Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

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

DOI QR Code

Semantic transparency effects in the learning of new words: An ERP study

의미 투명성이 단어 학습에 미치는 영향: 사건관련전위 연구

  • Received : 2016.09.27
  • Accepted : 2016.09.27
  • Published : 2016.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study investigates the effects of semantic transparency on the learning of new words using both behavioral measures and event-related brain potentials. Participants studied novel words with either semantically transparent or opaque definitions while their brain potentials were recorded. Learning performance was assessed with both a lexical decision task and a recall test. The results indicated that transparent novel words were easier to learn than opaque words. More specifically, self-paced learning times were shorter for transparent novel words across three study sessions. Transparent words also elicited reduced N400s compared with opaque words in all sessions. Moreover, lexical decisions to both learned novel words and real words were faster and more accurate within the transparent condition compared to the opaque condition. These results suggest that semantic transparency also plays an important role within word learning, just as within word recognition, further supporting the notion that morphological information is critical within lexical processing.

새로운 한자합성어의 학습에서 의미 투명성의 효과를 행동 실험과 ERP 실험을 통해 조사하였다. 참가자들은 구성형태소와 단어 의미의 관계가 투명한 조건(=투명 신단어)과 불투명한 조건(=불투명 신단어)에서 3회기에 걸쳐 새로운 단어-의미쌍을 학습하였다. 학습 단계에서는 자기 조절 의미 학습 시간과 ERP를 측정하고, 검사 단계에서는 학습한 단어에 대한 어휘판단시간과 의미 회상 점수를 측정하였다. 의미 학습 시간, 어휘판단, 의미 회상 검사 모두에서 의미 투명성의 효과가 유의하게 나타났다. 투명 신단어의 경우, 불투명 신단어에 비해 의미 학습 시간이 더 짧았음에도 불구하고, 어휘판단이 더 정확하고 빨랐으며, 의미 회상 검사 수행이 더 좋았다. 의미 투명성 효과는 ERP의 N400 성분의 진폭에서도 나타났다. 단어 의미가 투명한 조건에 비해 불투명한 조건에서의 N400 진폭이 더 컸다. 본 연구의 결과는 단어 재인 연구에서 발견된 의미 투명성 효과가 단어 학습에서도 나타남을 보여주며, 이는 단어 학습에서 형태소 정보가 중요한 역할을 한다는 것을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 국립국어연구원 (1999). 표준국어대사전. 서울: 두산동아.
  2. 김한샘 (2005). 현대국어사용빈도조사2. 국립국어원.
  3. 민현식, 이찬규, 김왕규, 정혜승, 노명희, 박진호, 이준석 (2003). 초등학교 교과서 한자어 및 한자 분석 연구, 국립국어연구원.
  4. 배성봉, 이광오 (2010). 한국어 단어 재인에서 표기 음절과 음운 음절의 처리. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 22, 369-385.
  5. 배성봉, 이광오, 마스다 히사시 (2016). 새로운 단어의 학습에서 형태소 처리의 영향: 개인차 연구. 인지과학, 27, 159-180.
  6. 배성봉, 이광오, 박혜원 (2012). 한자어 인지와 학습에서 의미 투명성의 효과. 교육심리연구, 26, 607-620.
  7. 이광오, 배성봉 (2009). 한국어 음절의 표기빈도와 형태소빈도가 단어인지에 미치는 효과. 인지과학, 20, 309-333.
  8. 이광오, 이인선 (1999). 한글단어의 인지과정에서 형태소 정보처리. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 11, 77-91.
  9. 이광오, 정진갑, 배성봉 (2007). 표기체계와 시각적 단어 인지: 한자어의 인지에서 형태소의 표상과 처리. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 19, 317-327.
  10. Anglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58, 1-166.
  11. Balass, M., Nelson, J. R., & Perfetti, C. A. (2010). Word learning: An ERP investigation of word experience effects on recognition and word processing. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 126-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.001
  12. 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, 141-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-009-9130-6
  13. 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, 122-159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792826
  14. Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L., & Kutas, M. (2012). Once is enough: N400 indexes semantic integration of novel word meanings from a single exposure in context. Language Learning and Development, 8, 278-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2011.614893
  15. Borovsky, A., Kutas, M., & Elman, J. (2010). Learning to use words: Event-related potentials index single-shot contextual word learning. Cognition, 116, 289-296.
  16. Brusnighan, S. M., & Folk, J. R. (2012). Combining contextual and morphemic cues is beneficial during incidental vocabulary acquisition: Semantic transparency in novel compound word processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 172-190. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.015
  17. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and Writing, 12, 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008131926604
  18. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology, 24, 291-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710390227369
  19. Carlisle, J. F., & Feldman, L. B. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing (pp.189-209). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Coulson, S., Federmeier, K. D., Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (2005). Right hemisphere sensitivity to word-and sentence-level context: evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 129. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.129
  21. 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, 1-56.
  22. 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, 376-403.
  23. Hill, H., Ott, F., & Weisbrod, M. (2005). SOA-dependent N400 and P300 semantic priming effects using pseudoword primes and a delayed lexical decision. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 56, 209-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.12.004
  24. Holcomb, P. J., & Neville, H. J. (1991). Natural speech processing: An analysis using event-related brain potentials. Psychobiology, 19, 286-300.
  25. 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, 187-206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520500078291
  26. Jarema, G. (2006). Compound representation and processing: A cross-language perspective. In G. Libben, & G. Jarema (Ed.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp.45-70). New York: Oxford University Press.
  27. 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, 389-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9276-5
  28. Kuo, L. J., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4103_3
  29. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6
  30. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0
  31. Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2013). Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25, 484-502. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00328
  32. Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61, 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.1997.1876
  33. Libben, G. (2006). Why study compound processing? An overview of the issues. In G. Libben, & G. Jarema (Ed.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp.1-22). New York: Oxford University Press.
  34. Martin-Loeches, M., Hinojosa, J. A., Gomez-Jarabo, G., & Rubia, F. J. (2001). An early electrophysiological sign of semantic processing in basal extrastriate areas. Psychophysiology, 38, 114-124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3810114
  35. 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, 140-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2005.03.009
  36. Mestres-Misse, A., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Munte, T. F. (2007). Watching the brain during meaning acquisition. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 1858-1866. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhl094
  37. Myers, J. (2006). Processing Chinese compounds: A survey of the literature. In G. Libben & G. Jarema (Eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words (pp.169-196). New York: Oxford University Press.
  38. Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237-270. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312024002237
  39. Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., Schommer, M., Scott, J. A., & Stallman, A. C. (1989). Morphological families in the internal lexicon. Reading Research Quarterly, 262-282.
  40. 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, 1281. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1281
  41. Sandra, D. (1990). On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42, 529-567. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401236
  42. Smith, E. R., Chenery, H. J., Angwin, A. J., & Copland, D. A. (2009). Hemispheric contributions to semantic activation: A divided visual field and event-related potential investigation of time-course. Brain Research, 1284, 125-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.053
  43. 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, 523. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023495