바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

Individual Differences in Reading Spaced and Unspaced Compound Noun Phrases

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2019, v.31 no.3, pp.253-264
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2019.31.3.006


  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to investigate individual differences in reading compound noun phrases composed of 5 or 6 nouns with or without inter-word spaces. Participants were assessed on morphological knowledge, spelling recognition, dictation, and author recognition. A principal component analysis for the test scores revealed two principal components: PC1 for overall reading proficiency, and PC2 for spelling-meaning profile. During the experimental session, participants were asked to judge whether compound phrases on the screen had a plausible meaning or not. The results showed clear individual differences in inter-word spacing effects. For real compound phrases, participants with a lower PC2 score showed larger inter-word spacing effects compared with participants with a higher PC2 score. For pseudo-compound phrases, significant interactions between inter-word spacing and PC1 as well as PC2 were also found, suggesting that individual variations in lexical qualities modulated the inter-word spacing effects.

keywords
inter-word spacing, compound noun phrase, individual difference, lexical quality, 단어 간 공백, 복합 명사구, 어휘 품질, 개인차, 한글

Reference

1.

Andrews, S., & Lo, S. (2012). Not all skilled readers have cracked the code: Individual differences in masked form priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Advance online publication, doi: 10.1037/a0024953

2.

Andrews, S., & Lo, S. (2013). Is morphological priming stronger for transparent than opaque words? It depends on individual differences in spelling and vocabulary. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 279-296.

3.

Andrews, S., Lo, S., & Xia, V. (2017). Individual differences in automatic semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1025-1039.

4.

Bae, S., Yi, K., & Masuda, H. (2016). Morphological processing within the learning of new words: A study on individual differences. The Korean Journal of Cognitive Science. 27(2), 159-180.

5.

Bae, S., & Lee, D. (2017). Individual differences in the morphological decomposition of Hanja words. The Korean Journal of Educational Psychology. 29(4), 455-462.

6.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., & Singmann, H. (2015). Ime4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4, 2014. R Package Version, 1(4).

7.

Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.

8.

Burt, J. S. (2006). What is orthographic processing skill and how does it relate to word identification in reading? Journal of Research in Reading, 29(4), 400-417.

9.

Choi, D. (2009). Glocalism and Language Policy. The Journal of the Humanities, 57, 181-200.

10.

Epelboim, J., Booth, J. R., Ashkenazy, R., Taleghani, A., & Steinman, R. M. (1997). Fillers and spaces in text: The importance of word recognition during reading. Vision Research, 37(20), 2899-2914.

11.

Hong, C. (2007). The Sejong Electronic Dictionary. (Retrieved from www.ithub.korean.go.kr)

12.

Inhoff, A. W., Radach, R., & Heller, D. (2000). Complex compounds in German: Interword spaces facilitate segmentation but hinder assignment of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(1), 23-50.

13.

Juhasz, B. J., Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (2005). The role of interword spaces in the processing of English compound words. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 291-316.

14.

Lee, H., Seong, E., Choi, W., & Lowder, M. W. (2018). Development and assessment of the Korean Author Recognition Test. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1747021818814461.

15.

McGowan, V. A., White, S. J., Jordan, T. R., & Paterson, K. B. (2014). Aging and the use of interword spaces during reading: Evidence from eye movements. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(3), 740-747.

16.

Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1095-1109.

17.

Paterson, K. B., Liversedge, S. P., Filik, R., Juhasz, B. J., White, S. J., & Rayner, K. (2007). Focus identification during sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1423-1445.

18.

Perea, M., Tejero, P., & Winskel, H. (2015). Can colours be used to segment words when reading? Acta Psychologica, 159, 8-13.

19.

Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 77(4), 357-383.

20.

R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

21.

Rayner, K., Yang, J., Schuett, S., & Slattery, T. J. (2013). Eye movements of older and younger readers when reading unspaced text. Experimental Psychology. 60(5), 354-361.

22.

Sheridan, H., Reichle, E. D., & Reingold, E. M. (2016). Why does removing inter-word spaces produce reading deficits? The role of parafoveal processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1543-1552.

23.

Spragins, A. B., Lefton, L. A., & Fisher, D. F. (1976). Eye movements while reading and searching spatially transformed text: A developmental examination. Memory & Cognition, 4, 36-42.

24.

Tan, L. C., & Yap, M. J. (2016). Are individual differences in masked repetition and semantic priming reliable? Visual Cognition, 24, 182-200.

25.

Veldre, A., Drieghe, D., & Andrews, S. (2017). Spelling ability selectively predicts the magnitude of disruption in unspaced text reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1612-1628.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology