View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Phonological and Orthographic Processing during Second Language Handwritten Production of Chinese-English Bilinguals

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Phonological and Orthographic Processing during Second Language Handwritten Production of Chinese-English Bilinguals
Language: English
Authors: Yueyue Liu, Yating Bai, Ruiming Wang, Shuting Huang, Tianyu Zhang, Xin Zhang, Wenguang He
Source: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2026 39(6):2267-2294.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 28
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Phonology, Orthographic Symbols, Language Processing, Second Language Learning, Handwriting, Written Language, Chinese, English, Bilingualism, Perceptual Motor Coordination, Language Proficiency, Interference (Learning), Native Language
DOI: 10.1007/s11145-025-10706-z
ISSN: 0922-4777
1573-0905
Abstract: Handwritten production is a complex perceptual-motor process that involves phases of cognitive coding and motor execution. Two core questions in handwritten production concern elucidating the phonological role during orthographic access in the former phase and the effects of linguistic processes on the latter phase. While existing research has investigated these mechanisms in native language (L1), significant gaps persist regarding their operation in the second language (L2), as well as the potential influence of L1 handwriting experience and the modulating role of L2 proficiency on these processes. Here, we conducted three experiments with the picture-word interference paradigm, in which 44 proficient (Experiment 1) and 43 non-proficient Chinese-English bilinguals (Experiment 2), who had learned English as L2, as well as 38 native English speakers (Experiment 3), were required to write down the English names of pictures while attempting to ignore the written distractor word. The distractor word was either orthographically highly related (near-bear), phonologically highly related (chair-bear), or unrelated (cloud-bear) to the picture name (e.g., bear). The response times for the cognitive coding phase and the whole response duration for the motor execution phase were recorded. The conjoint analysis indicated that the differences observed across the experiments were marginally significant. The overall results suggested that in the cognitive coding phase, the activation of orthography was earlier than that of phonology for both proficient and non-proficient bilinguals, which might be dissimilar to the pattern of native English speakers, whose orthography and phonology were activated simultaneously, potentially supporting the influence of L1 handwriting experience on L2 orthographic access. In the motor execution phase, phonological and orthographic processes might be modulated by L2 proficiency: for proficient bilinguals, phonological and orthographic processes were terminated before motor execution, similar to native English speakers, supporting the serial model, whereas for non-proficient bilinguals, linguistic processes could spread into the motor execution, tending to a unique cascade pattern. The results are discussed from the perspective of the assimilation and accommodation hypothesis of L2 processing, as well as the dynamic relationship between the classic models of handwritten production.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 20260101
Accession Number: EJ1511751
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHH5X83TN4GsYRSIT6K0VLoAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDpoZ8clYZf6BXu2AwIBEICBm3A4qgsEVtoaxFLKbmH2rrAvaymzLuM5xxO2h8hLskECHUHWQKdzNPTZeMDNBexWnZdMfEkk66DJWIvKY7-EK2fn24kmuysrzSVxr6iMNIsQ6cdpbl-pFHWFr7XkkW5OZ-gm33JCmqHZFI9MMG7ecKCrv1NG6GzUWruYsmsjNspZbzoydmx1pQw61nVPfJ6FbMDjGVLZRFd8ccvb
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0194394388;2ap01jun.26;2026Jun10.03:05;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0194394388-1">Phonological and orthographic processing during second language handwritten production of Chinese–English bilinguals </title> <p>Handwritten production is a complex perceptual-motor process that involves phases of cognitive coding and motor execution. Two core questions in handwritten production concern elucidating the phonological role during orthographic access in the former phase and the effects of linguistic processes on the latter phase. While existing research has investigated these mechanisms in native language (L1), significant gaps persist regarding their operation in the second language (L2), as well as the potential influence of L1 handwriting experience and the modulating role of L2 proficiency on these processes. Here, we conducted three experiments with the picture-word interference paradigm, in which 44 proficient (Experiment 1) and 43 non-proficient Chinese–English bilinguals (Experiment 2), who had learned English as L2, as well as 38 native English speakers (Experiment 3), were required to write down the English names of pictures while attempting to ignore the written distractor word. The distractor word was either orthographically highly related (near-bear), phonologically highly related (chair-bear), or unrelated (cloud-bear) to the picture name (e.g., bear). The response times for the cognitive coding phase and the whole response duration for the motor execution phase were recorded. The conjoint analysis indicated that the differences observed across the experiments were marginally significant. The overall results suggested that in the cognitive coding phase, the activation of orthography was earlier than that of phonology for both proficient and non-proficient bilinguals, which might be dissimilar to the pattern of native English speakers, whose orthography and phonology were activated simultaneously, potentially supporting the influence of L1 handwriting experience on L2 orthographic access. In the motor execution phase, phonological and orthographic processes might be modulated by L2 proficiency: for proficient bilinguals, phonological and orthographic processes were terminated before motor execution, similar to native English speakers, supporting the serial model, whereas for non-proficient bilinguals, linguistic processes could spread into the motor execution, tending to a unique cascade pattern. The results are discussed from the perspective of the assimilation and accommodation hypothesis of L2 processing, as well as the dynamic relationship between the classic models of handwritten production.</p> <p>Keywords: L2 handwritten production; Phonology; Orthography; Picture-word interference paradigm; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology Cognitive Sciences Language; Communication and Culture Linguistics</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-2">Introduction</hd> <p>It is well-documented that handwritten production is a complex perceptual-motor process involving two phases of central cognitive coding and peripheral motor execution (Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]; Hulstijn & van Galen, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>]). The former refers to the phase during which the orthographic representation is accessed from semantics, generally measured by response times (RTs, the first pen press necessary to initiate writing a stimulus). The latter refers to the phase in which the writing behavior is implemented, usually measured by the whole response duration (WRD, the time taken to write a word, from the first to the last pen press), the inter-letter intervals (ILIs, the time the pen is lifted between two consecutive letters), and writing speed (Afonso et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]; Damian & Stadthagen-Gonzalez, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref4">17</reflink>]; Kandel et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref5">29</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref6">59</reflink>]). Over recent decades, a vast amount of research has focused on two theoretical questions in the field of written production: Does phonological mediation occur during the retrieval of orthographic representation in the cognitive coding phase (Bonin et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]; Damian & Qu, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]; Qu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref9">47</reflink>])? Does linguistic information in the phase of cognitive coding affect writing motor execution (Cerni & Job, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]; Lambert & Quémart, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>])?</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-3">The two theoretical questions in L1 handwritten production</hd> <p>A heated debate has centered on whether a phonological mediator is necessary for semantic access to orthographic representations. According to the <emph>phonological mediation hypothesis</emph>, individuals retrieve phonological codes of the target words necessarily before the orthographic codes. That is, orthographic activation is later than phonological activation (Bonin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]; Damian et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]; Qu et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref14">46</reflink>]). Conversely, the <emph>orthographic autonomy hypothesis</emph> assumes that writers can directly access orthographic representation from semantics without phonological mediation. In other words, orthography can be activated either before (Bonin et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]) or concurrently with phonology (Miceli et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref16">36</reflink>]). Both hypotheses have received empirical support from research using the classical picture-word interference (PWI) paradigm, which includes two essential variables: types of distractor words and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). Zhang and Damian ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref17">62</reflink>]) applied the PWI to investigate whether phonology influences orthographic access during native English handwriting. The relationship between the distractor words and the picture name (e.g., <emph>bear</emph>) included orthographically and phonologically related (OP) (<emph>swear-bear</emph>), orthographically related only (O) (<emph>year-bear</emph>), and unrelated. As there is no phonologically related only (P) condition, the P effect was inferred by comparing the OP effect with the O effect. Results found that the onset of phonological effect (SOA = 0 ms) preceded the orthographic effect (SOA = 100 ms), thus supporting the phonological mediation hypothesis predicted. With the same paradigm, Qu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref18">47</reflink>]) examined the role of phonology in orthographic access during native Chinese handwriting. The relationship between the distractor words and the picture name (e.g., "樱桃"/ying1tao2/) included orthographically and phonologically related (OP) (缨子/ying1zi/-樱桃), phonologically related only (P) (英俊/ying1jun4/-樱桃), and unrelated. Similarly, as there is no orthographically related only (O) condition, the O effect was inferred by comparing the OP effect with the P effect. Results showed that the phonological effect (SOA = 0 ms) appeared earlier than the orthographic effect (SOA = 100 ms), consistent with the phonological mediation hypothesis. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that there are two potential limitations in the above studies: On the one hand, neither included a negative SOA. They both concluded with phonological mediation based on the findings at the SOA of 0 ms. Could orthographic effects occur exclusively at a negative SOA? When SOA is negative, the presentation of the distractor word precedes that of the target picture, in which case the former has more time to complete its activation and may more easily influence the processing of the subsequently presented target pictures. This influence acts like a priming effect, helping subjects prepare for their subsequent responses (Glaser & Glaser, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref19">24</reflink>]; Neely, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref20">38</reflink>]; Posner & Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref21">45</reflink>]). Compared to positive SOA, negative SOA demonstrates several advantages: First, it can capture critical time windows of phonological and orthographic processes, which unfold rapidly during handwritten production. Negative SOA ensures that the interference coincides with these transient stages, whereas positive SOA risks missing this window, limiting its sensitivity to early effects (Zhang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref22">63</reflink>]). Second, it can minimize strategic compensation. When the distractor word appears after the target (positive SOA), participants may employ top-down strategies (e.g., inhibitory control) to suppress the distractor's influence. In contrast, negative SOA introduces interference before the target is fully processed, eliciting more automatic and less strategically modulated competition (Damian & Stadthagen-Gonzalez, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>]; Glaser & Düngelhoff, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref24">25</reflink>]; Lupker, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>]; Schriefers et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref26">50</reflink>]; Taylor, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref27">56</reflink>]). This enhances ecological validity, as natural handwritten production rarely allows deliberate suppression of competing words. Last, according to the viewpoint that lexical access in object naming involves the activation of a set of lexical candidates (Levelt et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]), negative SOA may simulate natural language dynamics. By pre-activating competing representations, it perhaps mimics the inherent competition in orthographic access, providing a more ecologically valid framework for phonological and orthographic processing during handwritten production. On the other hand, neither of these two studies included orthographically related (O) nor phonologically related (P) conditions for their types of distractor words simultaneously, leading to the P effect or O effect being inferred by comparing the OP effect with the O effect in Zhang and Damian ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref29">62</reflink>]), or OP effect with the P effect in Qu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref30">47</reflink>]), respectively, which may have an impact on their conclusions (Zhang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref31">63</reflink>]). Subsequently, Zhang and Wang ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref32">63</reflink>]) applied the PWI to examine the phonological role during orthographic access of Chinese handwriting. To avoid the above limitations, they modified the PWI by including a negative SOA (− 100 ms), as well as the distractor words of the O-related (呱/gua1/-狐) and the P-related (壶/hu2/-狐) to the picture name (e.g., "狐"/hu2/). It was found that the orthographic effect appeared earlier (SOA = − 100 ms) than the phonological one (SOA = 100 ms), which suggested that semantics indeed access the orthographic representation directly in Chinese writing, supporting the orthographic autonomy hypothesis. However, it is worth noting that the studies mentioned above concentrated only on phonological and orthographic processing during the cognitive coding phase without further examining these processes during the motor execution phase, which, to some extent, limits a comprehensive understanding of the complete process during handwritten production. So, how phonology and orthography process in the motor execution phase is still a question that remains unsolved.</p> <p>Regarding the second question concerning the effects of linguistic information on motor execution, the <emph>serial model</emph> proposes that linguistic processes engaged in formulating orthographic representation are fully completed before the initiation of motor execution and do not affect the latter. This theoretical framework maintains that such linguistic processes, having resolved during the cognitive coding phase, exert no influence on the subsequent motor execution phase, which gains support from research findings that linguistic processes only affect RTs but do not affect the WRD. For example, Damian and Stadthagen-Gonzalez ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>]) used an implicit priming paradigm to investigate the influence of phonological similarity on the processes of handwritten production. It was found that phonology only affected RTs but not WRD. This finding was also confirmed in a study conducted by Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref34">59</reflink>]) using a dictation task. None of these studies found the effect of linguistic information on writing motor execution, suggesting that the linguistic processes are completed before writing motor execution. That is to say, writing motor execution is separated from earlier linguistic processes, which is consistent with the serial model. On the contrary, the <emph>cascade model</emph> assumes that linguistic processes can extend into the motor execution phase as they remain active (Cerni & Job, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>]; van Galen, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref36">58</reflink>]). For instance, Delattre et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref37">18</reflink>]) investigated the influence of word frequency and orthographic regularity on the processes of written production with a dictation task. The results showed that word irregularity slowed down RTs and prolonged the WRD for low-frequency words. Recently, Planton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref38">44</reflink>]) examined the effects of orthographic consistency and word length on the writing process with the same task. Results found that the effect of orthographic consistency on RT and writing speed depended on the position of the inconsistent letters within the word. These studies found the influence of linguistic information on writing motor execution, thus supporting the cascade model. In summary, much research has investigated the influence of linguistic information on writing motor execution; however, the conclusions drawn are often inconsistent. This inconsistency may arise from the fact that different types of linguistic information may exhibit varying patterns, particularly across different paradigms such as dictation and implicit priming. Therefore, whether phonological and orthographic processing in the cognitive coding phase influences motor execution during handwriting is still an open question that needs to be explored. In the present study, to be consistent with the first question, we applied the PWI to investigate the influence of phonological and orthographic processing on motor execution. Compared to dictation and implicit priming paradigms, the PWI offers several advantages in investigating handwritten production: First, the PWI paradigm demonstrates higher ecological validity, allowing for more direct observation of interference effects during handwritten production. This is because naming pictures more closely resembles natural handwriting processes, while the dictation task may engage more passive linguistic processing, and implicit priming paradigms often activate unconscious cognitive mechanisms. Second, the PWI paradigm enables superior experimental control over critical variables, such as the specific relationships between distractor words and the name of the target picture (e.g., phonological or orthographic relationships). This precision facilitates targeted investigations of distinct processing stages in handwritten production. Finally, the PWI paradigm offers greater temporal sensitivity and experimental design flexibility. Researchers can systematically manipulate the SOA to measure real-time interference effects and dissociate the influence of different processing stages. In contrast, the dictation paradigm provides less precise temporal resolution, while implicit priming may rely on delayed priming effects that complicate time-sensitive analyses. This combination of ecological relevance, methodological precision, and temporal adaptability positions the PWI paradigm as a robust tool for studying the cognitive architecture of handwritten production.</p> <p>Previous studies predominantly explored the two aforementioned questions with the native language (L1), but critical gaps persist in understanding phonological and orthographic processes during L2 handwritten production. This knowledge gap becomes especially evident when comparing language pairs with different writing systems, such as Chinese and English. The Chinese writing system exhibits distinctive features that fundamentally differentiate it from alphabetic orthographies, with notable distinctions emerging across four key dimensions: logographic representation, structural complexity through strokes and radicals, heightened visuospatial processing demands, and non-systematic phonological-orthographic correspondence. As a logographic system, Chinese characters primarily function as semantic units where individual graphemes typically correspond to morphemes or lexical items. This contrasts with phonemic encoding in alphabetic systems, enabling Chinese characters to visually encapsulate complex conceptual meanings through their graphic configurations (Tan & Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref39">53</reflink>]). The system's structural complexity arises from two interrelated components: basic strokes (fundamental writing units) and radicals (semantic/phonetic components). Character formation requires precise execution of stroke sequence and strict adherence to proportional spatial arrangements among components, necessitating advanced visuospatial analysis and motor planning for mastery (Pei et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref41">51</reflink>]). Phonological ambiguity presents an additional challenge due to extensive homophony in Mandarin Chinese. Statistical analyses reveal that each spoken syllable corresponds to an average of 11 distinct characters with divergent meanings, creating substantial mapping uncertainty between phonological representations and their written counterparts (Tan & Perfetti, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref42">53</reflink>]). This phonological opacity distinguishes Chinese character acquisition from the relatively transparent grapheme–phoneme relationships in alphabetic writing systems. For Chinese–English bilinguals, given that their L2 has significant discrepancies in the structure of the orthographic system with L1, on the one hand, the different representations between their two languages may lead to variations in the sequence of phonological and orthographic activation during L2 writing compared to L1; On the other hand, the later acquired L2 written production may be influenced by L1 writing experience. However, current findings from previous research on native Chinese and English handwritten production are insufficient to elucidate the relationship between the two languages. It is worth noting that Perfetti et al. ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref43">42</reflink>]) proposed the <emph>assimilation and accommodation hypothesis</emph> of the L2 processing based on how the brain comes to support the acquisition of a new writing system. The <emph>assimilation hypothesis</emph> assumes that bilinguals adopt L1 strategies to process L2, which shows similar neural patterns of L2 processing to those of L1. In contrast, the <emph>accommodation hypothesis</emph> postulates that bilinguals apply L2 strategies to process L2, showing similar neural patterns of L2 processing to those of L2 as the native language. For Chinese–English bilinguals, would they adopt L1 assimilation or L2 accommodation mechanism to process phonological and orthographic information during their L2 handwritten production? To address this question, we need to determine the processing mechanism involved in handwritten production for native Chinese and English writers. Previous research has supported the orthographic autonomy view, which suggests that orthographic activation predates phonological activation in native Chinese handwriting (Zhang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref44">63</reflink>]). However, we still do not know what pattern native English writers would exhibit under the 'pure' O and P distractor conditions, as well as during negative SOAs. In addition, previous research on L2 spoken production has suggested that proficient bilinguals tend to apply the L2 accommodation mechanism while non-proficient ones adopt the L1 assimilation mechanism during their L2 processing (Nakayama et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]). Given that written production shares high levels of cognitive processing (e.g., concept retrieval, lexical access) with spoken production (Bonin & Fayol, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref46">6</reflink>]; Bonin et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref47">5</reflink>]; Brownsett & Wise, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]; Perret & Laganaro, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref49">43</reflink>]; Qu et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref50">48</reflink>]), the logical next step is to investigate whether—and if so, how—L2 proficiency in Chinese–English bilinguals modulates the processing mechanism involved in L2 handwritten production. To take a further step, does the processing mechanism of phonology and orthography develop with L2 proficiency? Would proficient bilinguals behave more like native English speakers than non-proficient ones?</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-4">The present study</hd> <p>Based on previous research, this study investigated the phonological and orthographic processing during L2 handwritten production of Chinese–English bilinguals. Three questions were focused on: (a) What is the phonological role during L2 orthographic access in the cognitive coding phase? (b) Does L2 phonological and orthographic processing influence the motor execution phase? (c) Are the findings of the above two questions modulated by L1 handwriting experience or L2 proficiency?</p> <p>Two specific hypotheses were proposed. First, the role that L2 phonology plays in orthographic access during the cognitive coding phase was examined. Studies with fMRI have indicated that the neural networks involved in phonological processing for Chinese–English bilinguals are quite similar for both L1 and L2, with a preference for L1 assimilation mechanisms in processing L2 phonology (Gao & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]; Tan et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref52">54</reflink>]). Therefore, we expected an orthographic autonomous pathway in L2 handwriting, similar to that in L1. In other words, for Chinese–English bilinguals, their L2 orthographic access would be influenced by native Chinese handwriting experience. Second, the effects of phonology and orthography on the motor execution phase were explored. According to Olive ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>]), the parallel activation of linguistic processes in the cognitive coding phase can be realized only when the writing motor execution releases sufficient cognitive resources. Based on the view that L2 proficiency is an essential factor affecting the cognitive resources in language processing (Costa & Santesteban, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref54">14</reflink>]; Fan et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref55">21</reflink>]; Ye et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref56">61</reflink>]), we predicted that for proficient bilinguals, their linguistic processes could be activated during the phase of motor execution, as their motor execution requires less working resources, which would be consistent with the cascade model; however, for non-proficient bilinguals, their linguistic processes could not be activated during the phase of motor execution, as their motor execution costs more working resources, which would be in line with the serial model. Note, however, that our prediction that automatized motor execution frees up cognitive resources only follows if the two languages (e.g., Chinese and English) have relatively different handwritten realizations; otherwise, it should not be the case for languages that use the same script (motor execution would presumably be automatized even for L2 non-proficient participants).