ISSN (Print) ISSN (Online) Commun Sci & Dis 2014;19(3): Original Article Korean Late-T

Transcription

1 ISSN (Print) ISSN (Online) Commun Sci & Dis 2014;19(3): Original Article Korean Late-Talkers Use of the Mutual Exclusivity Assumption on First versus Second Label Learning Il-Ran Choi a, Mina Hwang b a Department of Speech-Language Therapy, Graduate School of Special Education, Dankook University, Youngin, Korea b Department of Special Education, Dankook University, Youngin, Korea Correspondence: Mina Hwang, PhD Department of Special Education, Dankook University, 152 Jukjeon-ro, Suji-gu, Yongin , Korea Tel: Fax: hwangm@dankook.ac.kr Received: June 20, 2014 Revised: July 15, 2014 Accepted: July 31, 2014 This paper was based partly on the master s thesis of the first author. Objectives: In the present study, we investigated late-talkers use of the mutual exclusivity assumption as they inferred the meaning of a novel-word in two different conditions: when a novel word could be the first label of a non-familiar object and when a novel word was the second label of a familiar object. Methods: Fourteen Korean late-talkers age 24 to 35 months and fifteen typically developing peers participated in this study. In Experiment 1, the children were given photos of two objects, one familiar and the other non-familiar, and asked to choose the photo of a novel-word spoken by the examiner. In Experiment 2, the examiner showed the children a photo of a familiar object and used a novel-word (ex, pooty) as its label. Then, the children were shown a photo of that familiar object and a photo of a non-familiar object, and asked to choose which photo corresponded with the novel-word. Results: In Experiment 1, both groups tended to choose non-familiar objects for the novelwords; there was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency of choosing non-familiar objects. In Experiment 2, while the typically developing children tended to map the novel words to the previously shown familiar objects (ignoring the mutual exclusivity assumption), the late-talkers tended to map the novel words to the non-familiar objects. Conclusion: The bias toward mutual exclusivity shown in late-talkers may be useful in learning the first label of an object, but it can restrict acquisition of the various vocabulary related to that object. Keywords: Late-talker, Mutual exclusivity assumption, Mapping of word meaning, Second label learning 말늦은아동 (late talker) 은초기언어발달에서어려움을보이며, 특히어휘습득에서두드러진지체를보인다. 일반적으로어린아동들은단어학습을위해다양한어휘적원리 (lexical principle) 를이용하여단어의소리와의미를효율적으로연결 (mapping) 한다 (Behrend, 1990; Markman, 1990). 그중상호배타성가정 (mutual exclusivity assumption) 은어휘급증시기에아동의빠른단어학습을도와주는대표적인어휘적원리이다 (Markman, Wasow, & Hansen, 2003, Liittschwager & Markman, 1994). 그러나아동의어휘량이증가함에따라상호배타성가정을무시하고하나의사물에관련된다양한어휘들을습득하는것도필요하다 (Hansen & Markman, 2009; Markman & Hutchinson, 1984). 본연구에서는 말늦은아동이단어와의미를연결할때상호배타성가정을활용하거나무시하는양상을또래일반아동들과비교하고자하였다. 말늦은아동 (late-talker) 은언어이외다른영역 ( 인지, 사회성, 대 소근육운동발달등 ) 에서는정상발달을보이나표현언어발달에서두드러진지체를보이는 3세미만의아동을말한다 (Paul, 1991, 1993; Rescorla, 1989, 1991; Thal & Bates, 1988). 진단의세부적인기준은연구자마다차이가있으나, 많은연구자는청력손실의병력, 정신지체, 행동장애및신경학적손상 ( 구강, 운동, 감각손상을포함 ) 이없는아동중에서표준화된표현어휘발달검사에서또래와비교하였을때 -1 SD 또는 10%ile 미만의언어수준을보이는아동, 표현어휘가 10개미만인 18-23개월아동, 또는 2세나 3세가될때까 Copyright 2014 Korean Academy of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

2 Il-Ran Choi, et al. Late-Talkers Use of the Mutual Exclusivity 지 50개미만의단어를산출하거나두단어조합이출현하지않는아동을그기준으로한다 (Hong & Kim, 2005; Paul, 1993; Paul, Looney, & Dahm, 1991; Rescarla, Roberts, & Dahlsgaard, 1997; Rescorla, 1989; Stark & Tallal, 1981; Thal & Bates, 1988). 이처럼, 어휘발달수준은말늦은아동의중요한진단기준이다. 말늦은아동중일부는 3세이후에도표현어휘발달지체를보이거나단순언어장애 (SLI) 로진단되며, 학령기에읽기장애나학습장애를보일위험성이크다 (Leonard, 1998; Paul, 1991; Rescorla, Roberts, & Dahlsgaard, 1997). 이러한사실은말늦은아동의조기중재의필요성을피력하며, 그선행조건으로말늦은아동이보이는주요문제인어휘학습에서말늦은아동들이어떠한특성을보이는지에대한연구가필요하다. 구체적으로, 아동은연속된발화에서단어를구별해내고, 그단어와단어의의미를연결 (mapping) 해야하고, 궁극적으로의미가연결된단어를기억및저장하는어휘습득의과정에서말늦은아동들의습득기제가일반아동들과어떻게다른지를이해하여야한다. 국외에서는말늦은아동의언어에영향을미치는환경적변인, 예후및예후예측인자, 언어영역별특성등다양한측면에서의연구가이루어졌고 (D Odorico, Assanelli, Franco, & Jacob, 2007; Fasolo & D Odorico, 2002; Mirak & Rescorla, 1998; Paul, Looney, & Dahm, 1991; Preston et al., 2010; Rescorla, Bascome, Lampard, & Feeny, 2001; Rescorla & Roberts, 2002; Thal & Bates, 1988), 단어의의미습득및학습에대해서도활발한연구가이루어졌다 (Colunga & Sims, 2011; Jones, 2003; Jones & Smith, 2005; Kouri, 2005; Weismer, Murray-Branch, & Miller, 1993). 그에반해말늦은아동과관련된국내선행연구들은예후예측인자와느린언어발달에영향을주는변인에대한연구가대부분이었고 (Ha, 2012; Hong, 2007; Hong & Kim, 2005; Sim & Ha, 2014), 어휘습득에대한연구는제한적이었다 (Ji, 2013; Oh & Yim, 2013). 따라서본연구에서는말늦은아동이새단어를듣고의미를연결하는특성을알아봄으로써어휘습득시말늦은아동과일반아동의차이를확인하고자한다. 일반적으로초기단어학습시아동은다양한어휘적원리나이론을이용하여새단어의의미를빠르게연결하고습득한다 (Behrend, 1990; Markman, 1990). 단어학습과관련된어휘적원리중전체대상가정 (whole object assumption), 상호배타성가정 (mutual exclusivity assumption), 분류학적가정 (taxonomic assumption) 은대표적인어휘적제약으로지금까지많은연구가이루어졌다 (Liittschwager & Markman, 1994; Markman, 1989, 1990; Markman & Wachtel, 1988; Merriman, 1991; Merriman, Bowman, & Mac- Whinney, 1989). 