Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

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

DOI QR Code

Effect of syllable complexity on the visual span of Korean Hangul reading and its relation to reading abilities

한글 글자 유형이 시각 폭과 읽기 능력에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2016.06.27
  • Accepted : 2016.06.28
  • Published : 2016.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The visual span refers to the number of letters that can be accurately recognized without moving one's eyes. The size of the visual span is affected by sensory factors such as perimetric complexity, crowding, and mislocation of letters. Korean Hangul utilizes rather unique alphabetic-syllabary writing system, quite different from English and Chinese writing systems. Due to this combinatorial nature of the script, the visual span for Hangul characters can also be affected by the letter type (e.g., CV vs CVCC). The present study examined the effect of syllable complexity on the visual span for Hangul by comparing letter recognition accuracy across four letter type conditions (C only, CV, CVC, and CVCC). We also aimed to determine the meaningful letter type(s) that is associated with differences in reading abilities in Korean. Using a trigram presentation method, we found that overall recognition accuracy declined as syllable complexity increased. However, the visual span for CVC type was greater than that for CV type, suggesting that the effect is not necessarily linear, and that there might be other factors affecting the visual span for these types of letters. C and CV type showed fairly strong positive correlations with reading comprehension, suggesting that these might be the meaningful units for measuring visual span in relating to reading abilities.

