Read Writ (2010) 23:957–968
DOI 10.1007/s11145-009-9184-8

The sensitivity of native Japanese speakers
to On and Kun kanji readings
Katsuo Tamaoka · Marcus Taft

Published online: 27 May 2009
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Japanese kanji reading can be divided into two types: On-readings,
derived from the original Chinese pronunciation and Kun-readings, originating fromthe Japanese pronunciation. Kanji that are normally given an On-reading around
50% of the time were presented in a context of other kanji that had either a highly
dominant On-reading or a highly dominant Kun-reading. The reading that was givenin this experiment was very much biased toward the type of phonological environment in which it was embedded. So native Japanese speakers easily shifted
between On and Kun readings, depending on phonological context, suggesting that
separate On and Kun sub-lexica exist within the phonological lexicon.
Keywords Japanese lexicon · Kanji phonological lexicon · On- and Kun-reading ·Phonological shift

Introduction
Japanese kanji readings can be divided into two types: On-readings, derived from theoriginal Chinese pronunciation, and Kun-readings originating from the Japanese
pronunciation (see Hirose, 1998; Kess & Miyamoto, 1999; Leong & Tamaoka, 1995).
For example, the kanji 海 meaning ‘ocean’ is pronounced /kai/ in On-reading (orSino-Japanese), but /umi/ in Kun-reading. On-reading is frequently used for multiplekanji compound words such as 海岸 /kaigaN/ meaning ‘seashore’, 海賊 /kaizoku/

K. Tamaoka (&)
Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku,
Nagoya 464-8601, Japane-mail: ktamaoka@gc4.so-net.ne.jp
M. Taft
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

123

958

K. Tamaoka, M. Taftmeaning ‘pirate’, and 海藻 /kaisoR/1 meaning ‘seaweed’. Kun-readings frequently
appear as a single kanji, often having a concrete meaning by itself. In the case of 海,
this single kanji meaning ‘ocean’ or ‘sea’ is pronounced /umi/ in its Kun-reading. The
psychological question can then be raised about how On- and Kun-readings of thesame kanji characters are represented in the mental lexicon.
As for etymological types, Japanese lexical items (i.e., words) are classified into
four categories, Japanese-origin words (Wago), Chinese-origin words or SinoJapanese (Kango), alphabetic loanwords (Gairaigo) and onomatopoeia (Gitaigo). In
linguistic studies (Fukazawa & Kitahara, 2004; Ito & Mester, 1995, 2003; Vance,1987), it is proposed that etymological types define ‘lexical strata’ in the Japaneselexicon, each comprising their own unique constraints. In this conceptual frameworkof lexical stratum, there is a core of Wago lexical items surrounded by the two
increasingly peripheral layers of Kango and Gairaigo, each defined by their own
phonological constraints. Wago are composed of the phonological characteristics of
Kun-readings, whereas Kango comprise phonological characteristics of On-readings.
Consequently, characteristics of On- and Kun-readings relate, respectively to thephonological nature of the etymological types of Wago and Kango.
Among the 1,945 basic kanji, 40 have only Kun-readings while 737 have only Onreadings (Tamaoka, Kirsner, Yanase, Miyaoka, & Kawakami, 2002; Tamaoka &Makioka, 2004). Thus, 1,168 kanji have both On- and Kun-readings. Native Japanese
speakers can judge whether a spoken kanji element of a word is an On- or Kunreading with relatively high accuracy (Tamaoka, 2003). However, when an Onreading kanji (mostly monosyllabic) with a concrete meaning involves a polysyllabic
sound (such as 肉 /niku/ ‘meat’ and 菊 /kiku/ ‘chrysanthemum’), native Japanese
speakers exhibit some difficulty judging whether it is On- or Kun-reading (Tamaoka,
2003). These single-kanji words are constructed by phonological CVCV-structure,
not containing any special sound (i.e., nasal /N/ , geminate /Q/ and long vowel /R/)
which are frequently found in On-readings (Tamaoka et al., 2002). These words may
be classified as zokukango (vulgarized Sino-Japanese) since they display phonological characteristics typically observed in Wago (Takayama, 1999).2 Such erroneous
judgments of On- and Kun-readings suggest that native Japanese speakers have an
intuitive sense of the difference between On and Kun which influence the distinction
they make between the etymological categories of Wago and Kango.
There are two possible lexical structures for On and Kun phonologicalrepresentations in the Japanese kanji phonological lexicon. The first possibility isthat each kanji pronunciation is labeled as On or Kun, like having a sound tag (i.e.,
direct kanji-to-sound tag with no On/Kun sub-lexica). Kanji are represented in theorthographic lexicon which is further connected to kanji sounds in the phonologicallexicon. Thus, On- and Kun-readings are simply identified by a label associatedwith their pronunciations: There is a single phonological lexicon with no On/Kun
1

The pronunciation of Japanese words in this paper is transcribed using Japanese phonemic symbols
which indicate three special sounds in Japanese: /N/ for nasal, /Q/ for geminate and /R/ for long vowel.

2

The single-kanji word /kiku/ is On-reading and is classified as Kango. This word, however, represents
sequential voicing, or rendaku as in /no + giku/ (voiceless /k/ changes to voiced /g/ ) ‘a wild chrysanthemum’
which is usually a phonological feature of Wago. This is one of examples of vulgarized Sino-Japanese or
zokukango.

123Phonological shift959

sub-categorization. The second possible structure is that On and Kun are separated
from each other in the lexicon (i.e., On/Kun sub-lexica). Independent On and Kun sublexica are divided by On/Kun phonological boundaries, and On- and Kun-readings are
selected for use in appropriate lexical situations. However, native Japanese speakers
occasionally confuse On- and Kun-readings because some On-readings resemble
Kun-readings as seen in examples of vulgarized Sino-Japanese. Therefore, thequestion being address in this study is how On- and Kun-readings are represented andretrieved from lexical memory: Using direct kanji-to-sound tag or On/Kun sub-lexica.
Questions regarding On- and Kun-readings
In order to investigate the mental representations and selecting mechanism for kanji
On- and Kun-readings, the present study conducted an experiment examining a
possible phonological shift in On- and Kun-readings. Kaiho & Nomura (1983)
calculated kanji On-reading ratios (%) by dividing the kanji frequency of On-readings
by the total number of each kanji frequency. In the present study, kanji with anapproximately 50% On-reading ratio (which implies a 50% Kun-reading ratio as well)
were randomly embedded within a group of kanji all having a 100% On-reading ratio(for details see Appendix 1). For example, the kanji 歌 ‘a song’ ( /uta/ for Kun-reading
and /ka/ for On-reading), with a 48% On-reading ratio, was embedded in a group of
kanji each with a 100% On-reading ratio such as 郡 識 将 議 容 歌 銀 純 律(the underlined kanji is the target). This was the On-reading phonologicalenvironment. Likewise, the same kanji 歌 was embedded in kanji with a high Kunreading ratio (or a low On-reading ratio) as in 舌 顔 切 仲 割 歌 読 机 孫. Thiscondition was the Kun-reading phonological environment. Native Japanese speakers
were asked to transcribe each kanji in the Japanese phonetic script of hiragana.
Several different outcomes are possible in this task, each being explicable by adifferent theoretical account. If On/Kun-reading is tagged to each kanji soundwithout any On- and Kun-reading boundaries, the target kanji should be pronounced
in a distribution reflecting its kanji sound frequency regardless of the On/Kuncontext. In the case of 歌 with a 48% On-reading ratio, this kanji should be
pronounced as either an On- or Kun-reading equally often in either context. That is,
the pronunciation given to a particular kanji should be specifically tied to that kanji
and, hence, be unaffected by the pronunciation given to any other kanji. However, if
On- and Kun-reading boundaries exist in the kanji phonological lexicon, thepronunciation of the kanji 歌 should shift depending upon the On or Kun
phonological environment. The particular environment would lead to a bias toward
the use of one or the other sub-lexicon, such that Kanji embedded in an On-reading
environment should yield a high frequency of On-reading while kanji embedded in a
Kun-reading environment should yield a high frequency of Kun-reading.
Another possible outcome is related to phonological accessibility. In early studies
on On- and Kun-readings, Nomura (1978, 1979) found that kanji with a higher
On-reading ratio (i.e., a lower Kun-reading ratio) were named faster than kanji with alower On-reading ratio (i.e., a higher Kun-reading ratio) and, from this, proposed a
different processing route for On- and Kun-readings. When readers can determine
the meaning of a kanji faster than its pronunciation, they judge that these