이중상호배타성가정은각사물이오직하나의 이름만을갖고, 각이름은오직하나의사물범주만을지시한다는가정이다 (Markman & Wachtel, 1988). 이러한상호배타성가정은어휘급증시기에아동들의빠른단어습득에필수적인역할을하고 (Markman et al., 2003), 단어의의미연결시불필요한가정을줄이면서효율적인단어학습을가능하게한다 (Liittschwager & Markman, 1994). 선행연구들은 2-3세뿐만아니라 16개월의어린아동들도새단어의의미연결과정에서상호배타성가정을사용한다고보고하였다 (Cho, 1993; Ghim, 1994, 1997; Liittschwager & Markman, 1994; Markman & Wachtel, 1988; Mather & Plunkett, 2009). 더불어정상발달을보이는아동들뿐만아니라이중언어습득아동과언어습득에어려움을보이는청각장애아동, 윌리엄스증후군아동, 자폐아동및지적장애아동도단어학습에서상호배타성가정을따른다고보고하였다 (Davidson & Tell, 2005; Hong, 1994; Lederberg, Prezbindowski, & Spencer, 2000; Preissler & Carey, 2005; Stevens & Karmiloff-Smith, 1997). 이처럼상호배타성가정은언어를습득하는초기부터활용되는중요한원리임에도불구하고말늦은아동을대상으로한상호배타성연구는찾기어렵다. 그런데상호배타성가정에따르면한가지사물은하나의이름만을허용하지만, 실제로한사물은여러개의이름을갖기도한다. 풍부한어휘발달을위해서는어휘습득과정에서한사물의단일이름뿐만아니라사물의세부부분, 특성을나타내는어휘, 동의어, 유의어및상위범주어등을학습하는것도중요하다. 따라서단어를학습할때아동이상호배타성가정에만의지하여단어의의미를추론한다면, 아동은제한적으로어휘를습득하게된다. 이와관련하여아동의단어학습에관심을가져온많은연구자는어린아동들의상호배타성가정의활용뿐만아니라상호배타성이위배되는상황, 특히화자의의도가상호배타성가정에반하는방향으로친숙한사물과단어의의미연결을유도할때, 아동이어떤단어의미연결특성을보이는지에대해서연구하였다 (Au & Glusman, 1990; Jaswal & Hansen, 2006; Jin, Kim, Kim, Yoon, & Song, 2008; Lee, 2005; Liittschwager & Markman, 1994). 어린아동들은단어의의미를추론할때, 어휘적제약을활용할뿐만아니라화자가제시하는언어및행동단서를통해화자의의사소통의도를파악함으로써이에기반을두고단어의의미를파악하기도한다 (Kobayashi, 1998; Lee, 2012). 이렇게화자의의도를이해함으로써단어의의미를파악하는능력은 2세의아동에게서도나타난다 (Jin et al., 2008). 일반아동을대상으로한연구들에따르면 3세아동들은화자의의도가분명한상황에서는상호배타성을무시하고친숙한사물에새로운단어를연결하였고, 24개월의아동들도사물의첫번째이름과두번째이름을모두잘학습하였 286

3 24-35 개월말늦은아동의새단어의미연결특성 : 상호배타성가정활용을중심으로 최일란외 던반면 16개월의아동은두번째이름학습에어려움을보였다고한다 (Jin et al., 2008; Lee, 2005; Liittschwager & Markman, 1994). 어린아동들이하나의사물에대해하나이상의이름을학습할수있다는증거들은다수보고된바있다 (Clark, 1987; Nelson, 1988; Waxman & Hatch, 1992). 그러나말늦은아동을포함하여언어결함을가진아동들을대상으로하나의사물에하나이상의이름을학습하는것이가능한지를살펴본연구는제한적이다. 본연구에서는먼저 2세 (24-35 개월 ) 의말늦은아동 (late-talker) 이새로운단어를들었을때, 제시된친숙한사물과낯선사물중에서선택하는양상을일반아동과비교함으로써이들이상호배타성가정을활용하는지를확인하고자한다. 또한, 이미이름을알고있는친숙한사물에대해화자가새단어로이름붙이려는의도를직접적으로보여줬을때, 말늦은아동들이상호배타성가정을무시하고새단어를친숙한사물과연결할수있는지확인해보고자한다. 연구방법연구대상연구대상자는만 24-35개월의말늦은아동 14명 ( 남아 9명, 여아 5명 ) 과생활연령이일치하는일반아동 15명 ( 남아 8명, 여아 7명 ) 으로총 29명이었다. 대상자선정은육아관련인터넷커뮤니티를통해보호자의자발적인신청에따라이루어졌다. 말늦은아동의선정기준은 1) 한국형덴버발달선별검사 -II (K DDST-II: Shin, Han, Oh, Oh, & Ha, 2002) 에서언어이외의모든영역에서정상발달을보이며, 2) 영유아언어발달검사 (SELSI: Kim, Kim, Yoon, & Kim, 2003) 결과에서표현언어수준이 10%ile 미만, 3) 한국형맥아더- 베이츠의사소통발달지표 (K M-B CDI: Pae & Kwak, 2011) 의표현어휘수준이 10%ile 미만에속하고, 4) 두낱말조합이나타나지않는아동이었다. 