읽기의 초기 단계에서 처리되는 글자의 정보량을 지칭하는 시각 폭은 개별 글자의 획수가 증가하거나 폰트의 종류, 고정된 지면에서 차지하는 잉크의 면적, 글자 간의 간격과 같은 복잡성 요인들에 의해 영향을 받는다. 한글은 자음과 모음들이 조합되는 독특한 알파벳-음절 표기법을 사용하는 글자 체계를 가지고 있어 영어나 중국어를 중심으로 한 결과들에 비해, 자모구성의 글자 유형에 따라서도 복잡성이 달라질 수 있다는 특수성이 있다. 본 연구에서는 세 글자 쌍 패러다임을 이용하여 글자의 유형에 따라 한글 읽기 시각 폭의 크기가 영향을 받는지 살펴보았다. 그리고 여러 글자 유형의 시각 폭 중 읽기 능력의 개인차를 예측하는 글자 유형을 확인해보고자 시각 폭과 읽기 폭, 읽기 유창성, 읽기 이해와의 상관도 살펴보았다. 실험결과, 글자 유형이 복잡해질수록 글자 재인 정확률이 감소하고 시각 폭이 줄어드는 경향이 관찰되었으나 자음+모음+자음의 형태가 자음+모음 형태보다 글자 재인율이 높고 시각 폭도 큰 것으로 나타나 자모조합의 복잡성에 따른 영향이 선형적이지 않고 다른 요인이 개입할 가능성이 관찰되었다. 자음만 제시한 조건과 CV조건의 글자 재인율은 읽기 이해와 정적 상관을 보여 향후 읽기 능력과 관련한 시각 폭 측정 시 사용할 수 있는 글자 유형으로 나타났다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김동일 (2008). 기초학습기능 수행평가체제 (BASA): 읽기검사. 서울: 학지사심리검사 연구소.
  2. 김민식, 정찬섭 (1989). 한글의 자모구성 형태에 따른 자모 및 글자 인식. 인지과학, 1(1), 27-75.
  3. 김애화, 김의정, 성소연 (2013). 초등학교 1, 3, 5 학년 학생의 읽기이해 특성 연구: 상위 읽기이해 처리 특성을 중심으로. 초등교육연구, 26(3), 21-42.
  4. 박진원, 신명선 (2012). 속화성인과 일반성인의 읽기 난이도에 따른 읽기 유창성과 읽기 오류 비교. 특수교육저널: 이론과 실천, 13(1), 145-164.
  5. 이광오 (1995). 자모 대체 수행에 나타난 글자의 내부구조와 음절과의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 7(1), 57-69.
  6. 이병택, 김경중, 조명한 (1996). 읽기폭에 따르는 언어처리의 개인차: 작업기억과 언어이해. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 8(1), 59-85.
  7. 이병택, 이경민, 김정오, 홍재성 (2002). 억제와 재인 읽기 폭 검사. 인지과학, 13(4), 91-98.
  8. 최영은, 유성재 (2015). 한글 읽기에서 시각 폭 크기와 읽기 능력 발달의 관계. 한국심리학회지: 발달, 28(4), 275-293.
  9. Brabham, E., Boyd, P., & Edgington, W. D. (2000). Sorting it out: Elementary students' responses to fact and fiction in informational storybooks as read-alouds for science and social studies. Reading Research and Instruction, 39(4), 265-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388070009558326
  10. Cho, J., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). Correlates of Korean Hangul acquisition among Korean kindergartners and second graders. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0901_2
  11. Choi, Jeong, & Kim (2016). Effect of stroke frequency on the visual span for Korean Hangul characters. Poster presented at Asia Join Symposium on Reading and Spelling, February, 2016, Seoul, Korea.
  12. Daneman, M. (1991). Working memory as a predictor of verbal fluency. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20(6), 445-464. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067637
  13. Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
  14. Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422-433. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546
  15. Dehaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. New York: Penguin.
  16. Frankish, C. & Turner, E. (2007). SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 189-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.002
  17. He, Y., Legge, G. E., & Yu, D. (2013). Sensory and cognitive influences on the training-related improvement of reading speed in peripheral vision. Journal of Vision, 13(7), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.7.1
  18. Kim, Y. (2007). Phonological awareness and literacy skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role of body-coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(1), 69-94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640707004X
  19. Kwon, M., Legge, G. E., & Dubbels, B. R. (2007). Developmental changes in the visual span for reading. Vision Research, 47(22), 2889-2900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.08.002
  20. Lee, C. H., Kwon, Y., Kim, K., & Rastle, K. (2015). Syllable Transposition Effects in Korean Word Recognition. Journal of Psycholinguistics Research, 44(3), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9353-7
  21. Lee, C. H. & Taft, M. (2009). Are onsets and codas important in processing letter position? A comparison of TL effects in English and Korean. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(4), 530-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.01.002
  22. Lee, C. H. & Taft, M. (2011). Subsyllabic structure reflected in letter confusability effects in Korean word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 129-134. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0028-y
  23. Lee, H. W., Kwon, M., Legge, G. E., & Gefroh, J. J. (2010). Training improves reading speed in peripheral vision: Is it due to attention?. Journal of Vision, 10(6), 18. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.6.18
  24. Lee, Y., & Goldrick, M. (2008). The emergence of sub-syllabic representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.03.002
  25. Legge, G. E., Ahn, S. J., Klitz, T. S., & Luebker, A. (1997). Psychophysics of reading-XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 37(14), 1999-2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(97)00017-5
  26. Legge, G. E., Cheung, S. H., Yu, D., Chung, S. T., Lee, H. W., & Owens, D. P. (2007). The case for the visual span as a sensory bottleneck in reading. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 9.
  27. Legge, G. E., Mansfield, J. S., & Chung, S. T. (2001). Psychophysics of reading: XX. Linking letter recognition to reading speed in central and peripheral vision. Vision Research, 41(6), 725-743. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(00)00295-9
  28. McConkie, G. W., & Rayner, K., (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during fixations in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17(6), 578-586. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203972
  29. Perea, M. & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effect with non-adjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 231-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.05.005
  30. Pollatsek, A., Bolozky, S., Well, A. D., & Rayner, K. (1981). Asymmetries in the perceptual span for Israeli readers. Brain & Language, 14(1), 174-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(81)90073-0
  31. Rayner, K.. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372
  32. Rayner, K.. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461
  33. Rayner, K., & Bertera, J. H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206(4417), 468-469. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.504987
  34. Rayner, K., Slattery, T. J., & Belanger, N. N. (2010). Eye movements, the perceptual span, and reading speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(6), 834-839. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.6.834
  35. Stalh, S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 9(4), 33-50.
  36. Taft, M., Zhu, X., & Peng, D. (1999). Positional specificity of radicals in Chinese character recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(4), 498-519. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2625
  37. Taylor, I., & Taylor, M. (1995). Writing and literacy in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  38. Wang, H., He, X., & Legge, G. E. (2014). Effect of pattern complexity on the visual span for Chinese and alphabet characters. Journal of Vision, 14(8):6, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.8.1
  39. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00232-9

Cited by

  1. Horizontal orthography versus vertical orthography: The effects of writing direction and syllabic format on visual word recognition in Korean Hangul vol.74, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820971503