Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지

Grapheme-to-Phoneme Conversion Regularity Effects among Late Korean-English Bilinguals

후기 한국어-영어 이중언어화자의 자소-음소 변환 규칙에 따른 영어 규칙성 효과

  • Kim, Dahee (Department of Psychology, Korea University) ;
  • Baik, Yeonji (Department of Psychology, Korea University) ;
  • Ryu, Jaehee (Department of Psychology, Korea University) ;
  • Nam, Kichun (Department of Psychology, Korea University)
  • Received : 2015.02.11
  • Accepted : 2015.09.21
  • Published : 2015.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study examined grapheme-to-phoneme regularity effect among late Korean-English bilinguals by using whole word level task (lexical processing) and two meta-phonological tasks(sub-lexical processing): [1] English word naming task(whole word level), [2] rhyme judgement task(rhyme level), and [3] phoneme deletion task(phoneme level). Forty-three late Korean-English bilinguals participated in all three tasks. In these tasks, participants showed better performance in regular word conditions compared to irregular word conditions, demonstrating a clear English regularity effect. Post-hoc correlational analysis revealed strong correlation between word naming task and rhyme judgement task, which is different from the results reported with English monolinguals. The contradicting results might be due to the relevantly low English proficiency level among late Korean-English bilingual speakers. In conclusion, this study suggests that late Korean-English bilinguals make use of L2 grapheme-to-phoneme conversion (GPC) rule when reading L2 English words.

후기 한국어-영어 이중언어화자의 자소-음소 변환규칙(grapheme to phoneme conversion rule, GPC 규칙)에 따른 영어 규칙성 효과(regularity effect)가 단어수준과 하위단어수준에서 나타나는지 알아보기 위해 단어명명과제, 각운판단과제, 음소제거과제를 진행하였다. 전체 단어수준(whole word level)에서의 규칙 양상을 살펴보기 위해, [1] 영어단어명명과제(English word naming task)를 사용하였고, 단어 단위보다 하위 단계에서의 규칙성 효과를 알아보기 위해 [2] 라임판단 과제(rhyme judgement task)와 음소수준(phoneme level)에서의 과제인 [3] 음소탈락과제(phoneme deletion task)를 사용하였다. 실험 참가자들은 세 종류의 과제를 모두 수행하였고, 총 43명의 후기 이중언어화자가 실험에 참가하였다. 실험결과, 세 과제 모두에서 규칙성 효과가 나타나 한국어-영어 이중언어화자가 영어(L2) 단어 처리 시 GPC 규칙을 적극적으로 활용하고 있다는 사실을 확인하였다. 사후분석으로써 세 과제 사이의 상관분석을 진행한 결과, 단어명명과제와 라임판단과제 간 상관이 가장 높게 나타났다. 비록 영어 모국어 화자의 이전 연구결과와는 달리 라임판단과제와 단어읽기과제 간 상관이 높게 나타났지만, 이는 실험 참가자의 L2 능숙도가 모국어화자만큼 높지 않았기 때문인 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 후기 한국어-영어 이중언어화자가 영어 GPC 규칙을 사용하여 영어단어읽기 처리를 하고 있음을 확인하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권유안, & 남기춘 (2011). 한글 음절 이웃 효과에서 한자어 형태소의 영향: 표기 및 음운 이웃과 한자어 이웃과의 관련성 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23(3), 301-319.
  2. 권유안, 조혜숙, 김충명, & 남기춘 (2006). 한국어 시각단어재인에서 나타나는 이웃효과. 말소리, 60(0), 29-45.
  3. 김선미, & 남기춘 (2010). 음운 현상과 연속 발화에서의 단어인지-종성중화 작용을 중심으로. 말소리와 음성과학, 2(2), 17-25.
  4. 남기춘, 서광준, 최기선, 이경인, 김태훈, & 이만영 (1997). 한글 단어 재인에서의 단어 길이 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 9(2), 1-18.
  5. 박권생 (1996). 한글 단어 재인 과정에서 음운부호의 역할. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 8(1), 25-44.
  6. 박현수, & 이만영 (2004). 한국어 모어 화자의 음절에 의한 말소리 분절. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 16(3), 261-283.
  7. 배성봉, & 이광오 (2010). 한국어 단어 재인에서 표기 음절과 음운 음절의 처리. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 22(3), 369-385.
  8. 이광오 (1996). 한글 글자열의 음독과 음운규칙. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 8(1), 1-23.
  9. 이광오, & 박현수 (1997). 음성지각과정에서 음절의 역할과 기절음절의 복원. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 9(1), 73-94.
  10. 이윤형, 여명선, & 남기춘 (2001). 한국인에게서 보이는 영어 단어 길이와 규칙성 효과. 이중언어학, 18(단일호), 215-234.