</p> <p>This article presents a comprehensive investigation of phonological and orthographic processing in Chinese–English bilinguals' L2 handwritten production. The research comprises three experiments with the PWI paradigm. Experiment 1 examined L2 phonological and orthographic processing among proficient bilinguals. Experiment 2 investigated the same question with non-proficient bilinguals. We hypothesized that L2 proficiency did not affect the phonology and orthography processes in the cognitive coding phase, but could modulate their processing in the motor execution phase. We speculated that for proficient and non-proficient bilinguals, their L2 phonological and orthographic processing in the cognitive coding phase might be influenced by their L1 handwriting experience. To prove this inference, we first need to know the processing patterns of phonology and orthography between native Chinese and English speakers, respectively. Previous studies have confirmed the processing patterns of native Chinese speakers; however, the research design for native English speakers had some limitations. To address this, we conducted Experiment 3 within our experimental framework, focusing on native English speakers to facilitate cross-group comparisons.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-5">Experiment 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194394388-6">Participants</hd> <p>We used G*Power software (version 3.1.9) to calculate the sample size. According to a 5 (SOA: − 200 ms, − 100 ms, 0 ms, 100 ms, and 200 ms) × 3 (Distractor Type: orthographically highly related, phonologically highly related, and unrelated) within-subjects design, we set the significance level α = 0.05 and the medium effect size <emph>f</emph> = 0.25. The analysis indicated that at least twenty-four participants were necessary to achieve a power (1 − β) of 0.8. To enhance the statistical reliability, forty-five proficient Chinese–English bilingual students (22 males and 23 females, age <emph>M</emph> = 20.64, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.69) majoring in English who had passed TEM-4 (Test for English Majors Band 4) were paid to participate in the study. TEM-4 is a test designed specifically for English major students. Only students majoring in English at colleges and universities in China are eligible to take part in this exam. It consisted of six parts: dictation, listening comprehension, integration testing, reading comprehension, essay writing, and oral test. Since the TEM-4 was challenging, those who passed the TEM-4 were considered highly proficient in English. All participants were native Chinese speakers who learned English as their L2. Their average age of acquisition (AoA) for English was 8.75 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.44). They were right-handed and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Each of them signed a written informed consent form before participating in the study. The experiment was approved by the ethical committee of the local authority.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-7">Materials and design</hd> <p>Ideally, to investigate the effects of phonology or orthography, the selected word pairs of the picture name and the distractor word should differ in spelling or sound, respectively. However, given that phonological and orthographic codes for English as an alphabetic language are closely interrelated, it was not possible to separate its phonology from orthography completely. That is why the orthographically related (O) and phonologically related (P) conditions could not be included simultaneously in Zhang and Damian ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]). In the present study, we took advantage of the presence of polyvalent grapheme (one phonological representation with two orthographic specifications, e.g., /eə(r)/ for both "air" in the chair and "ear" in the bear) and polyvalent phoneme (one orthographic representation with two phonological specifications, e.g., ear for both "/iə(r)/" in the near and "/eə(r)/" in the bear) in English to create phonologically highly related (i.e., the correlation degree of the distractor word and the picture name on phonological level is significantly higher than that on orthographic level) and orthographically highly related (i.e., the correlation degree of the distractor word and the picture name on orthographic level is significantly higher than that on phonological level) distractor conditions. In addition, negative SOAs were also added to examine the effects of phonology and orthography at an earlier time window.</p> <p>The formal materials included twenty target pictures (white-line drawings on the black background), of which eighteen were selected from the picture database evaluated by Zhang and Yang ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref58">64</reflink>]), and the other two were the experimenter's self-selected pictures. To avoid bias in material evaluations between high- and low-proficient students, the familiarity, name consistency, and visual complexity of the target pictures were evaluated with a 5-point scale by thirty non-English major college students who passed CET-6 (College English Test Band 6, the passing of which equals the medium level in English). Results showed no significant differences in familiarity, name consistency, and visual complexity between the two self-selected pictures and the eighteen ones in the picture database (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.05). For English, due to the difficulty of completely separating its orthography and phonology, we adopted the criteria used by Lupker ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref59">35</reflink>]) to guarantee minimum overlap on grapheme between the phonologically related distractor and the picture name, as well as phoneme between the orthographically related distractor and the picture name. Specifically, the relationship between orthographically highly related (O) distractor words and picture names must meet the following criteria: ① their spellings are identical except for the first letter; and ② their single vowel sounds are different in their standard pronunciations; any phonological similarity is limited to the last phoneme (e.g., the picture name <emph>bear</emph>/beə(r)/, and the orthographically related distractor <emph>near</emph>/nɪə(r)/). Phonologically highly related distractor (P) and picture names must meet the following criteria: ① the two words rhyme in the sense that other than the initial phoneme, they are identically pronounced; ②the words have the same letter in no more than one other position (e.g., the picture name is <emph>bear</emph>, and the phonologically related distractor word is <emph>chair</emph>/tʃeə(r)/). Unrelated distractor words have nothing to do with the name of the picture in terms of form, sound, or meaning (e.g., the picture name <emph>bear</emph>/beə(r)/ and the unrelated distractor <emph>cloud</emph>). The length of all distractor words was controlled between 3 and 6 letters. There was no significant difference in the word frequency of the distractor words (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.05). A complete list of experimental materials is presented in the "Appendix".</p> <p>The formal experiment was meticulously designed with five blocks, each featuring a fixed SOA. A Latin square design, known for its precision in generating counterbalanced sequences, was employed to create five unique sequences, with each subject receiving only one. Each block was carefully crafted to include twenty formal, three practice, and ten filler pictures. Every formal picture was presented with three types of distractor words, each in a new pseudorandom order to prevent the same picture from appearing consecutively. Furthermore, the practice and filler pictures were accompanied by an unrelated distractor word.</p> <p>The experiment conforms to a 5 (SOA: − 200 ms, − 100 ms, 0 ms, 100 ms, and 200 ms) × 3 (Distractor Type: orthographically highly related, phonologically highly related, and unrelated) within-subjects design. The dependent variables included RTs for the cognitive coding phase and the WRD for the motor execution phase.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-8">Procedure</hd> <p>The experiment was performed using E-Prime software (version 2.0). The participants were tested individually. Before beginning the formal experiment, they were required to familiarize themselves with the experimental stimuli by viewing each picture with its name for 3000 ms on the computer screen. In the formal experiment, five SOA blocks, each consisting of 70 trials, were conducted. All materials were displayed at the bottom of the screen to reduce participants' head and eye movements as they wrote the picture names. The distractor words were presented centrally and superimposed on the target pictures.</p> <p>Every trial began with a fixation presented at the bottom of the screen for 500 ms, followed by a blank screen for 500 ms, and then target pictures and distractor words were presented at the appropriate time according to different SOAs. Specifically, for SOA = − 200 ms and − 100 ms, the distractor word preceded the target picture for 200 ms or 100 ms; for SOA = 0 ms, the distractor and target appeared simultaneously; for SOA = 100 ms and 200 ms, the distractor followed the target picture for 100 ms or 200 ms. The participants were asked to write down the picture name with a WACOM Intuos graphic tablet and a WACOM inking pen as quickly and accurately as possible while attempting to ignore the distractor words. The distractor words and pictures disappeared simultaneously when the pen first contacted the graphic tablet. The RTs were recorded from the picture onset to the initial contact of the pen with the tablet, and the WRD was recorded from the first to the last pen press. There was a 1000 ms interval between the two trials. Data is available on OSF at https://osf.io/txpk6/files/osfstorage?view_only=0d9e47159f2a4bfcb9f12962ca4412ae.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-9">Results</hd> <p>In RTs analysis, only correct responses that contained no spelling errors—either semantic or orthographic—were included. One participant was excluded from the analysis due to an error rate exceeding 20%. RTs for correct naming trials shorter than 200 ms and longer than 2000 ms (0.63%), as well as WRD for longer than 3000 ms (0.06%), were excluded from analysis. In addition, a secondary trimming step for RTs was applied to exclude naming latencies that were more than 2.5 standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>s) above or below the mean of each condition (2.76%). The mean RTs and WRD of each condition for proficient bilinguals are shown in Table 1.</p> <p>Table 1 Mean RTs and WRD of proficient bilinguals (<emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SD</emph>)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>SOA</p></th><th align="left"><p>Distractor type</p></th><th align="left"><p>RTs (ms)</p></th><th align="left"><p>WRD (ms)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = − 200 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>938 ± 203</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1429 ± 326</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>962 ± 212</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1432 ± 311</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>966 ± 208</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1433 ± 329</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = − 100 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>955 ± 207</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1426 ± 332</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>952 ± 199</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1438 ± 326</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>973 ± 202</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1427 ± 308</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 0 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>946 ± 208</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1447 ± 324</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>953 ± 199</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1450 ± 324</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>987 ± 199</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1447 ± 315</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 100 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>843 ± 219</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1436 ± 319</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>849 ± 222</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1449 ± 327</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>860 ± 227</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1448 ± 325</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 200 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>734 ± 233</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1434 ± 332</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>743 ± 231</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1437 ± 337</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>748 ± 254</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1444 ± 329</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>A linear mixed-effects model analysis (Baayen et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref60">3</reflink>]; Bates, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>]) was conducted to analyze the results. This analysis included fixed effects of SOA (− 200 ms, − 100 ms, 0 ms, 100 ms, 200 ms) and Distractor Type (orthographically highly related, phonologically highly related, unrelated), along with by-participant and by-item random effects. The models were fitted to the data using a restricted maximum likelihood technique. Initially, a full model was established (RTs or WRD ~ SOA * Distractor Type + (1 + SOA * Distractor Type|subject) + (1 + SOA * Distractor Type|item), data, REML = FALSE), and then each variable was compared with the full model by gradually reducing one variable at a time. If excluding a variable improved the original model, it was deleted; otherwise, it was retained. The best-fitting model was obtained following multiple rounds of such model comparisons.