일반아동의선정기준은 1) K DDST-II (Shin et al., 2002) 의모든영역에서정상발달을보이며, 2) SELSI (Kim et al., 2003) 결과, 표현언어수준이 10%ile 이상, 3) K M-B CDI (Pae & Kwak, 2011) 의표현어휘수준이 25%ile 이상에속하고, 4) 두낱말조합이상의자발발화를산출하는아동을대상으로하였다. 부모의보고에따르면두집단아동들은모두시력, 청력을포함한감각, 기질및신경학적손상이없고언어치료경험이없었다. 두집단아동들의기본정보는 Table 1에제시하였다. 도구실험에서사용할새단어 (novel words) 는 3세이전에완전히습 Table 1. Group characteristics Characteristic 득되는음소 / ㅍ, ㅁ, ㅇ ( 종성 )/ 또는숙달되는음소 / ㅂ, ㅃ, ㄴ, ㄷ, ㄸ, ㅌ, ㄱ, ㄲ, ㅋ, ㅎ / 로구성된 CVCV 구조의단어들로, 함께제시 될사물이름과구별되는쉬운소리의단어들로제작하였다. 최종 선정된단어는 보가, 디나, 니호, 모내, 푸티 모두 5 개였다. 실험에서사용할사물중친숙한사물은 K M-B CDI 검사유아 용 (Pae & Kwak, 2011) 을참고하였고, 그중 개월아동의 75% 가 표현하는것으로보고한항목으로제한하여선정하였다. 최종선정 한사물은 자동차, 사과, 곰, 토끼, 숟가락 으로모두 5 개였다. 낯선 사물은아동이본적이없거나, 본적이있더라도이름을알기어려 울것이라고예상되는것중아동이친숙한사물로유추할가능성 이있는사물을제외하여선정하였다. 최종선정된사물은 비전형 적모양의찜기, 먼지거름망, 비전형적인모양의독서용라이트, 다용 도고리, 비전형적인모양의화분받침 으로모두 5 개였다. 모든사물 은목표한사물단어가아닌다른단어로유추할가능성을배제하 기위해무늬가없는것들로선택하였고, 사진에서사물의가로와 세로길이를각각 11±2 cm, 5±1 cm 로제한하여제시되는사진내 사물의크기가아동의선택에영향을미치지않도록통제하였다. 본연구에서사용한도구항목들은언어병리를전공한 5 년이상 경력의언어재활사 3 명에게내용타당도를검증받았다. 검증내용 은친숙한사물과낯선사물항목의적절성, 검사도구 ( 사물사진 ) 의명확성그리고새단어의적절성이었다. LT children (N= 14) TD children (N= 15) Mean SD Mean SD Chronological age (mo) SELSI (raw score) Expressive language K M-B CDI (raw score) Expressive vocabulary LT = late talking; TD = typically developing; SELSI = Sequenced Language Scale for Infants; K M-B CDI= Korean version of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories. 과제의수행가능성및도구의적절성등을알아보기위해 개월의일반아동과말늦은아동 (late talker) 각각 10 명을대상으 로예비실험을시행하였다. 첫번째, 친숙한사물선정의적절성을 알아보기위해 5 개의사물을제시한후이름대기또는사물의이 름을듣고지적하기과제를실시하였고, 두집단의모든아동이 5 개 사물의이름을정확하게표현또는이해하였다. 두번째, 낯선사물 선정의적절성을알아보기위해 5 개의사물을제시한후이름대기 혹은새단어를듣고지적하기과제를실시하였고, 두집단의모든 아동이 5 개의사물의이름을모른다고표현하거나해당사물을적 287

4 Il-Ran Choi, et al. Late-Talkers Use of the Mutual Exclusivity A B Figure 1. The examples of object photo. (A) Familiar object and (B) non-familiar object. 절하게지적하지못하였다. 세번째, 제시하는도구의적절성을알아보기위해실제사물과그사물들의사진을제시하였는데, 일부아동들은사물에지나친관심을보이고탐색함으로써검사자의구어지시에대해집중하지못하였던반면, 사물사진을제시하였을때검사자의지시에더집중하여반응하였다. 예비실험에서관찰된아동반응과결과에따라예비실험에서사용한사물들로최종실험사물을확정하였고, 제시하는도구는실제사물의사진으로결정하였다. 본실험에서는선정한사물을 Canon EOS 500D로촬영하여 mm 2 의규격으로컬러출력하여실험자료로사용하였다. 사물사진에대한예시는 Figure 1과같다. 연구절차실험은아동의가정내조용한공간에서진행되었고, 검사자는아동의보호자와인터뷰를하는장면을아동에게자연스럽게보여주며검사자에대한아동의경계를줄이고자하였다. 이후검사자는 5분간아동과자유놀이를통해라포 (rapport) 를형성하면서, 두개의사진중하나를선택해야하는과제에대해아동이이해하고있는지확인한다음실험을시작하였다. 모든아동에게먼저실험 1 을실시한후과제에대한아동의피로도감소를위해 1분간자유놀이를하게하였고, 이후실험 2를실시하였다. 실험 1에서는검사자는아동에게책상위 15 cm 간격으로표시해둔위치에두개의사물사진 ( 친숙한사물사진과낯선사물사진 ) 을동시에제시하였다. 검사자는각각의사물사진을하나씩들고보여주면서아동이 2개의사진모두를관찰하게하였고, 여기에푸티가있어요. 라고말해줌으로써새단어가두개의사물사진중하나의사물을의미한다는것을알려주었다. 