Phonetics and Speech Sciences (말소리와 음성과학)

Korean Society of Speech Sciences (한국음성학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Lexico-semantic interactions during the visual and spoken recognition of homonymous Korean Eojeols

한국어 시·청각 동음동철이의 어절 재인에 나타나는 어휘-의미 상호작용

  • Kim, Joonwoo (Department of Psychology, Korea University) ;
  • Kang, Kathleen Gwi-Young (Department of Psychology, Korea University) ;
  • Yoo, Doyoung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University) ;
  • Jeon, Inseo (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Hyun Kyung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University) ;
  • Nam, Hyeomin (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University) ;
  • Shin, Jiyoung (Department of Korean Language and Literature, Korea University) ;
  • Nam, Kichun (Department of Psychology, Korea University)
  • 김준우 (고려대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 강귀영 (고려대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 유도영 (고려대학교 국어국문학과) ;
  • 전인서 (고려대학교 국어국문학과) ;
  • 김현경 (고려대학교 국어국문학과) ;
  • 남현민 (고려대학교 국어국문학과) ;
  • 신지영 (고려대학교 국어국문학과) ;
  • 남기춘 (고려대학교 심리학과)
  • Received : 2020.10.11
  • Accepted : 2021.02.11
  • Published : 2021.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study investigated the mental representation and processing of an ambiguous word in the bimodal processing system by manipulating the lexical ambiguity of a visually or auditorily presented word. Homonyms (e.g., '물었다') with more than two meanings and control words (e.g., '고통을') with a single meaning were used in the experiments. The lemma frequency of words was manipulated while the relative frequency of multiple meanings of each homonym was balanced. In both experiments using the lexical decision task, a robust frequency effect and a critical interaction of word type by frequency were found. In Experiment 1, spoken homonyms yielded faster latencies relative to control words (i.e., ambiguity advantage) in the low frequency condition, while ambiguity disadvantage was found in the high frequency condition. A similar interactive pattern was found in visually presented homonyms in the subsequent Experiment 2. Taken together, the first key finding is that interdependent lexico-semantic processing can be found both in the visual and auditory processing system, which in turn suggests that semantic processing is not modality dependent, but rather takes place on the basis of general lexical knowledge. The second is that multiple semantic candidates provide facilitative feedback only when the lemma frequency of the word is relatively low.

