Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

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

DOI QR Code

Word processing observed in an eye-tracking experiment of Korean sentence reading by Chinese-Korean late bilinguals

중국어-한국어 후기 이중언어자들의 한국어 문장 읽기 안구운동 추적 실험에서 나타난 단어 처리

  • Choo, Hyeree (Multilingualism & Multiculturalism Research Center, Konkuk University) ;
  • Jeon, Moongee (Multilingualism & Multiculturalism Research Center, Konkuk University)
  • 주혜리 (건국대학 다언어다문화연구소) ;
  • 전문기 (건국대학 다언어다문화연구소)
  • Received : 2024.07.25
  • Accepted : 2024.08.02
  • Published : 2024.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The reading processes of Chinese-Korean bilinguals, who have learned Korean as a foreign language, are expected to show different eye movement patterns compared to native Korean speakers. Moreover, these bilinguals may utilize knowledge similar to Chinese in processing Korean word meanings, especially for Sino-Korean words that share semantic relationships with Chinese, potentially processing them faster than native Korean words. This study observed whether Chinese-Korean bilinguals show the word frequency effect typically observed in Korean native speaker reading during Korean sentence reading. Additionally, eye-tracking experiments were conducted under conditions distinguishing between native Korean words and Sino-Korean words to investigate whether there is an advantage in processing Sino-Korean words. The results of the experiments showed that Chinese-Korean bilinguals did not show the same frequency effects as native Korean speakers, and they showed shorter response times in the Sino-Korean condition compared to the native Korean condition. Based on these findings, it is suggested that Chinese-Korean bilinguals, when learning Korean as a foreign language, employ strategies focused on meaning similarity akin to their native language vocabulary acquisition strategies, and they process Sino-Korean words faster than native Korean words, suggesting a potential advantage in learning and processing Sino-Korean vocabulary.

외국어로써 한국어를 학습한 중국인의 한국어 글 읽기 처리는 한국어 모국어 화자와 다른 안구운동 패턴 양상을 보일 것이다. 또한 중국어-한국어 후기 이중언어자는 한국어 단어 의미 처리에서 중국어와 유사한 지식을 활용하고 중국어와 의미 관계가 가까운 한국어 한자어를 고유어보다 빠르게 처리 할 가능성이 있다. 이 연구는 외국어로써 한국어를 학습한 중국어-한국어 후기 이중언어자가 한국어 문장 읽기에서 일반적으로 한국어 모국어 화자의 글 읽기에서 나타나는 단어 빈도 효과가 나타나는지 알아보고 나아가 한자어 처리에 이득 효과가 있는지 확인하기 위해 고유어 조건과 한자어 조건으로 나누어 문장읽기 안구운동 추적 실험을 하였다. 실험 결과, 외국어로써 한국어를 학습한 중국인은 한국어 모국어 화자와 다르게 빈도 효과가 나타나지 않았으며 한자어 조건이 고유어 조건보다 반응 시간이 짧게 나타났다. 실험 결과를 바탕으로 중국어-한국어 후기 이중언어자들이 외국어로써 한국어를 학습할 때 모국어 단어 학습과 유사한 의미 중심의 전략을 활용하고 고유어 보다 한자어의 학습이 선행되어 한자어 의미 처리가 빠르다는 가능성을 보여준다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2023년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임 (NRF-2023S1A5C2A02095124).