  11. 이윤형, 이재욱, 황유미, 정유진, & 남기춘 (2000). 한국인의 영어단어 재인 과정: 단어 규칙성 효과를 중심으로. 외국어교육, 7(1), 25-44.
  12. 조증열, & 이강은 (2004). 초등학생의 한국어 음운처리 기술이 영어 읽기와 어휘력에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 17(4), 145-157.
  13. Adams, M. J. (1994). Chapter 6 Analyzing the Reading Process. Orthographic Processing. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print (pp.107-136).: MIT press.
  14. Backman, J., Bruck, M., Hebert, M., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1984). Acquisition and use of spelling-sound correspondences in reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38(1), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(84)90022-5
  15. Besner, D., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Reading and the mental lexicon: On the uptake of visual information. In w. Marslen-Wilson (ed.), Lexocal representation and process (pp. 291-316). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  16. Blevins, J., & Goldsmith, J. (1995). The syllable in phonological theory. In J. A. Goldsmith (Ed.), The handbook of phonological theory (pp.206-244). Cambridge: Blackwell.
  17. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling. (International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities Monograph Series No. 1). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
  18. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1978). Difficulties in auditory organisation as a possible cause of reading backwardness. Nature. 271, 746-747. https://doi.org/10.1038/271746a0
  19. Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: A causal connection. Nature, 310, 419-421.
  20. Bruyer, R., & Brysbaert, M. (2011). Combining speed and accuracy in cognitive psychology: is the inverse efficiency score (IES) a better dependent variable than the mean reaction time (RT) and the percentage of errors (PE)?. Psychologica Belgica, (51), 5-13.
  21. Bryant, P. E., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. L., & Crossland, J. (1990). Rhyme and alliteration, phoneme detection, and learning to read. Developmental psychology, 26(3), 429-438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.3.429
  22. Cardoso-Martins, C. (1994). Rhyme perception: Global or analytical? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 57(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1994.1002
  23. Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (2004). Is there a causal link from phonological awareness to success in learning to read?. Cognition, 91(1), 77-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00164-1
  24. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp.151-216). London: Academic Press.
  25. Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological review, 100(4), 589-608. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.589
  26. Coltheart, M., & Rastle, K. (1994). Serial processing in reading aloud: evidence for dual-route models of reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: human perception and performance, 20(6), 1197-1211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.6.1197
  27. Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: a dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological review, 108(1), 204-256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
  28. Cortese, M. J., & Simpson, G. B. (2000). Regularity effects in word naming: What are they? Memory & Cognition, 28(8), 1269-1276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211827
  29. Costa, A., Colome, A., Gomez, O., & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2003). Another look at cross-language competition in bilingual speech production: Lexical and phonological factors. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(03), 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728903001111
  30. D'angiulli, A., Siegel, L. S., & Serra, E. (2001). The development of reading in English and Italian in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(04), 479-507.
  31. de Groot, A. M., Borgwaldt, S., Bos, M., & van den Eijnden, E. (2002). Lexical decision and word naming in bilinguals: Language effects and task effects. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), 91-124. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2840
  32. Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5(03), 175-197.
  33. Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1980). The influence of orthography on readers' conceptualization of the phonemic structure of words. Applied Psycholinguistics, 1(04), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009802
  34. Glushko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: human perception and performance, 5(4), 674-691. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.5.4.674
  35. Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(5), 1122-1139. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.23.5.1122
  36. Goswami, U. (1993). Phonological skills and learning to read. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 682(1), 296-311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb22977.x
  37. Hoien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K. E., & Bjaalid, I.-K. (1995). Components of phonological awareness. Reading and Writing, 7(2), 171-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027184
  38. Hue, C.-W. (1992). Recognition processes in character naming. Advances in psychology, 90, 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61888-9
  39. Hulme, C., Goetz, K., Gooch, D., Adams, J., & Snowling, M. J. (2007). Paired-associate learning, phoneme awareness, and learning to read. Journal of experimental child psychology, 96(2), 150-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.002
  40. Hulme, C., Hatcher, P. J., Nation, K., Brown, A., Adams, J., & Stuart, G. (2002). Phoneme awareness is a better predictor of early reading skill than onset-rime awareness. Journal of experimental child psychology, 82(1), 2-28. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2002.2670
  41. Jared, D. (1997). Spelling-sound consistency affects the naming of high-frequency words. Journal of Memory and Language, 36(4), 505-529. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2496
  42. Jared, D. (2002). Spelling-sound consistency and regularity effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(4), 723-750. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2827
  43. Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001a). Cognitive processes bilingual reading. Indyslexia Across Languages: Orthography and the Brain-Gene-Behavior Link, 262-280.