본 연구는 중의성을 가진 어휘가 심성 어휘집에 표상된 방식과 감각 양상에 따른 처리 과정을 알아보기 위하여 한국어 동음동철이의 어절의 시·청각 재인 과정을 조사하였다. 청각 어절 판단 과제(실험 1)와 시각 어절 판단 과제(실험 2)를 이용한 두 실험에서 두 가지 이상의 의미를 가진 동음동철이의 어절(예: '물었다')과 단일한 의미만을 가진 통제 어절(예: '고통을')이 사용되었다. 어절 자극들의 누적 빈도는 조작하는 한편, 각 동음동철이의 어절의 다양한 의미가 가지는 상대적 빈도는 통제하였다. 어절 판단 과제를 사용한 두 실험 모두에서 유의한 빈도의 주효과와 함께 의미 수에 따른 어절 유형과 빈도 간의 상호작용이 발견되었다. 실험 1에서 청각적으로 제시된 동음동철이의 어절은 저빈도 조건에서 단의 어절에 비해 반응시간이 빠른 중의성 이득 효과가 나타난 반면, 고빈도 조건에서는 이와 반대로 비이득 효과가 나타났다. 마찬가지로 시각적으로 제시된 실험 2의 자극에서도 유사한 상호작용 패턴이 발견되었다. 본 연구 결과는 시각 및 청각 양상 모두에서 어휘-의미 처리가 상호의존적으로 이루어짐을 보여주며, 이는 의미 처리가 감각 의존적 단계보다는 일반적 어휘 지식 처리 단계에서 이루어질 가능성을 시사한다. 이와 더불어 의미 선택 과정에서 동음동철이의 어절이 가지는 다양한 의미의 후보군은 어절의 빈도가 상대적으로 낮을 때에만 촉진적 피드백을 제공함을 보여준다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-51.
  2. Borowsky, R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1996). Semantic ambiguity effects in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(1), 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.1.63
  3. Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3
  4. Diependaele, K., Ziegler, J. C., & Grainger, J. (2010). Fast phonology and the bimodal interactive activation model. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 764-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440902834782
  5. Doh, J. (2018). On the ambiguity of Korean sentence: Focused on the classification of the types, Asian Cultural Studies Research Institute, 46, 39-72.
  6. Forster, K. I., & Bednall, E. S. (1976). Terminating and exhaustive search in lexical access. Memory and Cognition, 4, 53-61. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213255
  7. Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  8. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256-281. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.113.2.256
  9. Grainger, J., & Ferrand, L. (1994). Phonology and orthography in visual word recognition: Effects of masked homophone primes. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 218-233. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1011
  10. Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103(3), 518-565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518
  11. Grainger, J., Muneaux, M., Farioli, F., & Ziegler, J. C. (2005). Effects of phonological and orthographic neighbourhood density interact in visual word recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 981-998. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000386
  12. Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermuller, F., & MarslenWilson, W. D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. Neuroimage, 30(4), 1383-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.11.048
  13. Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1331-1356. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.22.6.1331
  14. Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M. (2002). Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 686-713. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.686
  15. Hino, Y., Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (2006). Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks: Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language, 55(2), 247-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.04.001
  16. Holley-Wilcox, P. (1977, April). The effect of homophony with auditory presentation of stimuli. Proceedings of the 91st Annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
  17. Hong, J. (2007). A study on disambiguation processing in Korean machine translation. Korean Language Society, 50, 241-267.
  18. Hong, J., Nam, K., Yoo, H., & Lee, D., Hwang, H. (2000). Korean dictionary of ambiguous Eojeols. Seoul, Korea: Taehaksa.
  19. Jastrzembski, J. E. (1981). Multiple meanings, number of related meanings, frequency of occurrence, and the lexicon. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 278-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90011-6
  20. Jastrzembski, J. E., & Stanners, R. F. (1975). Multiple word meanings and lexical search speed. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(5), 534-537. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(75)80030-2
  21. Jun, S. A. (2000). K-ToBI (Korean ToBI ) labelling conventions1. Speech Sciences, 7(1), 143-169.
  22. Kang, B. M. (2005). Aspect of the use of homonyms. Language Research, 41(1), 1-29.
  23. Kang, B., & Kim, H. (2009). Frequency of Korean usage: 15 million words based on sejong form semantic analysis corpus. Seoul, Korea: Hankukmunhwasa.
  24. Kellas, G., Ferraro, F. R., & Simpson, G. B. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and the timecourse of attentional allocation in word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(4), 601-609. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.14.4.601
  25. Kim, J. (2016). Lexical factors that influence the Korean Eojeol recognition (Doctoral Dissertation). Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
  26. Klein, D. E., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). The representation of polysemous words. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 259-282. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2779
  27. Klepousniotou, E., & Baum, S. R. (2007). Disambiguating the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: An advantage for polysemous but not homonymous words. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.02.001
  28. Kwon, Y. A., Cho, H. S., Nam, K. (2013). The event-related potential evidence of phonological activation in hangul homophone reading. Journal of Language Sciences, 20(2), 1-12.
  29. Lee, H. Y. (2010). The representation of Korean ambiguous nouns in the mental lexicon (Master's thesis). Korea University, Seoul, Korea.
  30. McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86(4), 287-330. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.4.287
  31. Millis, M. L., & Bution, S. B. (1989). The effect of polysemy on lexical decision time: Now you see it, now you don't. Memory and Cognition, 17, 141-147. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197064
  32. Mirman, D., Strauss, T. J., Dixon, J. A., & Magnuson, J. S. (2010). Effect of representational distance between meanings on recognition of ambiguous spoken words. Cognitive Science, 34(1), 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01069.x
  33. Park, T. (2003). Subjective frequency estimates of Korean words and frequency effects on word recognition. Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 15(2), 349-366.
  34. Pexman, P. M., & Lupker, S. J. (1999). Ambiguity and visual word recognition: Can feedback explain both homophone and polysemy effects? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53(4), 323-334. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087320
  35. Pexman, P. M., Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Semantic ambiguity and the process of generating meaning from print. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1252-1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1252
  36. Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Jared, D. (2001). Homophone effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 139-156. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.139
  37. R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (version 3.5.1) [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
  38. Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(4), 527-544. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1025
  39. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245-266. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2810
  40. Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). Structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111(1), 205-235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.1.205
  41. Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., & Millikan, J. A. (1970). Homographic entries in the internal lexicon 1. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9(5), 487-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(70)80091-3
  42. Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., & Scarborough, H. S. (1977). Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.1.1
  43. Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96(4), 523-568. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523
  44. Shin, H., Choi, M. Y., & Choi, M. (2004). Representation of Korean ambiguous verbs. Korean Society of Cognitive and Biopsychology, 16(2), 191-209.
  45. Shin, J. Y. (2017). Prosodic markers and morphological markers in spoken Korean. Korean Linguistics, 77, 37-63. https://doi.org/10.20405/kl.2017.11.77.37
  46. Simon, D. A., Lewis, G., & Marantz, A. (2012). Disambiguating form and lexical frequency effects in MEG responses using homonyms. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(2), 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.607712
  47. Wang, W., Li, X., Ning, N., & Zhang, J. X. (2012). The nature of the homophone density effect: An ERP study with Chinese spoken monosyllable homophones. Neuroscience Letters, 516(1), 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.059
  48. Yu, G. S., & Nam, K. C. (2009). Semantic priming effect of Korean lexical ambiguity: A comparison of homonymy and polysemy. Phonetics and Speech Science, 1(2), 63-73.