그후, 검사자는 푸티는어디있어요? 라고말하며새단어가지시하는사물의사 진을아동이선택하도록유도하였다. 실험 1에서사물사진은낯선사물과친숙한사물로이루어진사물사진 5쌍을제시하였는데, 친숙한사물사진및낯선사물사진의제시위치는교대로배치하였다. 아동이 5초가지나도어떤사물의사진도선택하지않는경우, 푸티는어디있어요? 라고다시물어아동의선택을유도하였고, 두개의사물의사진을모두선택한경우에는 푸티하나만주세요. 라고말하였다. 그리고아동이 이게푸티예요? 라고확인질문을한경우에는 네가생각한대로하면돼. 와같이중립적으로대답하였다. 검사자는아동이선택반응을한이후에는 잘했어. 또는 고마워. 와같이일관된반응을해주었다. 친숙한사물의두번째이름의학습여부를확인하는실험 2에서, 검사자는먼저아동에게친숙한사물의사진만을보여주고손가락으로가리키면서새단어를연속해서두번말해준후 ( 예, 이것은푸티예요. ) 친숙한사물사진을제거하였다. 이후검사자는아동에게책상위 15 cm 간격으로표시해둔위치에두개의사물사진 ( 직전에제시했던친숙한사물사진과낯선사물사진 ) 을동시에제시한다음, 각각의사물사진을하나씩들고보여주면서아동이 2개의사진모두를관찰하게하였고, 푸티는어디있어요? 라고말하며새단어가지시하는물건을아동이선택하도록유도하였다. 실험중아동이보인반응에대한검사자의반응은실험 1과동일하였다. 자료처리및분석실험 1에서는아동이상호배타성가정을활용 ( 낯선사물선택 ) 한반응빈도의합, 실험 2에서는아동이상호배타성가정을무시 ( 친숙한사물선택 ) 한반응빈도의합을각각기록하였다. 실험 1과 2의자료에대해서 SPSS version 20.0 for Windows 프로그램을사 288

5 24-35 개월말늦은아동의새단어의미연결특성 : 상호배타성가정활용을중심으로 최일란외 Table 2. Average frequency of selecting a non-familiar object in experiment 1 Selecting a non-familiar object a (use of mutual exclusivity assumption) LT= late talking; TD= typically developing. a The total number of given chance was 5 times. LT children (N= 14) TD children (N= 15) Mean SD Mean SD Table 3. Average frequency of selecting a familiar object in experiment 2 Selecting a familiar object a (Ignore of mutual exclusivity assumption) LT= late talking; TD= typically developing. a The total number of given chance was 5 times. LT children (N= 14) TD children (N= 15) Mean SD Mean SD 용하여독립표본 t- 검정을실시하였다. 논의및결론 연구결과실험 1에서는아동들이상호배타성가정에의거하여새단어를낯선사물과연결하는경향성을조사하였다. 새단어를상호배타성가정에따라낯선사물과연결한집단별평균빈도는말늦은아동들이 3.57, 일반아동들이 3.80이었으며, 집단간차이는통계적으로유의미하지않았다 (t(27) =.929, p=.361). 실험 1에서아동들이새단어를듣고낯선사물을선택한빈도의집단별평균과 t-검정결과를 Table 2에제시하였다. 각집단아동들이상호배타성가정을따르는경향성을비율적으로비교하면, 말늦은아동들이과제를수행한전체반응중상호배타성가정을따라낯선사물을선택한비율은우연수준을넘는반응이었고 (71.4%, Binomial test, p <.001), 일반아동들이낯선사물을선택한비율도우연수준을넘는반응이었다 (76%, Binomial test, p<.001). 실험 2에서는화자가새단어로친숙한사물에두번째이름을붙이는상황에서아동들이상호배타성가정을무시하고새단어를친숙한사물과연결하는경향성을조사하였다. 상호배타성가정을무시하고, 새단어를친숙한사물과연결한집단별평균빈도는말늦은아동들이 1.64, 일반아동들이 3.80이었으며, 집단간차이는통계적으로유의미하였다 (t(27) = , p<.001). 실험 2에서아동들이새단어를듣고친숙한사물을선택한빈도의집단별평균과 t-검정결과를 Table 3에제시하였다. 실험 2에서각집단아동들이상호배타성가정을무시하는경향성을비율적으로비교하면, 말늦은아동들이과제를수행한전체반응중상호배타성가정을무시하고친숙한사물을선택한비율은 32.8% 로우연수준을넘지않았던반면, 일반아동들이친숙한사물을선택한비율은우연수준을넘는반응이었다 (76%, Binomial test, p<.001). 본연구에서는두개의실험을통하여 24-35개월의말늦은아동과일반아동을대상으로새단어의의미연결시상호배타성가정활용과친숙한사물에대한두번째이름의학습상황에서새단어의미연결특성을조사하였다. 실험 1에서새단어를들었을때낯선사물을선택한수행비율은말늦은아동이 71.4%, 일반아동이 76% 로두집단모두상호배타성가정을활용하는경향을보였다. 또한, 두집단아동들이낯선사물을선택한빈도는유의미한차이를보이지않았다. 