123

960

K. Tamaoka, M. Taftslowly-activated sounds must be Kun-readings. In contrast, when readers candetermine the sound of a kanji more easily and quickly than its meaning, they judge
such sounds as On-readings. Such an explanation, however, is problematic in terms of
the relevance of the speed of activating meaning relative to the speed of activating
sound. Nomura (1978, 1979) was not looking at On/Kun judgments, but rather speedof naming. In addition, he did not research semantic aspects of kanji, so that his finding
was simply that On-reading was activated more quickly than Kun-reading, implyingthat an On-reading can be discriminated from a Kun-reading. Nevertheless, if native
Japanese speakers do use the putative naming-speed strategy as Nomura (1978, 1979)
suggests, it is expected that the majority of the kanji presented as a single unit should
be given their On-reading regardless of the On/Kun phonological environment.
Another possible outcome is predicted on the basis of kanji lexicality (i.e.,
meaningfulness). Kun-reading is often used for kanji when not compounding to otherkanji. The single kanji 岩 has a concrete meaning (‘rock’) and is given its Kun-reading(/iwa/) when used as a free-standing word. In contrast, the On-reading /gan/ is used
only in the form of compound words such as 岩窟 /gankutu/ meaning ‘cave’,
溶岩 /yoogan/ meaning ‘lava’, and 砂岩 /sagan/ meaning ‘sandstone’. Thus, when akanji is presented by itself, a bias might be expected for readers to choose the Kunreading because of its lexicality. According to this account, we should see a highfrequency of Kun-readings regardless of the phonological environment in which it
was embedded.
Finally, grammatical category needs to be taken into consideration. A single
kanji may often be a verb or adjective, in which case, it will contain an inflection
and be pronounced as Kun. For example, the kanji 売 meaning ‘to sell’ ispronounced /bai/ in On-reading and /u(ru)/ in Kun-reading. This Kun-reading
includes a verb inflection る /ru/ printed in hiragana (i.e., 売る). Arising from this,the prediction is that kanji with Kun-readings for verbs and adjectives will not easily
shift On- and Kun-readings. To test this prediction, the present experiment selectedkanji with Kun-readings that either do or do not take an inflection.

MethodParticipants
Ninety-two undergraduate and graduate students (48 females and 44 males), all native
speakers of Japanese, participated in this experiment. Ages ranged from 19 to 39 years.
Stimuli
Based on the On-reading ratio provided by Kaiho & Nomura (1983), 32 target items
were chosen from kanji with a 45% to 55% On-reading ratio. All stimuli were takenfrom the 1,945 basic Japanese kanji. The present stimuli also included grammaticalcategories in Kun-readings by dividing the 32 kanji into those which required an
inflection when given a Kun reading (i.e., verbs and adjectives) and those which did
not (i.e., nouns). Of the former, there were 10 verb forms and 6 adjective forms.