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-10">Reaction times (RTs)</hd> <p>The best-fitting model for RTs included fixed effects of SOA, Distractor Type, and their interaction. The random effects related to subjects included intercept and SOA, while the random effects related to items included intercept and Distractor Type. Drawing from Zhang and Damian ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref62">62</reflink>]), the anova() function from the package lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref63">31</reflink>]) was utilized to conduct the <emph>F-</emph>test on fixed effects and provide estimated <emph>df</emph> and <emph>p</emph> values. In addition, β and <emph>t</emph> values were obtained using the summary() function. For the analysis of Distractor Type, treatment contrasts were applied with the "unrelated" type as the baseline. A simple difference contrast was used for the SOA variable, as we were interested in the changes over time. There were significant main effects of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>, 44) = 82.06, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>, 20) = 11.10, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, as well as an interaction between SOA and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>, 12,<reflink idref="bib235" id="ref67">235</reflink>) = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = 0.036. Further simple-effect analysis with Bonferroni multiple comparison correction revealed that at the SOA of − 200 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 28 ms: 938 ms vs. 966 ms, β = − 29.38, <emph>t</emph> = − 4.11, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); at the SOA of − 100 ms, responses in the O condition were faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 18 ms: 955 ms vs. 973 ms, β = − 17.55, <emph>t</emph> = − 2.42, <emph>p</emph> = 0.047), and responses in the P condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 21 ms: 952 ms vs. 973 ms, β = − 19.05, <emph>t</emph> = − 2.63, <emph>p</emph> = 0.026); at the SOA of 0 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 41 ms: 946 ms vs. 987 ms, β = − 42.48, <emph>t</emph> = − 5.70, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and responses in the P condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 34 ms: 953 ms vs. 987 ms, β = − 35.81, <emph>t</emph> = − 4.81, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); at the SOA of 100 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 17 ms: 843 ms vs. 860 ms, β = − 19.83, <emph>t</emph> = − 2.44, <emph>p</emph> = 0.044); at the SOA of 200 ms, none of the effects were significant (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.157) (Fig. 1). Based on previous research, we determined the earliest O effect and P effect by comparing the SOAs of their first occurrence (Qu et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref68">47</reflink>]; Zhang & Damian, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref69">62</reflink>]; Zhang & Wang, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref70">63</reflink>]). As shown in Fig. 1, the earliest O effect occurred at the SOA of − 200 ms, while the earliest P effect occurred at the SOA of − 100 ms. This result indicated that the activation of orthography is earlier than that of phonology for proficient bilinguals.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 RTs at each SOA of proficient bilinguals (Error bars reflect standard errors of the mean, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001)</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-11">Whole response duration (WRD)</hd> <p>The best-fitting model for WRD included fixed effects of SOA, Distractor Type, and their interaction. The random effects related to subjects and items both included the intercept and SOA. Analysis showed a significant effect of Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>, 12,<reflink idref="bib223" id="ref72">223</reflink>) = 3.25, <emph>p</emph> = 0.039. However, the main effect of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>, 43) = 1.09, <emph>p</emph> = 0.374, and the interaction between Distractor Type and SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref74">8</reflink>, 12,<reflink idref="bib223" id="ref75">223</reflink>) = 0.47, <emph>p</emph> = 0.875, were insignificant (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 WRD at each SOA of proficient bilinguals</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of Experiment 1 indicated that, in the phase of cognitive coding, the orthographic priming effect appeared earliest at the SOA of − 200 ms, while the phonological one appeared earliest at the SOA of − 100 ms. This result suggests that for proficient bilinguals, the activation of L2 orthographic representation is earlier than that of phonology, which is compatible with the orthographic autonomy hypothesis. However, no significant effects of phonology or orthography were found on WRD, demonstrating that the writing motor execution of proficient bilinguals was unaffected by phonological and orthographic processing, which is in line with the serial model.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-13">Experiment 2</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194394388-14">Participants</hd> <p>Forty-five non-proficient Chinese–English bilingual students (22 males and 23 females, age <emph>M</emph> = 20.77, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.04) who had failed CET-4 (College English Test-4) were paid to participate in the experiment. They were all from non-English majors at the same university as the proficient group. The CET-4 was a standardized basic English exam required for non-English majors in Chinese colleges and universities. It contained four parts: reading comprehension, listening comprehension, integration testing, and essay writing. Since the CET-4 was more accessible than the TEM-4, those who failed the CET-4 were considered to have low English proficiency. Previous studies have employed CET and TEM tests to distinguish different levels of English proficiency (Cheng, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref76">12</reflink>]; Jin & Yang, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref77">28</reflink>]; Ren, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref78">49</reflink>]; Sun et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref79">52</reflink>]). The participants were native Chinese speakers with English as their L2, and their AoA for English was 8.77 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.43). All were right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and signed a written informed consent form before participating.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-15">Materials, design, and procedure</hd> <p>The materials, design, and procedure used in Experiment 2 were the same as in Experiment 1.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-16">Results</hd> <p>Two participants were excluded from the analysis for having an error rate higher than 20%. RTs for correct naming trials shorter than 200 ms and longer than 2000 ms (3.22%), as well as WRD for longer than 3000 ms (0.53%), were excluded from the analysis, and a secondary trimming step for RTs was used to exclude naming latencies over 2.5<emph>SD</emph>s above or below the mean of each condition (2.38%). The mean RTs and WRD of each condition for non-proficient bilinguals are shown in Table 2.</p> <p>Table 2 Mean RTs and WRD of non-proficient bilinguals (<emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SD</emph>)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>SOA</p></th><th align="left"><p>Distractor type</p></th><th align="left"><p>RTs (ms)</p></th><th align="left"><p>WRD (ms)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = − 200 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1062 ± 234</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1635 ± 381</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1079 ± 239</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1647 ± 378</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1095 ± 241</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1642 ± 376</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = − 100 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1065 ± 234</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1658 ± 375</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1067 ± 226</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1660 ± 369</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1091 ± 231</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1638 ± 372</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 0 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1036 ± 211</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1637 ± 366</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1059 ± 222</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1638 ± 379</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1091 ± 223</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1648 ± 363</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 100 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>951 ± 251</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1620 ± 386</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>968 ± 255</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1629 ± 376</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>982 ± 261</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1653 ± 391</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 200 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>859 ± 283</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1619 ± 397</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>863 ± 277</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1622 ± 395</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>845 ± 284</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1633 ± 402</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194394388-17">Reaction times (RTs)</hd> <p>The best-fitting model for RTs included fixed effects of SOA, Distractor Type, and their interaction. The random effects related to subjects included intercept and SOA, and the random effects related to items included intercept and Distractor Type. There were significant main effects of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>, 43) = 33.41, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>, 20) = 14.81, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, and an interaction between SOA and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref82">8</reflink>, 11,<reflink idref="bib434" id="ref83">434</reflink>) = 4.63, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. Further simple-effect analysis with Bonferroni multiple comparison correction revealed that at the SOA of − 200 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 33 ms: 1062 ms vs. 1095 ms, β = − 31.68, <emph>t</emph> = − 3.77, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); at the SOA of − 100 ms, responses in the O condition were faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 26 ms: 1065 ms vs. 1091 ms, β = − 27.54, <emph>t</emph> = − 3.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.004), and responses in the P condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 24 ms: 1067 ms vs. 1091 ms, β = − 26.50, <emph>t</emph> = − 3.08, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006); at the SOA of 0 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 55 ms: 1036 ms vs. 1091 ms, β = − 58.71, <emph>t</emph> = − 7.00, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and responses in the P condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 32 ms: 1059 ms vs. 1091 ms, β = − 36.67, <emph>t</emph> = − 4.37, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001); at the SOA of 100 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 31 ms: 951 ms vs. 982 ms, β = − 31.11, <emph>t</emph> = − 3.34, <emph>p</emph> = 0.003); at the SOA of 200 ms, none of the effects were significant (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.313) (Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 3, the earliest O effect occurred at the SOA of − 200 ms, while the earliest P effect occurred at the SOA of − 100 ms. This result indicated that the activation of orthography is earlier than that of phonology for non-proficient bilinguals.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 RTs at each SOA of non-proficient bilinguals</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-18">Whole response duration (WRD)</hd> <p>The best-fitting model for WRD included fixed effects of SOA, Distractor Type, and their interaction. The random effects related to subjects included intercept and SOA, while the random effects related to items only included intercept. Analysis showed no significant main effects of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>, 43) = 0.45, <emph>p</emph> = 0.711, or Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref85">2</reflink>, 11,<reflink idref="bib473" id="ref86">473</reflink>) = 2.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.118. Here, we find a significant interaction between Distractor Type and SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref87">8</reflink>, 11,<reflink idref="bib473" id="ref88">473</reflink>) = 2.31, <emph>p</emph> = 0.034. Further simple-effect analysis with Bonferroni multiple comparison correction revealed that at the SOA of − 100 ms, the whole response duration in the P condition was longer than that in unrelated condition (diff = 22 ms: 1660 ms vs. 1638 ms, β = 23.02, <emph>t</emph> = 2.61, <emph>p</emph> = 0.027); at the SOA of 100 ms, the whole response duration in the O condition was shorter than that in unrelated condition (diff = 33 ms: 1620 ms vs. 1653 ms, β = − 22.36, <emph>t</emph> = − 2.48, <emph>p</emph> = 0.039); there were no significant effects on other SOAs (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.173) (Fig. 4).