References

  1. 김한샘 (2005). 현대국어사용빈도조사. 국립국어원.
  2. 김흥규, 강범모 (2008). 한국어 단어와 형태소의 사용 빈도 1500만 어절의 세종형태의미분석말뭉치기반. 서울: 고려대학교민족문화연구원.
  3. 배성봉, 이광오, 마스다히사시 (2016). 새로운 단어의 학습에서 형태소 처리의 영향: 개인차 연구. 한국인지과학회지, 27(2),303-323.
  4. 배성봉, 이광오, 박태진 (2012). 의미 투명성이 단어 학습에 미치는 영향: 사건관련전위 연구. 한국인지과학회지, 27(3), 421-439.
  5. 배성봉, 이광오, 박혜원 (2012). 한자어 인지와 학습에서 의미투명성의 효과. 교육 심리연구, 26(2), 607-620.
  6. 왕 상, 주혜리, 고성룡 (2023). 글 읽기에서 나타난 중심와주변 의미 미리보기 효과; 중국어 - 한국어 이중언어자 대상으로. 한국인지과학회지, 34(4), 315-347.
  7. 왕 상, 주혜리, 고성룡 (2024). 안구운동 추적을 통해 살펴본 중심와주변 정보의 의미적 관련 정도에 따른 미리보기 효과. 한국인지과학회지, 35(2), 129-159.
  8. 이광오, 배성봉 (2009). 한국어 음절의 표기빈도와 형태소빈도가 단어인지에 미치는 효과. 한국인지과학회지, 20(3), 309-333.
  9. 이광오, 이인선 (1999). 한글단어의 인지과정에서 형태소 정보처리. 한국심리학회지: 실험및인지, 11, 77-91.
  10. 이광오, 정진갑, 배성봉 (2007). 표기체계와 시각적 단어 인지: 한자어의 인지에서 형태소의표상과처리. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 19(4), 317-327.
  11. 이혜원, 김선경 (2013). 한글단어재인에서 습득연령의 영향. 한국인지과학회지, 24(4), 339-363.
  12. 코마츠요시타카 (2017). 시선 추적을 통한 일본어 읽기에서 보이는 중심와주변의 의미처리 연구, 서울대학교 박사학위논문.
  13. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  14. Anglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Vocabulary development: a morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society or Research in Child Development, 58(10), 1-186
  15. Ashby, J., Rayner, K., & Clifton, C. (2005). Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: differential effects of frequency and predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 1065-1086.
  16. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. Brysbaert, M., & Ghyselinck, M. (2006). The effect of age of acquisition: Partly frequency related, partly frequency independent. Visual Cognition,13, 992-1011.
  21. Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of morphologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading and writing, 12(3), 169-190.
  22. Carlisle, J. F. (2003). Morphology matters in learning to read: A commentary. Reading Psychology,24(3-4), 291-322.
  23. Carlisle, J. F., & Feldman, L. B. (1995). Morphological awareness and early reading achievement, Morphological aspects of Language precessing, 189-209.
  24. Chen, B. G., Zhou, H. X., Dunlap, S., & Perfetti, C. A. (2007). Age of acquisition effects in reading Chinese: Evidence in favour of the arbitrary mapping hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 499-516.
  25. Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol 2, 512-538.
  26. Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20, 445-464.
  27. 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
  28. Ellis, A. W. & Lambon Ralph, M. A. (2000). Age of acquisition effects in adult lexical processing reflect loss of plasticity in maturing systems: Insights from connectionist networks. 1103-1123.
  29. Gilhooly, K. J., & Gilhooly, M. L. M. (1980). The validity of age of acquisition ratings. British Journal of Psychology, 71, 105-110.
  30. Havelka, J. & Tomita, I. (2006). Age of acquisition in naming Japanese words. Visual Cognition,13, 981-991.
  31. Ho-Min Sohn (1999). The Korean Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Kruk, R.S. & Bergman, K. (2013).The reciprocal relations between morphological processes and reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 114, 10-34.
  33. Kuo, L., & Anderson, R. C. (2006). Morphological awareness and learning to read: A cross-language perspective. Educational Psychologist, 41, 161-180.
  34. Lovett, M. W., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Ransby, M. J., & Borden, S. L. (1990). Training the word recognition skills of reading disabled children: Treatment and transfer effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 769-780.
  35. Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 134-147
  36. Perdijk, Schreuder, & Verhoeven (2005). The role of morphological family size in word recognition: A developmental perspective. Written Language & Literacy, 8(2), 45-59.
  37. Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 357-383.
  38. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). Psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  39. Steyvers, M. & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2005). The large-scale structure of semantic network:statistical analyses and a model of semantic growth. Cognitive Science, 29, 41-78.
  40. 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
  41. Wang, A., (2016). Cross-language parafoveal semantic processing: Evidence from Korean-Chinese bilinguals. Psychon Bull Rev, 23(1), 285-290.
  42. Wang, M., Koda, K., & Perfetti, C. A. (2003). Alphabetic and nonalphabetic L1 effects in English word identification: A comparison of Korean and Chinese English L2 learners. Cognition, 87(2), 129-149.
  43. Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(3), 561-566.
  44. Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2012). Lexical and sublexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1069-1075.
  45. Yang, J., Wang, S., Chen, H., Rayner, K. (2009). The Time Course of Semantic and Syntactic Processing in Chinese Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from Eye Movements. Memory & Cognition, 37, 1164-176.
  46. Zevin, J. D. & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory & Language, 47,1-29.
  47. Zhou, W., Shu, H., Miller, K., & Yan, M. (2018). Reliance on orthography and phonology in reading of Chinese: A developmental study. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(2), 370-391.