123

Phonological shift

961

Table 1 Characteristics of target kanji with a 50% On-reading ratio in function of Kun-reading with andwithout inflections
Kanji stimuli

On-reading
ratio (%)

Kanji printed Number of Number of
Number of
frequency
strokeswords produced homophones

Schoolgrade

Kanji with no M
inflections

49.63

17,036

8.94

141.44

16.88

2.63

Kun-readings(n = 16)SD

2.66

38,5804.57

132.03

12.39

1.41

Kanji withinflections

M

51.00

13,43610.69

105.81

13.94

3.75

Kun-readings(n = 16)SD

3.33

12,3363.00

111.91

12.67

1.73

To create the On-reading phonological environment, 63 kanji with 100% Onreading ratio were chosen, and half of the targets were embedded amongst these.
Because there are only 40 kanji with 100% Kun-reading ratio, the criterion of
having a greater than 80% Kun-reading ratio was used for the 63 kanji that formed
the Kun-reading environment. Again, half of the target kanji were embedded in thisenvironment. Two lists for each pronunciation environment were created, with theembedded targets counterbalanced between them (for details, see Appendix 1).
The target kanji and their On- and Kun-readings are listed in Appendix 2.
Characteristics of the two groups are shown in Table 1. A t-test showed nosignificant difference between the On-reading ratios for kanji that take inflections
and those that do not, t(30) = −0.026, p [ .1.
It is well-known that kanji printed-frequency (i.e., number of occurrences in
written materials) affects kanji processing (e.g., Tamaoka & Hatsuzuka, 1995 forJapanese kanji, and Taft & Zhu, 1995; Taft, Huang, & Zhu, 1994; Wu, Chou, & Liu,
1994; Zhang & Peng, 1992; Zhou & Marslen-Wilson, 1994 for Chinese characters),
so this needed to be matched between the two stimulus groups. Yokoyama,
Sasahara, Nozaki, & Long (1998) published frequency of occurrence data based on
all the kanji in Tokyo editions of the Asahi newspaper printed in 1993. Their index
recorded actual kanji frequency of occurrence 17,117,320 times (i.e., token
frequency) for 4,583 kanji (i.e., type frequency). As shown in Table 1, the means ofkanji frequency were 17,036 for the target kanji with no inflections and 13,436 forthe kanji with inflections, a non-significant difference, t(30) = 0.355, p [ .1.
Because orthographic complexity has also been observed to affect the processingof Chinese characters (Leong, Cheng, & Mulcahy, 1987), we controlled the average
number of strokes between conditions (figures taken from Tamaoka et al., 2002),
t(30) = −1.280, p [ .1.
Linguistic productivity refers to the number of two-kanji compound words that
contain the particular single kanji (for details see Nomura, 1989). The index for thiswas provided by Kawakami (1997). There was no significant difference between thetwo sets of kanji items, t(30) = 0.823, p [ .1.
The number of homophones was counted according to how many kanji out of thebasic 1,945 shared the same sound (Tamaoka et al., 2002). For example, the sound/yoku/ can be written using five different characters in the 1,945 basic kanji. Both

123

962

K. Tamaoka, M. Taft

On- and Kun-readings were calculated for kanji homophones. As seen in Table 1,
the average numbers of kanji homophones were 16.88 for kanji with no infections
and 13.94 for kanji with inflections. There was no significant difference between
them, t(30) = 0.663, p [ .1.
The school grade in which the target kanji are taught was also taken into
consideration. The assignment of the 1,006 basic kanji to Grades 1–6 follows theJapanese language curriculum as was outlined by the Japanese Ministry of Educationin 1989. Since the remaining 939 basic kanji are taught in Grades 7–9, these are allindicated with the number ‘7’. Using these figures, the averages of school grades were
calculated as 2.63 for the target kanji with no inflection and 3.75 for kanji withinflections. These means did not significantly differ, t(30) = −2.016, p [ .1.
ProcedureThe 32 target kanji were randomly embedded within 63 kanji that either had 100%On-readings or less than 20% On-readings (i.e., over 80% Kun-reading ratio). In
order to avoid the same target kanji being assigned to the same subject under
different conditions, four lists (two for each phonological environment) were created.
Both groups of participants received an On context list and a Kun context list,
whereby the target kanji were equally divided between the two lists (8 withinflections and 8 without inflections per list). The assignment of items from the twolists was reversed for the two participant groups such that, over the two groups, every
target kanji was presented in both contexts and no participant saw the same target
kanji more than once. All lists were presented to participants in printed form. Going
through the list from top to bottom, participants were asked to use the Japanesephonetic script of hiragana to write down either the On- or Kun-reading for eachkanji, whichever first came to mind. Frequencies of On-readings were recorded forthe target kanji. Reading errors were not included in the analysis because, with mostkanji used in the present study being taken from the basic 1,006 kanji taught during
the first six school grades, the university students made few reading mistakes.