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 WRD at each SOA of non-proficient bilinguals</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Experiment 2 found that, in the cognitive coding phase, the orthographic priming effect appeared earliest at the SOA of − 200 ms, while the phonological one appeared earliest at the SOA of − 100 ms. This result suggests that for non-proficient bilinguals, the activation of L2 orthographic representation is earlier than that of phonology, which is compatible with the orthographic autonomy hypothesis. In addition, we observed that in the motor execution phase, L2 phonology prolonged the WRD at the SOA of − 100 ms, while orthography shortened the WRD at the SOA of 100 ms. This finding indicates that for non-proficient bilinguals, both orthography and phonology processing can cascade into the motor execution phase, but their effects on motor execution differ.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-20">Experiment 3</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194394388-21">Participants</hd> <p>Thirty-eight native English speakers (19 males and 19 females, age <emph>M</emph> = 24.61, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.95) were paid to participate in the experiment. They were right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision and signed a written informed consent form before participating.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-22">Materials, design, and procedure</hd> <p>The materials, design, and procedure used in Experiment 3 were the same as in Experiment 2.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-23">Results</hd> <p>RTs for correct naming trials shorter than 200 ms and longer than 2000 ms (1.47%), as well as WRD for longer than 3000 ms (0.05%), were excluded from analysis, and a secondary trimming step for RTs was used to exclude naming latencies over 2.5 standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>s) above or below the mean of each condition (2.67%). The mean RTs of each condition in the cognitive coding phase of native English speakers are shown in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3 Mean RTs and WRD of native English speakers (<emph>M</emph> ± <emph>SD</emph>)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>SOA</p></th><th align="left"><p>Distractor type</p></th><th align="left"><p>RTs (ms)</p></th><th align="left"><p>WRD (ms)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = − 200 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>983 ± 211</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1355 ± 372</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>998 ± 200</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1366 ± 354</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1023 ± 213</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1345 ± 370</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = − 100 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>968 ± 206</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1348 ± 359</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>989 ± 213</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1342 ± 377</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>993 ± 206</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1352 ± 360</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 0 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>977 ± 219</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1328 ± 362</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1005 ± 227</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1340 ± 380</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1016 ± 222</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1321 ± 374</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 100 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>876 ± 232</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1342 ± 375</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>871 ± 229</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1349 ± 362</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>888 ± 237</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1351 ± 364</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="3"><p>SOA = 200 ms</p></td><td align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>765 ± 248</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1344 ± 369</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>775 ± 259</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1335 ± 368</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>773 ± 271</p></td><td char="±" align="char"><p>1344 ± 374</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194394388-24">Reaction times (RTs)</hd> <p>The fixed effects of the best-fitting model included SOA, Distractor Type, and their interaction. The random effects related to subjects included intercept and SOA, while the random effects related to items only included intercept. There were significant main effects of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref89">4</reflink>, 38) = 56.93, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref90">2</reflink>, 10,<reflink idref="bib483" id="ref91">483</reflink>) = 20.64, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, and an interaction between SOA and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref92">8</reflink>, 10,<reflink idref="bib483" id="ref93">483</reflink>) = 2.67, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006. Further simple-effect analysis with Bonferroni multiple comparison correction revealed that at the SOA of − 200 ms, responses in the O condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 40 ms: 983 ms vs. 1023 ms, β = − 43.69, <emph>t</emph> = − 5.09, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and responses in the P condition were significantly faster than those in unrelated condition (diff = 25 ms: 998 ms vs. 1023 ms, β = − 25.17, <emph>t</emph> = − 2.92, <emph>p</emph> = 0.011); there were no significant effects on other SOAs (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.419) (Fig. 5). As shown in Fig. 5, the earliest O and P effects both occurred at the SOA of − 200 ms. This result indicated that orthography and phonology can be activated simultaneously in the cognitive coding phase for native English speakers.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 RTs at each SOA of native English speakers</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-25">Whole response duration (WRD)</hd> <p>The best-fitting model for WRD included fixed effects of SOA, Distractor Type, and their interaction. The random effects related to subjects included intercept and SOA, while the random effects related to items only included intercept. A parallel analysis was conducted on WRD. Results showed no significant effects of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref94">4</reflink>, 38) = 1.69, <emph>p</emph> = 0.172, or Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref95">2</reflink>, 10,<reflink idref="bib483" id="ref96">483</reflink>) = 0.41, <emph>p</emph> = 0.662, nor their interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref97">8</reflink>, 10,<reflink idref="bib483" id="ref98">483</reflink>) = 0.71, <emph>p</emph> = 0.682 (Fig. 6).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 WRD at each SOA of native English speakers</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-26">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of Experiment 3 found that both orthographic and phonological effects appeared at the SOA of − 200 ms in the cognitive coding phase. This result suggests that orthography can be activated simultaneously with phonology for native English speakers, which is compatible with the orthographic autonomy hypothesis. However, we did not observe any effects of phonology or orthography on the WRD. This result indicated that the phonological and orthographic processing for native English speakers terminated before their motor execution, which is in line with the serial model.</p> <p>Furthermore, since the three experiments were completely identical in design, materials, and procedures, with only the types of group differing, we also conducted a conjoint ANOVA analysis based on the mixed design of 3 (Group: proficient bilinguals, non-proficient bilinguals, and native English speakers) × 5 (SOA: − 200 ms, − 100 ms, 0 ms, 100 ms, and 200 ms) × 3 (Distractor Type: orthographically highly related, phonologically highly related, and unrelated) to more directly compare the differences in phonological and orthographic processing between different groups, with the RTs in the phase of cognitive coding, as well as the WRD in the phase of motor execution, as the dependent variables. Geisser–Greenhouse corrections were reported where applicable. Analysis of RTs showed that the main effect of the Group was significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>, 113) = 9.99, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, = 0.141, responses in proficient bilinguals (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and native English speakers (<emph>p</emph> = 0.011) were both faster than those in non-proficient bilinguals, while there was no significance between proficient bilinguals and native English speakers (<emph>p</emph> = 0.657). The main effect of SOA, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref100">4</reflink>, 555) = 194.21, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, = 0.614, Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref101">2</reflink>, 555) = 63.84, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, = 0.344, as well as the interaction between SOA and Distractor Type, were all significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref102">8</reflink>, 555) = 6.77, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, = 0.053. In addition, neither the interactions between Group and Distractor Type (<emph>p</emph> = 0.829) nor between Group and SOA (<emph>p</emph> = 0.785) were significant. Importantly, the interaction between Group, SOA, and Distractor Type was marginally significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref103">16</reflink>, 555) = 1.65, <emph>p</emph> = 0.061, = 0.026. Bayesian analysis for the interaction with the method suggested by Van den Bergh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref104">57</reflink>]) resulted in a Bayes factor of 0.35. Based on the previous studies (e.g., Damian & Qu, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref105">16</reflink>], Exp. 1 & 2; Kingsley et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref106">30</reflink>]; Jandhyala, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref107">27</reflink>]; Zhang & Damian, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref108">62</reflink>], Exp. 2), we conducted planned comparisons and found that the activation of orthography was earlier than that of phonology for both proficient (orthography: SOA = − 200 ms, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001; phonology: SOA = − 100 ms, <emph>p</emph> = 0.040) and non-proficient bilinguals (orthography: SOA = − 200 ms, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; phonology: SOA = − 100 ms, <emph>p</emph> = 0.004), while orthography (<emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and phonology (<emph>p</emph> = 0.001) were activated simultaneously at the SOA of − 200 ms for native English speakers. These patterns were consistent with those of the separate analysis. In addition, analysis on WRD showed significant main effects of Group, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref109">2</reflink>, 113) = 29.09, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, = 0.323, and the interaction between SOA and Distractor Type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref110">8</reflink>, 555) = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = 0.047, = 0.017. The main effect of Distractor Type was marginally significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref111">2</reflink>, 555) = 3.05, <emph>p</emph> = 0.053, = 0.024. Importantly, the interaction between Group, SOA, and Distractor Type was marginally significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref112">16</reflink>, 555) = 1.54, <emph>p</emph> = 0.094, = 0.025. Bayesian analysis resulted in a Bayes factor of 1.98 × 10<sups>6</sups>, providing strong evidence for the interaction effects. Further planned comparisons revealed no linguistic effects on writing motor execution for either proficient bilinguals or native English speakers (<emph>p</emph>s > 0.142), which was in line with the results of the separated analysis. However, for non-proficient bilinguals, there was not only a phonological inhibition (<emph>p</emph> = 0.007) at the SOA of − 100 ms and an orthographic facilitation (<emph>p</emph> = 0.002) at the SOA of 100 ms, which were consistent with the separated analysis, but also an orthographic inhibition (<emph>p</emph> = 0.026) at the SOA of − 100 ms. The results pattern of non-proficient bilinguals still indicated that their L2 phonological and orthographic processing could cascade into motor execution, which was in line with the conclusion of the separated analysis.</p> <p>The decision not to include the three groups in a single experiment initially stemmed from our research question, which focused on L2 phonological and orthographic processing during bilingual handwriting. By conducting separate analyses, we were able to concentrate on specific facets of the question and gain a more nuanced understanding of the topic. Despite the groups being analyzed independently, the trends in phonological and orthographic processing were still reflected to some extent. The combined analysis integrates the data from all three groups, allowing for a more comprehensive consideration of the factors involved and their interrelationships.