsiao & Cottrell, 2009). Consequently, expert readers may whether simplified and traditional Chinese readers process process Chinese characters less holistically than novices. characters differently in terms of holistic processing. When There are currently two Chinese writing systems in use processing characters that are distinctive in the simplified and in Chinese speaking regions, namely simplified and traditional scripts, we found that simplified Chinese readers were more analytic than traditional Chinese readers in traditional Chinese. The simplified script was created during perceiving simplified characters; this effect depended on their the writing reform initiated by the central government of the writing rather than reading/copying performance. In contrast, People’s Republic of China in the 1960s for easing the the two groups did not differ in holistic processing of learning process. Today the majority of Chinese speaking traditional characters, regardless of their performance regions including Mainland China, Singapore, and Malaysia difference in writing/reading traditional characters. When use the simplified script, while Hong Kong and Taiwan processing characters that are shared in the two scripts, continue to use the traditional script. The simplification simplified Chinese readers were also more analytic than traditional Chinese readers. These results suggest that process did not apply to all characters; among the most simplified Chinese readers may have developed better frequently used 3,500 characters, around 40% were analytic processing skills than traditional Chinese readers simplified, which have approximately 22.5% fewer strokes from experiences with simplified characters, and these skills than the traditional counterparts (Gao & Kao, 2002); the are transferrable to the processing of shared and even remaining 60% remained the same in two scripts. traditional characters. The effects of simplifying the script have aroused some discussion since last decade. For instance, while simplified Keywords: Chinese character recognition, holistic processing, reading, writing characters were designed to ease the learning process, many researchers (e.g., Chen, 1999) believe that pure reduction of Introduction strokes without standardization of principles may make the characters harder to learn: on one hand, reducing the stroke Chinese characters are the basic writing units in Chinese numbers may make the characters more legible and easier to orthography. They consist of strokes packed into a square write for beginners; on the other hand, up to a certain point, configuration, in contrast to words in most alphabetic characters may become less distinguishable due to high languages, which are linear combinations of letters. It has visual similarity among one another as readers’ lexicon size been suggested that Chinese characters have many visual expands (Chen, 1999). Consistent with this speculation, similarities with faces (McCleery et. al., 2008). For example, McBride-Chang et al. (2005) recently found that visual both faces and Chinese characters have a homogenous skills of children who learned simplified characters were shape, are recognized at the individual level, and learnt in an significantly better than those of Hong Kong children who upright orientation. However, expertise in face recognition learned the traditional script. Peng, Winett, and Wang’s is marked by holistic processing, that is, to perceive features (2010) ERP data were also consistent with the finding that of an object as a whole instead of various parts (Gauthier & simplified character readers have greater visual Tanaka, 2002); in contrast, expertise in recognizing Chinese discrimination skills than traditional character readers in characters is marked by reduced holistic processing (Hsiao perceiving Chinese characters. & Cottrell, 2009). This effect may be due to expert Chinese Thus, it is possible that the simplification has significantly readers’ knowledge about Chinese orthography. Chinese increased visual similarity among characters in the Chinese characters are composed of strokes, which combine to form lexicon. Simplified characters may differ from one another over a thousand different stroke patterns in Chinese in fewer strokes than traditional characters. As the ability to orthography (Hsiao & Shillcock, 2006), and stroke patterns identify these diagnostic features is important for are the smallest functional units in Chinese character recognition (e.g., Oliva & Schyns, 1997), reading simplified recognition (Chen, Allport, & Marshall, 1996). For expert characters may involve more analytic/reduced holistic Chinese readers, when recognizing Chinese characters, they processing than reading traditional characters. Here we aim may be more sensitive to the internal constituent 689 to examine whether native traditional and simplified Chinese before 1 . Both groups had similar education Chinese readers process Chinese characters differently due background (average years of education, Mainland = 15.46, to the differences in their scripts. We first examine their SE = .37; Hong Kong = 15.38, SE = .44) and similar age perception of characters in either the simplified or the (Mainland average = 22.25, SE = .65; Hong Kong average = traditional form; we predict that simplified Chinese readers 22.42, SE = .81). All of them had normal or corrected-to- will perceive simplified characters less holistically than normal vision and were right-handed as measured by the traditional readers due to their expertise with the simplified Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971). script, and vice versa in the perception of traditional characters. In addition to the characters that have different Holistic processing visual forms in the two scripts, around 60% of the most The complete composite paradigm was used to examine frequently used characters have the same form in the two holistic processing effects (Gauthier & Bukach, 2007). The scripts, and these shared characters provide us a unique experiment procedure was adopted from Hsiao and Cottrell opportunity to test the transfer effect of reading (2009; Fig. 1). In each trial, participants were presented with simplified/traditional characters. Because both reader a pair of Chinese characters simultaneously, and told to groups are experts in reading shared characters, if the two attend to only half of each character and judge whether they groups differ in they way they perceive/process the shared were the same or different. In congruent trials, the attended characters, it will suggest a transfer effect from their and irrelevant halves of the characters led to the same experience with the simplified or traditional scripts. response (i.e., both were the same or different); in Tso, Hsiao, and Au (2011) recently examined how writing incongruent trials, they led to different responses. The level experience influences holistic processing in Chinese of holistic processing was assessed by the performance character recognition. They recruited proficient Chinese difference between the congruent and incongruent trials. readers who were skilled in both reading and writing (Writers), and those who had limited writing experience Materials The materials consisted of 480 pairs of low to regardless of their proficient reading ability (Limited- medium frequency (Kwan, 2001) Chinese characters in Writers). They found that Writers perceived Chinese Ming font, divided equally into three script types: 160 pairs characters less holistically than Limited-Writers, and were simplified characters; 160 pairs were the holistic processing effect was dependent on writing rather corresponding traditional version of the simplified than reading performance. Although simplified Chinese characters, i.e., having same meanings and pronunciations readers may still be able to read traditional characters and differing in orthography; the remaining 160 pairs were through their similarity with simplified characters or context characters shared between the two scripts (i.e., shared information, they generally do not know how to write them characters). Characters of different script types were (and vice versa for traditional Chinese readers). Thus, matched in relative character frequency, and the traditional similar to Limited-Writers, they may perceive characters in characters were significantly more complex than the their unfamiliar script more holistically, and this effect may simplified ones (t(159) = 6.17, p < .01). In each script type, depend on their writing rather than reading performance. To half of the characters had a top-bottom (TB) configuration, verify this hypothesis, we also measure participants’ reading and the other half were left-right (LR) structured2, and two and writing performance in the two scripts