Results
The means of On-reading percentages for kanji with and without inflections underboth the high On- and Kun-readings are presented in Table 2. A 2 (inflectional
status) 9 2 (phonological environment) ANOVA was conducted on On-reading
percentages. Inflectional status was analyzed as a between-stimuli factor whilephonological environment was a within-stimuli factor.
There was a dramatic shift from On-reading to Kun-reading when the context
changed from dominant-On to dominant-Kun, F(1, 30) = 227.50, p \ .001. The main
effect of inflection was also significant, F(1,30) = 45.27, p \ .001. The target kanji
which had inflections in their Kun-reading were given On-readings more often thanthose with no inflections. Since kanji with no inflections are more naturally read in
their Kun-reading as a free-standing lexical unit, they were less frequently
pronounced in their On-reading regardless of phonological environment. Yet, as

123

Phonological shift

963

Table 2 On-reading frequency (%) of target kanji with a 50% On-reading ratio embedded in On- andKun-reading dominant environments
Inflections in
Kun-readings

Kanji phonological environment

Degree of
On/Kun shift

On-reading dominant

Kun-reading dominant

M

SD

M

Non-inflectional kanji

68.75

18.81

12.36

7.75

56.39

Inflectional kanji

90.49

7.65

21.77

14.89

68.72

SD

shown in Table 2, both inflectional and non-inflectional types of kanji displayed asimilar degree of On/Kun phonological shift: 56.39% for kanji with inflections and68.72% for kanji with no inflections, with the interaction being non-significant,F(1,30) = 2.21, p [ .1. Therefore, both the major factors of phonological environment and inflection independently affected the choice of On- or Kun-readings.

Discussion
The present study investigated how On and Kun pronunciations are represented inlexical memory and how On- and Kun-readings are distinguished and used invarious situations. Various possible outcomes were proposed in the present study.
The first prediction was that native Japanese speakers are sensitive to On- andKun-reading frequencies. All target kanji used in the present study were within therange of 45–55% On-reading ratio, so if Japanese pronounce the target kanji basedon their frequencies of experience in seeing and sounding kanji, they would read thetarget kanji at roughly this ratio regardless of the On/Kun phonological context.
However, the present study found that the phonological context surrounding thetarget kanji affected the selection of On/Kun-readings implying that the phonological context had more impact than On/Kun-reading frequency. In order for their
On/Kun-reading to shift freely like this, Japanese speakers must develop a sense of
On/Kun-reading boundaries within their lexical memory of kanji phonology.
Secondly, it was predicted that participants would tend to choose to read a target
kanji either in an On- or Kun-reading depending on which phonological representation
is more quickly activated. According to Nomura (1978, 1979), On-reading is associatedwith sound while Kun-reading with concepts, which means that the phonology of Onreadings should be more quickly activated than those of Kun-readings. In fact, themeaning of ‘On’ literally refers to ‘sound’ and ‘Kun’ refers to ‘concept’. If this claim istrue, it would be expected that speakers would be more likely to choose On-readings for
single target kanji presented alone than Kun-readings, a prediction that was notsubstantiated. On/Kun selection does not necessarily depend on how fast phonologicalrepresentations are activated in the presentation of a single kanji, which rules out
phonological accessibility as the basis for choosing On- or Kun-readings.
Another possibility was that the target kanji would be read as Kun because all thetarget kanji were presented as single free-standing lexical units which arecharacteristic of Kun-readings. For instance, the kanji 犬 has the lexical meaning