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-27">General discussion</hd> <p>The main aim of this study was to investigate how phonology and orthography processed during L2 handwritten production, and whether their processing would be influenced by L1 handwriting experience and L2 proficiency. Proficient and non-proficient Chinese–English bilinguals, as well as native English speakers, performed a PWI task in which they were required to write down the English names of pictures while attempting to ignore written distractor words. To detect possible phonological and orthographic effects during handwritten production, RTs, assumed to index the cognitive coding, and WRD, assumed to index the motor execution, were recorded. In the following sections, we discuss orthographic and phonological processing in the phases of cognitive coding and motor execution during L2 handwritten production. Our findings have implications for accounts of the assimilation and accommodation hypothesis in L2 handwritten processing, as well as for the potential interrelationship between classic models of handwritten production.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-28">The role of phonology in the orthographic access of L2 handwritten production</hd> <p>Results of Experiments 1 and 2 consistently showed that the role of phonology in orthographic access of L2 handwritten production was similar for both proficient and non-proficient bilinguals, with orthography exhibiting an earlier priming effect (− 200 ms) than phonology (− 100 ms). The orthographic and phonological priming effects at negative SOAs suggest that the advanced presentation of the L2 distractor word, whose orthographic or phonological information is activated early, will transfer the activation rapidly to the orthographic representation or phonological representation corresponding to the picture name. This is due to the high degree of orthographic or phonological relationship with the subsequently presented picture name, facilitating the response to naming the picture. These results are in line with the orthographic autonomy view that orthography can be accessed directly from semantic representations without a phonological mediator. However, the similar patterns of phonological role on orthographic access between proficient and non-proficient bilinguals suggest that L2 proficiency does not suffice to explain the above findings. To interpret these findings, we drew on mechanistic accounts rooted in Perfetti's hypotheses of L1 assimilation and L2 accommodation in L2 processing. An important consequence of these hypotheses is that Chinese–English bilinguals' orthographic access during L2 handwritten production may be influenced by native Chinese or English handwriting experience. In the Introduction, we mentioned that Zhang and Wang ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref113">63</reflink>]) have provided evidence for the orthographic autonomy view regarding native Chinese handwriting that orthography (SOA = − 200 ms) could be activated earlier than phonology (SOA = − 100 ms) in the cognitive coding phase. However, the results of native English handwriting in the current study (Experiment 3) showed that both orthographic and phonological effects occurred at the SOA of − 200 ms, casting light on the fundamental difference in orthographic access from native Chinese handwriting. Overall, these results suggest that for Chinese–English bilinguals, the processing of L2 phonology and orthography during the cognitive coding phase may be influenced by their experiences with Chinese handwriting. Native Chinese speakers rely more on their direct visual memory of the association between orthography and semantics when learning Chinese characters. This dependence occurs because Chinese characters have opaque features and less specific phonological-orthographic mappings, which affect their phonological processing strategies (Gao & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref114">23</reflink>]). For native English speakers, the result pattern is consistent with Miceli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref115">36</reflink>])'s weak version of the orthographic autonomy view, which stipulates that both the orthographic and phonological lexicons are directly activated from the semantic system. It is perhaps not surprising for native English speakers with an alphabetic writing system, as they are quite familiar with the close interrelation between phonological and orthographic codes and the quasi-systematic relationships between phonological and orthographic representations.</p> <p>Based on the above analysis and comparison, the obtained pattern of our results demonstrated that Chinese–English bilinguals might adopt L1 assimilation strategies to process L2 during handwritten production. In other words, the role of phonology in their English orthographic access is potentially influenced by Chinese handwriting experience. It may be due to the fact that Chinese–English bilinguals extensively transferred direct visual memory strategies in Chinese character learning to English writing, resulting in stronger orthography-semantic associations than semantic-phonology or phonology-orthography associations (Gao & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref116">23</reflink>]; Tao et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref117">55</reflink>]). Therefore, the efficiency of directly accessing orthography through the semantics path is higher than the phonological mediator path in L2 English handwriting. In addition, in terms of the relative orthographic depth of bilinguals' two languages, our result is consistent with meta-analytic findings on bilingual neuroimaging studies, which indicate that bilinguals tend to adopt the native assimilation strategy to process L2 in the case of Chinese–English bilinguals that L2 orthographic transparency is higher than that of L1, as less cognitive effort would be required during L1 assimilation than L2 accommodation (Liu & Cao, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref118">34</reflink>]; Xin et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref119">60</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-29">The influence of phonological and orthographic processes on the motor execution of L2 handwri...</hd> <p>The overall results in Experiments 1 and 2 showed that the effects of phonology and orthography on motor execution might be moderated by L2 proficiency. Specifically, for proficient bilinguals, no impact of phonology and orthography on WRD was observed, suggesting that the processing of phonology and orthography terminated before motor execution. Unlike the above pattern, the results of non-proficient bilinguals showed inhibitory effects of phonology and orthography on WRD at the SOA of − 100 ms, and then a priming effect of orthography on WRD at the SOA of 100 ms. According to the <emph>response competition hypothesis</emph>, the most widely accepted theory to explain picture-word interference, the distractor word is automatically activated faster than the picture's name based on the fact that reading is faster than naming (Fraisse, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref120">22</reflink>]). This activation competes with the picture-naming response for control of the response execution, and the inhibition is explained as an additional amount of time needed to suppress the distractor-related response or to clear a response buffer from its articulatory program (Dyer, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref121">19</reflink>]; Posner & Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref122">45</reflink>]). From this point of view, the earlier phonological and orthographic inhibitory effects (SOA = − 100 ms) for non-proficient bilinguals reflect the distractors' initial larger advantage in activation and subsequent larger inhibition needed to retrieve the target picture name, leading to the presence of a conflict that carries on to affect the movement duration. Consistently, Delattre et al. ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref123">18</reflink>]) also proposed that effects obtained in writing duration might be due to a conflict that is not yet resolved when writing starts. The later orthographic priming effect (SOA = 100 ms) may be due to the high quality and easy accessibility of orthographic representation during motor execution for non-proficient bilinguals (Claessen et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref124">13</reflink>]; Perfetti & Hart, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref125">41</reflink>]). Therefore, they pay more attention to the form information and mainly rely on orthographic processing when writing whole words (Gao & Zhang, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref126">23</reflink>]; Tao et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref127">55</reflink>]).</p> <p>It has been argued that motor execution shares cognitive resources with cognitive coding, and concurrent activation of these two phases can only be achieved if the latter releases sufficient cognitive resources for allowing concurrent activation of high levels of linguistic processes, that is, to support the cascade model (Olive, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref128">39</reflink>]). From this perspective, proficient bilinguals are expected to exhibit a cascade pattern, while non-proficient bilinguals would display a serial pattern, as the former are likely to perform handwriting motor tasks more fluently than the latter. However, our findings revealed the opposite: proficient bilinguals showed a serial model, whereas non-proficient bilinguals demonstrated a cascade model. This may be because proficient bilinguals' phonology and orthography have been fully processed in the cognitive coding phase, and no further work is needed during the motor execution phase. This inference was supported by the similar pattern observed in the motor execution phase of native English speakers. In addition, according to the proposition of Bosga-Stork et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref129">9</reflink>]), once handwriting motor execution has reached a certain level of development, it seems to become an autonomous system, relatively independent of the cognitive coding system; that is to say, linguistic processes may affect writing movements, but only until motor execution acquires relative independence from other linguistic systems (Afonso et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref130">2</reflink>]). If writing motor execution becomes independent of cognitive coding at some point during L2 proficiency improvement, it seems reasonable to think that linguistic processes may have a decreasing impact on motor execution. Therefore, combined with the results of the three groups, we speculate that the influence of L2 phonology and orthography in the phase of cognitive coding on motor execution tends to diminish and eventually disappear at some point with the gradual improvement of L2 proficiency, presumably when the motor execution system becomes an autonomous system.</p> <p>In sum, it was observed that L2 phonological and orthographic processes potentially impacted WRD in non-proficient bilinguals' handwriting. However, this influence tends to decrease with the development of L2 proficiency. In proficient bilinguals, the influence of phonology and orthography disappeared, which was similar to that of native English speakers. Our findings make a valuable contribution to transferring cognitive models of L1 handwritten production to the L2 area. Specifically, although serial and cascade models are often viewed as two opposing perspectives on the relationship between cognitive coding and motor execution in L1 handwriting, the relationship between the two models in L2 is not static but rather flexible. This means that there would be a transition from the serial model to the cascade model and then to the serial model again during the development of L2 proficiency. In other words, our findings suggest that L2 handwriting motor execution may become an autonomous skill relatively independent of the phonological and orthographic information stored in the cognitive coding phase when L2 reaches high proficiency.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-30">Limitations</hd> <p>It is crucial to acknowledge several potential limitations in our study. First, the inherent systematic association between sound and spelling in English introduced partial overlap between orthographically and phonologically related distractors. Nevertheless, our findings across three experiments demonstrate that the two conditions elicited distinct processing signatures, yielding respective insights into their differential influences on discrete phases of handwritten production. Future research could investigate the Chinese written production of English-Chinese bilinguals to address this limitation.</p> <p>Second, we did not include a bilingual group with two alphabetic languages, which could test the generalizability of the current results. Furthermore, the potential modulation of L2 backgrounds on phonological and orthographic processing during handwritten production remains unexplored. Subsequent research should therefore incorporate typologically diverse bilingual populations, including alphabet-alphabet bilinguals (e.g., French–English, German–English) and logography-alphabet bilinguals (e.g., Chinese–English, Chinese–Russian) for more comprehensive exploration.</p> <p>Finally, we should be more cautious when drawing conclusions and interpreting the cross-experiment differences, given that the three-way interactions were marginally significant. It may stem from the combinatorial complexity of the multi-factorial design coupled with the current study's constrained sample size. Consequently, replication with expanded samples is essential to substantiate the observed effects.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-31">Conclusion</hd> <p>The current study investigated phonological and orthographic processing during L2 handwritten production in Chinese–English bilinguals. The overall results suggested that in the cognitive coding phase, orthography was activated earlier than phonology for both proficient and non-proficient bilinguals, which might be different from native English speakers, potentially shedding light on the influence of L1 handwriting experience on L2 orthographic access. In the motor execution phase, phonological and orthographic processes might be modulated by L2 proficiency: Proficient bilinguals exhibited a pattern similar to native English speakers, which aligned with the serial model, whereas non-proficient bilinguals tended to a unique cascade pattern.