4.5 Article

Familiarity ratings for 24,325 simplified Chinese words

Journal

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
Volume 55, Issue 3, Pages 1496-1509

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01878-5

Keywords

Chinese; Familiarity; Lexical decision; Psycholinguistic norms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study collected familiarity norms for a large number of two, three, and four-character Chinese words and investigated the contribution of familiarity to Chinese lexical processing. The results showed that familiarity had a greater effect on low-frequency words.
The present work collected familiarity norms for 20,275 two-character, 1231 three-character, and 2819 four-character simplified Chinese words from 1300 native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. The familiarity of each word was rated on a 7-point scale by at least 21 participants. The results supported the reliability and validity of the present familiarity ratings, which is the first large familiarity database for Chinese in the field. These familiarity norms can be downloaded from the supplemental materials. Furthermore, the contribution of familiarity to Chinese lexical processing was investigated using the present familiarity ratings and previous data (lexical features and visual lexical decision), mainly from two major Chinese lexicon projects, MELD-SCH and CLP. Regression analysis suggests that familiarity explained a substantial percentage of the variance in lexical processing of both simplified and traditional Chinese words, over and above the effects of word frequency and other lexical features, including age of acquisition (AoA). Further analysis identified a significantly greater familiarity effect for lower-frequency words than that for higher-frequency words. Together, among the first, our findings support the important contribution of familiarity with Chinese words to lexical processing, especially for low-frequency words.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available