  44. Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001b). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language, 44(1), 2-31. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2747
  45. Jared, D., McRae, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). The basis of consistency effects in word naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(6), 687-715. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90044-Z
  46. Jared, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1990). Naming multisyllabic words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: human perception and performance, 16(1), 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.92
  47. Jouravlev, O., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2014). Cross-language phonological activation: Evidence from masked onset priming and ERPs. Brain and language, 134, 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.04.003
  48. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of educational psychology, 78(4), 243. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.78.4.243
  49. Kang, J., Kim, S., & Nam, K. (2012). The Effects of Syllable Boundary Ambiguity on Spoken Word Recognition in Korean Continuous Speech. KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems (TIIS), 6(11), 2800-2812. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.2012.10.003
  50. Katz, L., Brancazio, L., Irwin, J., Katz, S., Magnuson, J., & Whalen, D. (2012). What lexical decision and naming tell us about reading. Reading and Writing, 25(6), 1259-1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9316-9
  51. Kureta, Y., Fushimi, T., & Tatsumi, I. F. (2006). The functional unit in phonological encoding: Evidence for moraic representation in native Japanese speakers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(5), 1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.1102
  52. Lin, C.-H., & Collins, P. (2012). The effects of L1 and orthographic regularity and consistency in naming Chinese characters. Reading and Writing, 25(7), 1747-1767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9340-9
  53. Melby-Lervag, M., Lyster, S. A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their role in learning to read: a meta-analytic review. Psychological bulletin, 138(2), 322-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
  54. Morais, J., Cluytens, M., & Alegria, J. (1984). Segmentation abilities of dyslexics and normal readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58(1), 221-222. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1984.58.1.221
  55. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 40(5), 665-681. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.665
  56. Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M., & Taylor, S. (1998). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early progress in learning to read. Journal of experimental child psychology, 71(1), 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1998.2453
  57. Nakayama, M., Sears, C. R., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2012). Cross-script phonological priming for Japanese-English bilinguals: Evidence for integrated phonological representations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(10), 1563-1583. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.606669
  58. Nation, K., & Hulme, C. (1997). Phonemic segmentation, not onset-rime segmentation, predicts early reading and spelling skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 154-167. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.32.2.2
  59. Pattamadilok, C., Bulnes, L. C., Devlin, J. T., Bourguignon, M., Morais, J., Goldman, S., & Kolinsky, R. (2015). How Early Does the Brain Distinguish between Regular Words, Irregular Words, and Pseudowords during the Reading Process? Evidence from Neurochronometric TMS. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 27(6), 1259-1274 https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00779
  60. Pennington, B. F., Orden, G. C., Smith, S. D., Green, P. A., & Haith, M. M. (1990). Phonological processing skills and deficits in adult dyslexics. Child development, 61(6), 1753-1778. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130836
  61. Perin, D. (1983). Phonemic segmentation and spelling. British Journal of Psychology, 74(1), 129-144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1983.tb01849.x
  62. Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological review, 103(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.56
  63. Schwartz, A. I., Kroll, J. F., & Diaz, M. (2007). Reading words in Spanish and English: Mapping orthography to phonology in two languages. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(1), 106-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960500463920
  64. Seidenberg, M. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1979). Orthographic effects on rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(6), 546-554. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.6.546
  65. Shapiro, J., Nix, G. W., & Foster, S. F. (1990). Auditory perceptual processing in reading disabled children. Journal of Research in Reading, 13(2), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.1990.tb00329.x
  66. Spencer, E. J., Schuele, C. M., Guillot, K. M., & Lee, M. W. (2008). Phonemic awareness skill of speech-language pathologists and other educators. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(4), 512-520. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0080)
  67. Stuart, M. (1990). Processing strategies in a phoneme deletion task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42(2), 305-327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749008401224
  68. Timmer, K., Ganushchak, L. Y., Ceusters, I., & Schiller, N. O. (2014). Second language phonology influences first language word naming. Brain and language, 133, 14-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.03.004
  69. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. Cognitive theory, 3, 200-239.
  70. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. CUP Archive.
  71. Tree, J. J., Longmore, C., & Besner, D. (2011). Orthography, phonology, short-term memory and the effects of concurrent articulation on rhyme and homophony judgements. Acta psychologica, 136(1), 11-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.08.009
  72. Treiman, R., & Zukowski, A. (1991). Levels of phonological awareness. Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman, 67-83.
  73. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 30, 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.73
  74. Warmington, M., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phoneme awareness, visual-verbal paired-associate learning, and rapid automatized naming as predictors of individual differences in reading ability. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2010.534832
  75. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. (2003). Speed of lexical and nonlexical processing in French: The case of the regularity effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 947-953. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196556
  76. Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. (2000). The DRC model of visual word recognition and reading aloud: An extension to German. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 413-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440050114570
  77. Ziegler, J. C., Bertrand, D., Toth, D., Csepe, V., Reis, A., Faisca, L., ... & Blomert, L. (2010). Orthographic depth and its impact on universal predictors of reading a cross-language investigation. Psychological Science, 21, 551-559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610363406