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-32">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Prof. Yaxu Zhang, Prof. Lingyue Kong, Prof. Wei Yi, and Dr. Yuying Wang at Peking University, and Prof. Dan Zhang at Tsinghua University for their support in recruiting native English speakers.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-33">Author contributions</hd> <p>Yueyue Liu: Writing—original draft, Methodology, Investigation, Analyzation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Yating Bai: Software, Analyzation. Ruiming Wang: Writing—review and editing. Shuting Huang: Methodology. Tianyu Zhang: Analyzation. Xing Zhang: Investigation. Wenguang He: Writing—review and editing, methodology, supervision, funding acquisition.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-34">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China to Wenguang He (No. 24BYY117).</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-35">Data availability</hd> <p>Data is available on OSF at https://osf.io/txpk6/files/osfstorage?view_only=0d9e47159f2a4bfcb9f12962ca4412ae.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-36">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0194394388-37">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-38">Ethics statement</hd> <p>The research involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Biomedical Ethics Committee of Qufu Normal University.</p> <hd id="AN0194394388-39">Appendix</hd> <p>See Table 4.</p> <p>Table 4 Materials used in experiments 1, 2, and 3</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Picture name</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Distractor type</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Orthographically highly related (O)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Phonologically highly related (P)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Unrelated (U)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>bear /beə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>near /nɪə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>chair /tʃeə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>cloud</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>foot /fʊt/</p></td><td align="left"><p>boot /buːt/</p></td><td align="left"><p>put /pʊt/</p></td><td align="left"><p>sky</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>shoe /ʃu:/</p></td><td align="left"><p>hoe /həʊ/</p></td><td align="left"><p>true /truː/</p></td><td align="left"><p>bird</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>key /ki:/</p></td><td align="left"><p>hey /heɪ/</p></td><td align="left"><p>tea /biː/</p></td><td align="left"><p>radio</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>fork /fɔːk/</p></td><td align="left"><p>work /wɜːk/</p></td><td align="left"><p>talk /tɔːk/</p></td><td align="left"><p>glass</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>comb /kəʊm/</p></td><td align="left"><p>tomb /tuːm/</p></td><td align="left"><p>foam /fəʊm/</p></td><td align="left"><p>salt</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>nose /nəʊz/</p></td><td align="left"><p>lose /luːz/</p></td><td align="left"><p>rows /rəʊz/</p></td><td align="left"><p>train</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>tower /ˈtaʊə/</p></td><td align="left"><p>lower /ˈləʊə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>our /ˈaʊə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>milk</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>bone /bəʊn/</p></td><td align="left"><p>done /dʌn/</p></td><td align="left"><p>known /nəʊn/</p></td><td align="left"><p>map</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>bread /bred/</p></td><td align="left"><p>read /riːd/</p></td><td align="left"><p>said /sed/</p></td><td align="left"><p>lion</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>arm /ɑːm/</p></td><td align="left"><p>warm /wɔːm/</p></td><td align="left"><p>palm /pɑːm/</p></td><td align="left"><p>oil</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>ear /ɪə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>wear /weə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>deer /dɪə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>bus</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>leaf /liːf/</p></td><td align="left"><p>deaf /def/</p></td><td align="left"><p>thief /θiːf/</p></td><td align="left"><p>skirt</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>wood /wʊd/</p></td><td align="left"><p>food /fuːd/</p></td><td align="left"><p>could /cʊd/</p></td><td align="left"><p>rice</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>cow /kaʊ/</p></td><td align="left"><p>sow /səʊ/</p></td><td align="left"><p>bough /baʊ/</p></td><td align="left"><p>desk</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>vase /vɑːz/</p></td><td align="left"><p>base /beɪs/</p></td><td align="left"><p>cars /kɑːz/</p></td><td align="left"><p>clock</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>pear /peə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>hear /hɪə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>air /eə(r)/</p></td><td align="left"><p>snow</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>sword /sɔ:d/</p></td><td align="left"><p>word /wɜːd/</p></td><td align="left"><p>broad /brɔːd/</p></td><td align="left"><p>lake</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>cough /kɒf/</p></td><td align="left"><p>rough /rʌf/</p></td><td align="left"><p>off /ɒf/</p></td><td align="left"><p>bike</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>light /laɪt/</p></td><td align="left"><p>eight /eɪt/</p></td><td align="left"><p>bite /baɪt/</p></td><td align="left"><p>fox</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0194394388-40">Publisher's note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0194394388-41"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Afonso O, Álvarez CJ, Kandel S. Effects of grapheme-to-phoneme probability on writing durations. Memory and Cognition. 2015; 43; 4: 579-592. 10.3758/s13421-014-0489-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref65" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Afonso O, Suárez-Coalla P, González-Martín N, Cuetos F. The impact of word frequency on peripheral processes during handwriting: A matter of age. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2018; 71; 3: 695-703. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1275713</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref60" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008; 59: 390-412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref61" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bates D. Fitting linear mixed models in R. R News. 2005; 5; 1: 27-30</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref47" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bonin P, Chalard M, Méot A, Fayol M. The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology. 2002; 93; 1: 89-114. 10.1348/000712602162463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref46" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bonin P, Fayol M. Writing words from pictures: What representations are activated, and when?. Memory and Cognition. 2000; 28: 677-689. 10.3758/BF03201257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bonin P, Fayol M, Peereman R. Masked form priming in writing words from pictures: Evidence for direct retrieval of orthographic codes. Acta Psychologica. 1998; 99; 3: 311-328. 10.1016/S0001-6918(98)00017-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bonin P, Peereman R, Fayol M. Do phonological codes constrain the selection of orthographic codes in written picture naming?. Journal of Memory and Language. 2001; 45; 4: 688-720. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2786</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref129" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bosga-Stork I, Bosga J, Ellis J, Meulenbroek R. Developing interactions between language and motor skills in the first three years of formal handwriting education. British Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science. 2016; 12; 1: 1-13. 10.9734/BJESBS/2016/20703</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brownsett SL, Wise RJ. The contribution of the parietal lobes to speaking and writing. Cerebral Cortex. 2010; 20; 3: 517-523. 10.1093/cercor/bhp120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cerni T, Job R. The intermotor of central and peripheral processes in typing and handwriting: A direct comparison. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2022; 48; 6: 563-581. 10.1037/xhp0001006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng L. The key to success: English language testing in China. Language Testing. 2008; 25; 1: 15-37. 10.1177/0265532207083743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Claessen M, Heath S, Fletcher J, Hogben J, Leitão S. Quality of phonological representations: A window into the lexicon?. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 2009; 44; 2: 121-144. 10.1080/13682820801966317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costa A, Santesteban M. Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language. 2004; 50; 4: 491-511. 10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damian MF, Dorjee D, Stadthagen-Gonzalez H. Long-term repetition priming in spoken and written word production: Evidence for a contribution of phonology to handwriting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2011; 37; 4: 813. 10.1037/a0023260</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damian MF, Qu Q. Is handwriting constrained by phonology? Evidence from Stroop tasks with written responses and Chinese characters. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013; 4. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00765765</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damian MF, Stadthagen-Gonzalez H. Advance planning of form properties in the written production of single and multiple words. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2009; 24; 4: 555-579. 10.1080/01690960802346500</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delattre M, Bonin P, Barry C. Written spelling to dictation: Sound-to-spelling regularity affects both writing latencies and durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2006; 32; 6: 1330. 10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1330</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dyer FN. The stroop phenomenon and its use in the study of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory and Cognition. 1973; 1: 106-120. 10.3758/BF03198078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis AW. Normal writing processes and peripheral acquired dysgraphias. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1988; 3; 2: 99-127. 10.1080/01690968808402084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fan X, Wang R, Wu J, Lin Z. A comparison of different cognitive control components between non-proficient and proficient Chinese–English bilinguals. Psychological Science. 2012; 35; 6: 1304-1308. 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.2012.06.015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraisse P. Why is naming longer than reading?. Acta Psychologica. 1969; 30: 96-103. 10.1016/0001-6918(69)90043-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gao D, Zhang R. The adoption of phonological processing strategy when native Chinese speakers learn English. Psychological Development and Education. 2005; 3: 66-73</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser MO, Glaser WR. Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1982; 8; 6: 875. 10.1037/0096-1523.8.6.875</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glaser WR, Düngelhoff FJ. The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1984; 10; 5: 640. 10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulstijn W, van Galen GPColley AM, Beech JR. Levels of motor programming in writing familiar and unfamiliar symbols. Cognition and motor in skilled behaviour. 1988; North-Holland</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jandhyala S. International and domestic dynamics of intellectual property protection. Journal of World Business. 2015; 50; 2: 284-293. 10.1016/j.jwb.2014.10.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jin Y, Yang H. The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET. Language, Culture and Curriculum. 2006; 19; 1: 21-36. 10.1080/07908310608668752</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kandel S, Peereman R, Ghimenton A. Further evidence for the interaction of central and peripheral processes: The impact of double letters in writing English words. Frontiers in Psychology. 2013; 4. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00729729</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kingsley AF, Noordewier TG, Bergh RGV. Overstating and understating interaction results in international business research. Journal of World Business. 2017; 52; 2: 286-295. 10.1016/j.jwb.2016.12.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software. 2017; 82; 1: 1-26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lambert E, Quémart P. Introduction to the special issue on the dynamics of written word production: Methods, models and processing units. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 1: 1-12. 10.1007/s11145-018-9929-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levelt WJ, Schriefers H, Vorberg D, Meyer AS, Pechmann T, Havinga J. The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review. 1991; 98; 1: 122. 10.1037/0033-295X.98.1.122</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu H, Cao F. L1 and L2 processing in the bilingual brain: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Brain and Language. 2016; 159: 60-73. 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.05.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupker SJ. The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture-word interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie. 1982; 36; 3: 349. 