123

964

K. Tamaoka, M. Taftof ‘dog’ by itself which leads to the Kun sound /inu/ , regardless of phonologicalcontext. However, in the present study, the lexicality of a free-standing single kanji
was not the preferred candidate for the selection of On/Kun-readings. Again, thefinding supports the existence of On and Kun boundaries which allow Japanese to
freely shift between the two readings.
A further hypothesis was that grammatical categories would affect On/Kun-readings.
The present study manipulated inflections among the 32 target kanji when in their Kunreading. The 16 target kanji were nouns with no inflection while the remaining 16 kanji
were adjectives and verbs with inflections usually seen with hiragana in a Japanesewritten context. It was predicted that the nouns would be easier to read in their Kunreading than the verbs and adjectives because no inflections were presented, and theresults supported this. Nevertheless, since the degree of phonological shift for On/Kun
readings was substantial regardless of whether an inflection was required or not, theresults support the assumption that separate On- and Kun-reading sub-lexica exist
within the Japanese phonological kanji lexicon regardless of grammatical categories.
Native Japanese speakers can easily identify kanji On- and Kun-readings. To
make this On/Kun assignment possible, it is a fundamental requirement for eachkanji to have On and/or Kun tags. Despite any outcome based upon On-reading
frequency, phonological accessibility and free-standing lexical unit, native Japanese
speakers noticeably shifted On/Kun sounds depending on the phonologicalsurroundings of the target kanji. In this sense, the lexical memory of kanji
On/Kun phonology included On/Kun boundaries. In the process of kanji acquisition,
native Japanese speakers seem to develop a phonological sense of On/Kun-readings
which become a basis of constructing the dichotomous On and Kun boundaries.
The existence of an inflection in the Kun-reading, however, indicated some effecton the choice of On/Kun-readings. In the phonological context of Kun-reading,participants chose Kun-readings of target kanji with no inflections more frequently
than those with inflections while, in the On-reading context, the same target kanji
with no inflections were read in On-readings less frequently than those withinflections. Single kanji nouns tend to be read in their Kun sounds because they are
free-standing lexical units. In contrast, adjectives and verbs require extra hiragana
attachments to kanji which add extra sounds to a Kun-reading. These additions toadjectives and verbs create a different degree of selection for On/Kun-readings.
Regardless of the grammatical effects in Kun-readings, phonological context still
strongly affected the On/Kun selection process.
The present study investigated whether On/Kun sub-lexica exist in the Japanesephonological lexicon. Sunning up the results, the phonological boundaries for
On/Kun-readings must exist in the phonological kanji lexicon. Each kanji are notsimply connected from kanji to On/Kun sounds. These kanji sounds are roughly
divided into two On/Kun sub-lexica within the phonological lexicon. These On/Kun
sub-lexica further act to display the phonological nature of the Wago and Kango
etymological types. Further questions of On/Kun-readings may be raised about whatkind of phonological clues native Japanese speakers use for distinguishing On andKun, and how Japanese pre-school children acquire distinct phonological rules
related to the Wago and Kango (and Giraigo) etymological types associated with On
and Kun sounds in the absence of formal instruction.

123

Phonological shift965

Appendix 1
See Table 3.
Table 3

Target kanji with a 50% On-reading ratio in high On- and Kun-reading environments(1) Kun-reading dominant environment (Type A1)(2) On-reading dominant environment (Type A2)(3) Kun-reading dominant environment (Type B1)(4) On-reading dominant environment (Type B2)

Note: * refers to Target kanji. Types A1 and B1 are high Kun-reading dominant environments, while Types
A2 and B2 are high On-reading dominant environments. Types A1 and B2 were assigned to 46 participants,
while Types A2 and B1 were presented to 46 different participants. The total number of participants was 92

Appendix 2
See Table 4.

123

966
Table 4

K. Tamaoka, M. Taft
On-reading frequencies (%) of each kanji with a 50% On-reading ratio(1) Kanji with no inflections in Kun-readings
Kanji

Meaning

On-reading

Kun-reading

sister
dog
crowd
pond
islandperson
flag
man
sing
rock
flour
lower
mirror
eye
skin
south

/si/
/keN/
/guN/
/ti/
/toR/
/ziN/
/ki/
/daN/
/ka/
/gaN/
/huN/
/ka/
/kyoR/
/gaN/
/hi/
/naN/

/imoRto//inu//mure//ike//sima//hito//hata//otoko//uta//iwa//kona//sita//kagami//me//kawa//minami/Kanji phonological environment
On-reading dominant Kun-reading dominant
93.48
4.35
93.48
13.04
91.30
8.70
89.13
2.17
82.61
10.87
78.26
13.04
76.09
10.87
73.91
6.52
71.74
2.17
65.22
13.04
65.22
17.39
47.83
6.52
45.65
23.91
43.48
15.22
41.30
17.39
41.30
32.61

(2) Kanji with inflections in Kun-readings
Kanji phonological environment
On-reading dominant Kun-reading dominant
doubt
/gi/
/utaga(u)/100.0023.91
mistake/go//ayama(ru)/
97.83
0.00
change/heN//kawa(ru)/
97.83
2.17
bad
/aku/
/waru(i)/
95.65
6.52
dark
/aN/
/kura(i)/
95.65
13.04
say
/geN/
/yu(R)/
95.65
26.09
strong/kyoR//tuyo(i)/
93.48
19.57
light
/kei/
/karu(i)/
93.48
28.26
end
/syuR//owa(ru)/
91.30
6.52
warm
/daN/
/atataka(i)/
91.30
10.87
wash
/seN/
/ara(u)/
89.13
26.09
small
/syoR//tiR(sai)/
89.13
30.43
fall
/raku//oti(ru)/
86.96
22.28
pain
/tuR/
/ita(i)/
78.26
34.78
work
/roR/
/hatara(ku)/
76.09
47.83
sell
/bai/
/u(ru)/
76.09
50.00
Note: Each percentage is calculated by the number of On-readings divided by the total readings among 46
native Japanese speakers (total of 92 participants due to the counter-balanced design) for 50 percent Onreading kanji in a phonological environments of high On- and Kun-reading dominants. Thus, percentages
indicate how often On-readings (shaded columns) are used in each phonological environment. Only
typical On- and Kun-readings are included in the table
Kanji

