Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Morphological processing within the learning of new words: A study on individual differences

새로운 단어의 학습에서 형태소 처리의 영향: 개인차 연구

  • Received : 2016.06.27
  • Accepted : 2016.06.27
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study aims to investigate how differences in terms of morphological awareness (MA) influence the learning of new words in young adults. Divided into two groups according to their MA, participants were asked to learn the meanings of rare Hanja words in both morphologically supported and unsupported sentence contexts. The results indicate that high-MA participants were more successful in learning the meanings of the words than the low-MA participants and that the group difference lasted for one week after learning. More importantly, the effect of MA was greater for rare words appearing within morphological supported sentences. These results suggest that both the availability of morphological analyses during learning and individual differences in MA influence the learning of word meanings.

본 연구는 형태소 인식력에 따른 단어 학습 수행의 차이를 조사하였다. 참가자들을 형태소 인식력이 높은 집단과 낮은 집단으로 나누고, 문장 맥락 속에 제시된 새로운 단어의 의미를 추론하여 학습하도록 하였다. 단어는 형태소 분석이 가능한 문장 맥락 또는 불가능한 문장 맥락 속에 제시되었다. 실험 결과, 형태소 인식력이 높은 참가자들은 형태소 인식력이 낮은 참가자들에 비해 새로운 단어의 의미를 더 정확하게 추론하였고, 일주일 후에도 이러한 차이가 유지되었다. 의미 학습의 집단 간 차이는 형태소 분석이 가능한 문장 맥락 조건에서 크게 나타났으며, 형태소 분석이 불가능한 문장 맥락 조건에서는 차이가 아주 작았다. 본 연구의 결과는 새로운 한자어의 의미 학습에 형태소 분석이 관여하며, 형태소 인식력이 형태소 분석 과정에 영향을 미친다는 증거를 제공한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립국어연구원 편 (1999). 표준국어대사전. 서울: 두산동아. 7308.
  2. 배성봉, 이광오 (2010). 한국어 단어 재인에서 표기 음절과 음운 음절의 처리. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 22(3), 369-385.
  3. 배성봉, 이광오, 박혜원 (2012). 한자어 인지와 학습에서 의미투명성의 효과. 교육심리연구, 26(2), 607-620.
  4. 이광오, 배성봉 (2009). 한국어 음절의 표기빈도와 형태소빈도가 단어인지에 미치는 효과. 인지과학, 20(3), 309-333.
  5. 이광오, 이인선 (1999). 한글단어의 인지과정에서 형태소 정보처리. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 11, 77-91.
  6. 이광오, 정진갑, 배성봉 (2007). 표기체계와 시각적 단어 인지: 한자어의 인지에서 형태소의 표상과 처리. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 19(4), 317-327.
  7. 이응백 (1988). 자료를 통해 본 한자.한자어의 실태와 그 교육. 서울: 아세아문화사.
  8. 조남호 (2002). 현대국어사용빈도조사. 국립국어원.
  9. Anglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the society for research in child development, i-186.
  10. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 39(2), 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6
  11. Bolger, D. J., Balass, M., Landen, E., & Perfetti, C. A. (2008). Context variation and definitions in learning the meanings of words: An instance-based learning approach. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 122-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792826
  12. Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L., & Fernald, A. (2012). Knowing a lot for one's age: Vocabulary skill and not age is associated with anticipatory incremental sentence interpretation in children and adults. Journal of experimental child psychology, 112(4), 417-436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.01.005
  13. Borovsky, A., Kutas, M., & Elman, J. (2010). Learning to use words: Event-related potentials index single-shot contextual word learning. Cognition, 116(2), 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.05.004
  14. Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D. P., & Mencl, W. E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary reading skill differences in young adults. Journal of learning disabilities, 40(3), 226-243. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194070400030401
  15. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and writing, 12(3), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604
  16. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24(3-4), 291-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390227369
  17. Carlisle, J. F., & Feldman, L. B. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. Morphological aspects of language processing, 189-209.
  18. De Groot, A., & Keijzer, R. (2000). What is hard to learn is easy to forget: The roles of word concreteness, cognate status, and word frequency in foreign-language vocabulary learning and forgetting. Language Learning, 50(1), 1-56.
  19. Feldman, L. B., O'Connor, P. A., & del Prado Martin, F. M. (2009). Early morphological processing is morphosemantic and not simply morpho-orthographic: A violation of form-then-meaning accounts of word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(4), 684-691. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.4.684
  20. Frishkoff, G. A., Perfetti, C. A., & Collins-Thompson, K. (2010). Lexical quality in the brain: ERP evidence for robust word learning from context. Developmental neuropsychology, 35(4), 376-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2010.480915
  21. Grainger, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (2009). Watching the Word Go by: On the Time-course of Component Processes in Visual Word Recognition. Language and linguistics compass, 3(1), 128-156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00121.x
  22. Hurry, J., Nunes, T., Bryant, P., Pretzlik, U., Parker, M., Curno, T., & Midgley, L. (2005). Transforming research on morphology into teacher practice. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520500078291
  23. Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. (2012). Children's morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 389-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9276-5
  24. Kruk, R. S., & Bergman, K. (2013). The reciprocal relations between morphological processes and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(1), 10-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.09.014
  25. Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.3
  26. Kuo, L. J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3
  27. Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive psychology, 20(2), 121-157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(88)90017-5
  28. McBride-Chang, C., Cho, J. R., Liu, H., Wagner, R. K., Shu, H., Zhou, A. & Muse, A. (2005). Changing models across cultures: Associations of phonological awareness and morphological structure awareness with vocabulary and word recognition in second graders from Beijing, Hong Kong, Korea, and the United States. Journal of experimental child psychology, 92(2), 140-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.009
  29. Perdijk, K., Schreuder, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). The role of morphological family size in word recognition: A developmental perspective. Written Language & Literacy, 8(2), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.8.2.05per
  30. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific studies of reading, 11(4), 357-383. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530730
  31. Perfetti, C. A., Wlotko, E. W., & Hart, L. A. (2005). Word learning and individual differences in word learning reflected in event-related potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6), 1281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1281
  32. Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2008). Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7-8), 942-971. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802069730
  33. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading research quarterly, 360-407.
  34. Tong, X., Deacon, S. H., Kirby, J. R., Cain, K., & Parrila, R. (2011). Morphological awareness: A key to understanding poor reading comprehension in English. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 523. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023495

Cited by

  1. Individual differences in the morphological decomposition of Hanja words vol.29, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2017.29.4.008