[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]--外文翻譯--對(duì)外漢語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者通過(guò)語(yǔ)義和語(yǔ)音進(jìn)行漢字解碼的新興發(fā)展（節(jié)選）

1、1358單詞， 單詞，7800英文字符 英文字符,2044字出處： 出處：Williams C. Emerging development of semantic and phonological routes to character decoding in Chinese as a foreign language learners[J]. Reading and Writing, 2013, 26(2):293-315.Eme

2、rging development of semantic and phonological routes to character decoding in Chinese as a foreign language learnersClay WilliamsReading in ChineseProcessing Chinese: a dual route modelThe Chinese character system lend

3、s itself well to the study of reading processes. As Chinese employs a complex set of characters—each representing both a meaningand a sound—this both suggests that reading in Chinese would require a different set of pr

4、ocesses than when reading alphabetic (or phonetically transcribed) languages, and also presents interesting opportunities for the further study of general reading models. A general agreement exists among most theorists

5、 that at least two processes are involved in reading (e.g., Coltheart, 1978): reading via the semantic representation of the word, and via a non-lexical procedure of grapheme- phoneme conversion (Bi, Han, Weekes, and

6、 semantic priming studies, as well as studies with deep dyslexic subjects (who produce semantic substitutions in reading) suggest a semantic route to access as well. The Chinese character system offers a unique opport

7、unity to study effects of this semantic route which are more difficult to manipulate in most alphabetically- transcribed languages. Simply put, alphabets predispose readers towards phono- logical routes of access, as

8、they form the basis of the script. In alphabetic languages such as English, semantic and orthographic correlation is usually quite random (e.g., light, bright, and sight seem to overlap both semantically and orthograph

9、ically, but night, tight, and right have no immediately-intuitive connection). In alphabetic scripts, the semantic route is theorized to recognize words mostly based upon shape (both phonological shape and orthographi

10、c shape) (Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, Smith, 1969; both cited in Akamatsu, 2005). developed a fully functional phonological route. This was explained as the subjects being dependent upon the densely-packed stro

11、ke information inherent in many phonetic components for recognition purposes. Additionally, one could also hypothesize that English L1 subjects, being used to phonological routes of recognition in their L1, are indeed

12、 defaulting to phonological routes of recognition, therefore explaining the sizeable delay when the phonetic component was blurred, but were stymied by their lack of ability to successfully employ the phonological rou

13、te to character recognition, and thus fell back to either semantic or orthographic strategies. In essence, this hypothesis would state that the subjects are defaulting to a (highly fallible) phonological route, often e

14、ncountering an “error” message in processing, and then proceeding to alternate strategies. The author is sympathetic to the idea that L1 reading strategies are having an effect on L2 reading in this instance; however,

15、 given the differences between simplified and traditional script that were found in the post hoc testing, the results are more readily explained by assuming that the subjects were using the phonological radical more fo

16、r orthographic properties than for phonological ones.Thus we begin to see a picture of the CFL learner—who is crippled by overreliance on a reading strategy that he/she doesn’t have full control over. The learner has m

17、astered semantic processing skills, but this seems to be employed as a secondary measure. Phonological processing strategies are still too weak to be of substantial use in reading tasks; however phonological radical pr

18、ocessing still seems to be the dominant means of character identification—likely for its orthographic properties. The degree to which L1 biases toward reading processing strategies affected the results is an interesti

19、ng question in its own right. It would be of interest to conduct similar studies on native Chinese-speaking child literacy learners to see if a similar effect would be found, or if they initially orient themselves towa

20、rds semantic processing strategy dominance. Lin, McBride-Chang, Aram, and Levin (2011) have indicated that maternal mediation of semantic and morphological character information tends to positively impact children’s c

21、haracter reading and writing abilities, which would seem to indicate that there is cultural preference, at least, for literacy training to mostly pertain to explicit instruction of semantic/ morphological features. By

22、 extension, we could hypothesize that Chinese children would be less inclined towards “overreliance” on phonological processing strategies than these L2 subjects, and thus, the results of this study may be indicative o

23、f an L2 effect. In any case, it would probably prove highly beneficial to CFL learners to have targeted instruction on semantic processing strategies to help them more consciously employ this strategy while their phon