10.1037/h0080652</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miceli G, Benvegnù B, Capasso R, Caramazza A. The independence of phonological and orthographic lexical forms: Evidence from aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1997; 14; 1: 35-69. 10.1080/026432997381619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nakayama M, Kinoshita S, Verdonschot RG. The emergence of a phoneme-sized unit in L2 speech production: Evidence from Japanese–English bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016; 7. 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00175175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neely JH. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1977; 106; 3: 226. 10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olive T. Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research. 2014; 6; 2: 173-194. 10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pei L, Sommer W, Ouyang G. Orthographic character complexity modulates dynamic neural activity in skilled handwriting. British Journal of Psychology. 2025; 116; 1: 149-169. 10.1111/bjop.12742</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti CA, Hart L. The lexical quality hypothesis. Precursors of Functional Literacy. 2002; 11: 67-86. 10.1075/swll.11.14per</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perfetti CA, Liu Y, Fiez J, Nelson J, Bolger DJ, Tan LH. Reading in two writing systems: Accommodation and assimilation of the brain's reading network. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. 2007; 10; 2: 131-146. 10.1017/S1366728907002891</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perret C, Laganaro M. Comparison of electrophysiological correlates of writing and speaking: A topographic ERP analysis. Brain Topography. 2012; 25; 1: 64-72. 10.1007/s10548-011-0200-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Planton S, Jucla M, Démonet JF, Soum-Favaro C. Effects of orthographic consistency and word length on the dynamics of written production in adults: Psycholinguistic and rTMS experiments. Reading and Writing. 2019; 32; 1: 115-146. 10.1007/s11145-017-9776-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Posner MI, Synder CRRSolso RL. Attention and cognitive control. Informationprocessing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. 1975; Erlbaum: 55-58</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qu Q, Damian MF, Li X. Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from a masked priming task. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2015; 31; 2: 251-264. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1091086</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qu Q, Damian MF, Zhang Q, Zhu X. Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from written word production in a nonalphabetic script. Psychological Science. 2011; 22; 9: 1107-1112. 10.1177/0956797611417001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Qu Q, Zhang Q, Damian MF. Tracking the time course of lexical access in orthographic production: An event-related potential study of word frequency effects in written picture naming. Brain and Language. 2016; 159: 118-126. 10.1016/j.bandl.2016.06.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ren Y. A study of the washback effects of the College English Test (band 4) on teaching and learning English at tertiary level in China. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning. 2011; 6; 3: 243-259. 10.5172/ijpl.2011.6.3.243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schriefers H, Meyer AS, Levelt WJM. Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language. 1990; 29: 86-102. 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun H, Wang T, Yu M. Influence of stroke-order learning on Chinese character recognition among Chinese as a second language learners. System. 2024; 122. 10.1016/j.system.2024.103295103295</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sun X, Li L, Ding G, Wang R, Li P. Effects of language proficiency on cognitive control: Evidence from resting-state functional connectivity. Neuropsychologia. 2019; 129: 263-275. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.03.020</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan LH, Perfetti CA. Phonological codes as early sources of constraint in Chinese word identification: A review of current discoveries and theoretical accounts. Reading and Writing. 1998; 10: 165-200. 10.1023/A:1008086231343</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan LH, Spinks JA, Feng CM, Siok WT, Perfetti CA, Xiong J, Feng C-M, Fox PT, Gao J-H, Gao JH. Neural systems of second language reading are shaped by native language. Human Brain Mapping. 2003; 18; 3: 158-166. 10.1002/hbm.10089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tao S, Feng Y, Li W. The roles of different components of phonological awareness in English reading among mandarin-speaking children. Psychological Development and Education. 2007; 2: 82-92</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor DA. Time course of context effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1977; 106; 4: 404-426. 10.1037/0096-3445.106.4.404</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van den Bergh D, Wagenmakers EJ, Aust F. Bayesian repeated-measures analysis of variance: An updated methodology implemented in JASP. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. 2023; 6; 2: 1-11. 10.1177/2515245923116</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Galen GP. Phonological and motoric demands in handwriting: Evidence for discrete transmission of information. Acta Psychologica. 1990; 74; 2–3: 259-275. 10.1016/0001-6918(90)90008-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang R, Huang S, Zhou Y, Cai Z. Chinese character handwriting: A large-scale behavioral study and a database. Behavior Research Methods. 2020; 52: 82-96. 10.3758/s13428-019-01206-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xin X, Lan TY, Zhang QF. Assimilation mechanisms of phonological encoding in second language spoken production for English–Chinese bilinguals. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2020; 52; 12: 1377-1392. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.01377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ye J, Wang R, Li L, Fan M. The activation and inhibition of non-target language in bilingual speech production. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2011; 43; 11: 1263-1272. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2011.01263</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang Q, Damian MF. Impact of phonology on the generation of handwritten responses: Evidence from picture-word interference tasks. Memory and Cognition. 2010; 38; 4: 519-528. 10.3758/MC.38.4.519</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang Q, Wang C. Phonology is not accessed earlier than orthography in Chinese written production: Evidence for the orthography autonomy hypothesis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015; 6. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00448448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang Q, Yang Y. The determiners of picture naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2003; 35; 4: 447-454. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00447</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Yueyue Liu; Yating Bai; Ruiming Wang; Shuting Huang; Tianyu Zhang; Xin Zhang and Wenguang He</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib235" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib223" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib434" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib473" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib483" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref125"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1511751
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Phonological and Orthographic Processing during Second Language Handwritten Production of Chinese-English Bilinguals
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yueyue+Liu%22">Yueyue Liu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yating+Bai%22">Yating Bai</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ruiming+Wang%22">Ruiming Wang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shuting+Huang%22">Shuting Huang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tianyu+Zhang%22">Tianyu Zhang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xin+Zhang%22">Xin Zhang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wenguang+He%22">Wenguang He</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+and+Writing%3A+An+Interdisciplinary+Journal%22"><i>Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 39(6):2267-2294.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 28
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Phonology%22">Phonology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Orthographic+Symbols%22">Orthographic Symbols</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Processing%22">Language Processing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Second+Language+Learning%22">Second Language Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Handwriting%22">Handwriting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chinese%22">Chinese</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English%22">English</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingualism%22">Bilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Perceptual+Motor+Coordination%22">Perceptual Motor Coordination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Proficiency%22">Language Proficiency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interference+%28Learning%29%22">Interference (Learning)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Native+Language%22">Native Language</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s11145-025-10706-z
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0922-4777<br />1573-0905
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Handwritten production is a complex perceptual-motor process that involves phases of cognitive coding and motor execution. Two core questions in handwritten production concern elucidating the phonological role during orthographic access in the former phase and the effects of linguistic processes on the latter phase. While existing research has investigated these mechanisms in native language (L1), significant gaps persist regarding their operation in the second language (L2), as well as the potential influence of L1 handwriting experience and the modulating role of L2 proficiency on these processes. Here, we conducted three experiments with the picture-word interference paradigm, in which 44 proficient (Experiment 1) and 43 non-proficient Chinese-English bilinguals (Experiment 2), who had learned English as L2, as well as 38 native English speakers (Experiment 3), were required to write down the English names of pictures while attempting to ignore the written distractor word. The distractor word was either orthographically highly related (near-bear), phonologically highly related (chair-bear), or unrelated (cloud-bear) to the picture name (e.g., bear). The response times for the cognitive coding phase and the whole response duration for the motor execution phase were recorded. The conjoint analysis indicated that the differences observed across the experiments were marginally significant. The overall results suggested that in the cognitive coding phase, the activation of orthography was earlier than that of phonology for both proficient and non-proficient bilinguals, which might be dissimilar to the pattern of native English speakers, whose orthography and phonology were activated simultaneously, potentially supporting the influence of L1 handwriting experience on L2 orthographic access. In the motor execution phase, phonological and orthographic processes might be modulated by L2 proficiency: for proficient bilinguals, phonological and orthographic processes were terminated before motor execution, similar to native English speakers, supporting the serial model, whereas for non-proficient bilinguals, linguistic processes could spread into the motor execution, tending to a unique cascade pattern. The results are discussed from the perspective of the assimilation and accommodation hypothesis of L2 processing, as well as the dynamic relationship between the classic models of handwritten production.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 20260101
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1511751
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1511751
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11145-025-10706-z
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 28
        StartPage: 2267
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Phonology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Orthographic Symbols
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Processing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Second Language Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Handwriting
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Written Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chinese
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingualism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Perceptual Motor Coordination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Proficiency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interference (Learning)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Native Language
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Phonological and Orthographic Processing during Second Language Handwritten Production of Chinese-English Bilinguals
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yueyue Liu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yating Bai
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ruiming Wang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shuting Huang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tianyu Zhang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xin Zhang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wenguang He
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0922-4777
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-0905
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 39
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1