Meaning

123

On-reading

Kun-reading

Phonological shift

967

References
Fukazawa, H., & Kitahara, M. (2004). Nihongo no goisoo to tangorashisa no kankei ni tsuite[Wordlikeness for lexical strata in Japanese]. Speech and Grammar, 4, 145–160.
Hirose, H. (1998). Identifying the On- and Kun-readings of Chinese characters: Identification of On
versus Kun as a strategy-based judgment. In C. K. Leong & K. Tamaoka (Eds.), Cognitive
processing of the Chinese and the Japanese languages (pp. 375–394). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ito, J., & Mester, A. (1995). Japanese phonology. In J. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonologicaltheory (pp. 817–838). Cambridge, MA: Backwell.
Ito, J., & Mester, A. (2003). Japanese morphophonemics: Markedness and word structure (Linguistics
inquiry monograph forty-one). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kaiho, H., & Nomura, Y. (1983). Kanji joho shori no shinrigaku [The psychology of kanji information
processing]. Tokyo: Kyoiku Shuppan.
Kawakami, M. (1997). JIS 1-shu kanji 2,965-ji o mochiite sakusei sareru kanji niji jyukugosuu hyoo
[Tables of two-kanji compound words constructed with 2,965 JIS 1-st kanji characters]. School of
Education Bulletin (Nagoya University), 44, 243–299.
Kess, J. F., & Miyamoto, T. (1999). The Japanese mental lexicon: Psycholinguistic studies of kana andkanji processing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Leong, C. K., Cheng, P.-W., & Mulcahy, R. (1987). Automatic processing of morphemic orthography.
Language and Speech, 30, 181–196.
Leong, C. K., & Tamaoka, K. (1995). Use of phonological information in processing kanji and katakanaby skilled and less skilled Japanese readers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7,
377–393.
Nomura, Y. (1978). Kanji no joho shori: On-doku kun-doku no imi no fuka [The information processingof Chinese characters (kanji): Chinese reading, Japanese reading and the attachment of meaning].
Japanese Journal of Psychology, 49, 190–197.
Nomura, Y. (1979). Kanji no joho shori: On-doku kun-doku no kensaku katei [Information processing ofChinese characters (Kanji): Retrieval processes in Chinese-style reading (On) and Japanese-stylereading (Kun)]. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 50, 101–105.
Nomura, M. (1989). Kanji no zoogo ryoku [Productivity of kanji]. In K. Sato (Ed.), Kanji kooza Vol.
1—Kanji towa [Kanji lecture series Vol. 1—What is kanji?] (pp. 193–217). Tokyo: Meiji Shoin.
Taft, M., Huang, J., & Zhu, X. P. (1994). The influence of character frequency on word recognition
responses in Chinese. In H.-W. Chang, J.-T. Huang, C.-W. Hue, & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Advancesin the study of Chinese language processing (Vol. 1, pp. 59–73). Taipei, Taiwan: Department of
Psychology, National Taiwan University.
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. P. (1995). The representation of bound morphemes in the lexicon: A Chinese study.
In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 293–316). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Takayama, T. (1999). Shakuyoogo no rendaku/koo’onka ni tsuite [Sequential voicing and fortis in loan
vocabulary]. Report of the special research project for the typological investigation of languages andcultures of the East and West #1 (pp. 375–385). Tsukuba: Tsukuba University.
Tamaoka, K. (2003). Where do statistically-derived indicators and human strategies meet whenidentifying On- and Kun-readings of Japanese kanji? Cognitive Studies, 10, 441–468.
Tamaoka, K., & Hatsuzuka, M. (1995). Kanji niji jukugo no shori ni okeru kanji shiyoo hindo no eikyoo[The effects of Kanji printed-frequency on processing Japanese two-morpheme compound words].
The Science of Reading, 39, 121–137.
Tamaoka, K., Kirsner, K., Yanase, Y., Miyaoka, Y., & Kawakami, M. (2002). A web-accessible databaseof characteristics of the 1,945 Japanese basic kanji. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments andComputers, 34, 260–275.
Tamaoka, K., & Makioka, S. (2004). New figures for a Web-accessible database of the 1,945 basic
Japanese kanji, fourth edition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 36, 548–
558.
Vance, T. J. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press.
Wu, J. -T., Chou, T. -L., & Liu, I. -M. (1994). The locus of the character/word frequency effect. In H.-W.
Chang, J.-T. Huang, C.-W. Hue, & O. J. L. Tzeng (Eds.), Advances in the study of Chinese language

123

968

K. Tamaoka, M. Taftprocessing (Vol. 1, pp. 31–58). Taipei, Taiwan: Department of Psychology, National Taiwan
University.
Yokoyama, S., Sasahara, H., Nozaki, H., & Long, E. (1998). Shinbun denshi media no kanji–Asahi
shinbun CD-ROM niyoru kanji hindo hyoo [Japanese kanji in the newspaper media–Kanji
frequency index from the Asahi newspaper on CD-ROM]. Tokyo: Sanseido.
Zhang, B., & Peng, D. (1992). Decomposed storage in the Chinese lexicon. In H.-C. Chen & O. J. L.
Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 131–149). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Zhou, X., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1994). Words, morphemes and syllables in the Chinese mental lexicon.
Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 393–422.

123