바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

다음
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.2

Citation Share

반복적 문장기억학습 과제 수행 시 후기 이중언어화자들의 모국어와 외국어 문장기억표상의 변화에 관한 연구

A Study on The Sentence Memory Representation of L1 and L2 of Late Bilingual Speaker in Repetitive Sentence Memory Learning

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.2, pp.137-144
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.2.001
김상엽 (고려대학교)
남기춘 (고려대학교)
김상엽, & 남기춘. (2020). 반복적 문장기억학습 과제 수행 시 후기 이중언어화자들의 모국어와 외국어 문장기억표상의 변화에 관한 연구. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(2), 137-144, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.2.001

초록

본 연구의 목적은 후기 이중언어화자(late bilingual speaker)가 모국어와 외국어 문장을 반복적으로 기억하는 학습을 할 때, 모국어와 외국어 문장의 표층적 구조에 대한 표상(표층표상)과 의미적 요소에 대한 표상(의미표상) 강도의 변화에 대해 탐구하는 것이다. 본 연구에는 총 24명(남: 12명, 여: 12명)의 실험 참가자들이 참여하였으며, 실험 참가자들의 평균 연령은 23.2세(SD: 2.08)이고 연령의 범위는 19-27세이다. 모든 실험 참가자들은 문장기억학습 과제를 일주일 간격으로 총 4회 수행하였다. 실험 결과, 모국어의 표층표상강도는 외국어의 표층표상강도보다 유의미하게 낮게 나타났으며, 모국어의 의미표상강도는 외국어의 의미표상강도보다 유의미하게 높게 나타났다. 또한, 문장을 4회 반복적으로 기억하는 학습을 수행할 때는 모국어의 표층표상강도와 의미표상강도에는 유의미한 변화가 나타나지 않았다. 반면에, 외국어의 표층표상강도는 의미표상강도보다 유의미하게 높았으며, 문장을 4회 반복적으로 기억하는 학습을 수행할 때는 표층표상강도가 유의미하게 증가하였으며 의미표상강도는 유의미하게 감소하였다. 결과적으로 본 연구의 함의점은 첫째, 언어에 능숙할수록 문장에 대한 표층표상기억 보다는 의미표상기억의 강도가 크게 나타난다는 것과 둘째, 문장을 4회 반복해서 학습하는 경우 모국어 문장 학습에서는 문장의 구성적 요소와 의미적 요소 모두 기억학습이 나타나지 않는다는 것과 외국어 문장 학습에서는 문장의 의미적 요소보다는 구조적 요소에 대한 기억학습이 나타난다는 것이다.

keywords
sentence, memory, representation, bilingual speaker, signal detection theory, 문장, 기억, 표상, 이중언어화자, 신호탐지이론

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the representational strength of surface and semantic memory structures in L1(first language) and L2(second language) of the late bilingual by performing the repetitive sentence memory task. In this study, 24 participants (male: 12, female: 12) took part in this experiment and their average age is 23.2(SD: 2.08). They repeated this task 4 times with a week interval between each. As a result, the strength of surface representation of L1 is significantly lower than that of L2. However, the strength of semantic representation of L1 is significantly higher than that of L2. In addition, the strengths of surface and semantic representation of L1 have not significantly changed after 4 times participation. In contrast, the strength of surface representation of L2 enhanced and the strength of semantic representation of L2 declined after 4 times participation. Consequently, the first implication is that being more proficient to language enhances the strength of semantic representation but degrades the strength of surface representation in sentence memory. The second is that the strengths of surface and semantic representations would not significantly changed as being more proficient to language, however, as language becomes less proficient, surface representation would develop and semantic representation would decline after 4 times repetitive participation.

keywords
sentence, memory, representation, bilingual speaker, signal detection theory, 문장, 기억, 표상, 이중언어화자, 신호탐지이론

참고문헌

1.

Alloway, T. P., & Ledwon, F. (2014). Working memory and sentence recall in children. International Journal of Educational Research, 65, 1-8.

2.

Ard, J., & Homburg, T. (1983). Verification of language transfer. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning (pp. 157-176). Rowley, MA:Newbury House.

3.

Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2009). Language proficiency and executive control in proactive interference: Evidence from monolingual and bilingual children and adults. Brain and Language, 109, 93-100.

4.

Cattani, A., Abbot‐Smith, K., Farag, R., Krott, A., Arreckx, F., Dennis, I., & Floccia, C. (2014). How much exposure to English is necessary for a bilingual toddler to perform like a monolingual peer in language tests?. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49, 649-671.

5.

Coughlin, C. E., & Tremblay. A. (2013). Proficiency and working memory based explanations for nonnative speakers’sensitivity to agreement in sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 615-646.

6.

Chen, H. C. (1990). Lexical processing in a non-native language:Effects of language proficiency and learning strategy. Memory & Cognition, 18, 279-299.

7.

Grainger, J. (1990). Word frequency and neighborhood frequency effects in lexical decision and naming. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 228-244.

8.

Jasińska, K. K., & Petitto, L. A. (2018). Age of Bilingual Exposure Is Related to the Contribution of Phonological and Semantic Knowledge to Successful Reading Development. Child Development, 89, 310-331.

9.

Kang, B. M., & Kim, H. G. (2009). Korean Usage Frequency:Sejong surface and semantic analysis corpus based on 15million Eojeols. Korea University: Research Institute of Korean Studies.

10.

Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Towards a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.

11.

Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and language, 29, 133-159.

12.

Klein, D., Mok, K., Chen, J. K., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Age of language learning shapes brain structure: A cortical thickness study of bilingual and monolingual individuals. Brain and language, 131, 20-24.

13.

Koh, S., Hong, H., Yoon, S., & Cho, B. (2008). The frequency effect in Korean noun eojeols: An eye-tracking study. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 20, 21-32.

14.

Lee, Y. O. (2002). Translation Problems between Korean and English Reflecting their Structural Differences: with Respect to the Translation of Reported Speech. The Journal of Translation Studies, 3, 59-81.

15.

Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

16.

Park, H. S., Nam, K. C., & Lee, Y. S. (2016). The role of reading span in factual and inferential comprehension and retention in L2 reading. Linguistic Research 33, 81-106.

17.

Rosselli, M., Ardila, A., Araujo, K., Weekes, V. A., Caracciolo, V., Padilla, M., & Ostrosky-Solí, F. (2000). Verbal fluency and repetition skills in healthy older Spanish-English bilinguals. Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 17-24.

18.

Scheele, A. F., Leseman, P. P., & Mayo, A. Y. (2010). The home language environment of monolingual and bilingual children and their language proficiency. Applied Psycholiguistics, 31, 117-140.

19.

Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34-50.

20.

Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137-149.

21.

Tolentino, L. C., & Tokowicz, N. (2014). Cross-language similarity modulates effectiveness of second language grammar instruction. Language Learning, 64, 279-309.

22.

Weisberg, R. W. (1969). Sentence processing assessed through intrasentence word associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82(2), 332-338.

23.

Wixted, J. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114, 152-176.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책