실험 1에서나타난일반아동들의수행은 개월아동들도새단어의의미를추론할때상호배타성가정을활용하고 (Ghim, 1997), 2세아동도새단어를듣고친숙한사물보다낯선사물을유의미하게더많이선택한다는선행연구결과와일치한다 (Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, Lavallee, & Baduini, 1985; Hutchinson, 1986). 이처럼어휘발달이느린말늦은아동들도일반아동들과유사한정도로새단어를낯선사물과연결한다는사실은상호배타성가정이어린아동들의어휘습득과정에서매우강력하게작용하는어휘적원리임을보여준다. 그러나상호배타성가정의활용이언어발달의지체여부에전혀영향을받지않는것은아니다. Hong (1994) 에따르면 2-4세수준의정신연령을가진지적장애아동도상호배타성가정에따라단어의미를추론하는경향을보였으나, 이러한경향은전체아동들중 44% 정도였다. 즉, 언어발달에어려움을겪는아동들도상호배타성가정을활용하지만그편향성에선집단에따라차이가있다. 반면, 실험 2에서말늦은아동들이새단어의의미를친숙한사물의두번째이름으로연결시킨비율은 32.8% 로, Liittschwager와 Markman (1994) 의 16개월일반아동이보여준 52% 에비해낮았다. 즉, 2세말늦은아동은또래일반아동들뿐만아니라생활연령이더어린아동들에비해서도더욱두드러진상호배타성편향을보인다는것을의미한다. 말늦은아동들은화자가새단어를친숙한사물과분명하게연결하는상황에서도어휘적제약인상호배타성가정에서벗어나지못하여사물의두번째이름을학습을어려 289

6 Il-Ran Choi, et al. Late-Talkers Use of the Mutual Exclusivity 워하는것으로보인다. 말늦은아동의이러한특성은한사물에여러이름을허용해야만습득이가능한사물의세부부분이나특성을나타내는어휘, 유의어및범주어등의학습을어렵게만들수있다. 이와같은맥락에서말늦은아동의유연하지못한단어의미연결은느린어휘발달에영향을미칠것이라고예상된다. 말늦은아동이친숙한사물의두번째이름학습에서어려움을보인이유는우선, 말늦은아동의부족한공동주의하기 (joint attention) 능력때문일수있다. 말늦은아동은공동주의하기기능이현저히떨어지기때문에 (Paul, 1991), 화자가가리키기 (pointing) 를이용하여친숙한사물과새단어를연결하는상황에대해충분한주의를기울이지못할수있다. 따라서말늦은아동은화자의분명한의도를파악하지못하고강력한인지적제약인상호배타성가정에따라새단어의의미를연결하게되는것이다. 또한, 말늦은아동의빠른의미연결 (fast-mapping) 능력이일반아동에비해유의미하게낮기때문에 (Ji, 2013), 새단어의의미연결을위해서새단어와친숙한사물연결의노출빈도또한더많이요구될것으로예상될수있다. 두실험의결과를종합해보면말늦은아동이보인상호배타성편향은사물의첫번째이름학습에서는효율적으로단어학습을도와주며긍정적인영향을미치지만, 사물의두번째이름학습에서는부정적영향을미치는것으로보인다. 이러한새단어의의미연결시보이는말늦은아동의특성은임상에서말늦은아동의어휘습득촉진을위한중재목표및활동을계획할때고려해야할중요한정보가될것이다. 이후추가적으로 24개월보다더어린연령의말늦은아동들도새단어의의미연결시상호배타성가정을활용하는지확인함으로써, 상호배타성가정의활용이시작되는시기에대한정보를얻는것은의미가있을것이다. 또한, 말늦은아동으로진단받았던 36 개월이상의아동에대한후속연구를통해상호배타성을무시하고친숙한사물에여러개의이름을허용하는능력의발달이언제이루어지는확인하는것은말늦은아동의어휘습득및발달을이해하는데도움을줄것이다. 뿐만아니라말늦은아동의선정조건에서제스처의발달수준, 조음음운능력등을고려한다면, 말늦은아동의하위집단에대한더구체적인정보를얻을수있을것이다. REFERENCES Au, T. K. F., & Glusman, M. (1990). The principle of mutual exclusivity in word learning: to honor or not to honor? Child Development, 61, Behrend, D. A. (1990). The development of verb concepts: children s use of verbs to label familiar and novel events. Child Development, 61, Cho, K. J. (1993). The mutual exclusivity assumption in children s acquisition of word meaning (Master s thesis). Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Korea. Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: a constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 1-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colunga, E., & Sims, C. E. (2011). Early talkers and late talkers know nouns that license different word learning biases. In Proceedings of the 33th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp ). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Davidson, D., & Tell, D. (2005). Monolingual and bilingual children s use of mutual exclusivity in the naming of whole objects. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 92, D Odorico, L., Assanelli, A., Franco, F., & Jacob, V. (2007). A follow-up study on Italian late talkers: development of language, short-term memory, phonological awareness, impulsiveness, and attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, Fasolo, M., & D Odorico, L. (2002). Vocabulary development of late-talking children: a longitudinal research from eighteen to thirty months of age. Rivista di Psicolinguistica Applicata, 3, Ghim, H. R. (1994). Evidence for and against the mutual exclusivity assumption: by Korean 3-year-old children and adults. Korean Journal of Psychology: Development, 7, Ghim, H. R. (1997). The principle of mutual exclusivity as a universal constraint on word meaning by 21- to 23-month-old Korean infants. The Korean Journal of Human Development, 4, Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Lavallee, A., & Baduini, C. (1985). What s in a word? The young child s predisposition to use lexical contrast. In Boston University Conference on Child Language, Boston, MA. Ha, E. B. (2012). Comparison of temperament and mother-children communicative characteristics between late-talker and normal children (Master s thesis). Dankook University, Yongin, Korea. Hansen, M. B., & Markman, E. M. (2009). Children s use of mutual exclusivity to learn labels for parts of objects. Developmental psychology, 45, Hong, G. H. (2007). A longitudinal study of communicative intention variables for predicting expressive vocabulary development of the late-talkers. Korean Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 7, Hong, G. H., & Kim, Y. T. (2005). A longitudinal study of predictors for expressive vocabulary development of late-talkers. Korean Journal of Com 290

7 24-35 개월말늦은아동의새단어의미연결특성 : 상호배타성가정활용을중심으로 최일란외 munication Disorders, 10, Hong, J. S. (1994). The reasoning about word meanings in normal and mentally retarded children (Master s thesis). Youngnam University, Gyeongsan, Korea. Hutchinson, J. (1986). Children s sensitivity to the contrastive use of object category terms. Papers and Reports on Child Development, 25, Jaswal, V. K., & Hansen, M. B. (2006). Learning words: Children disregard some pragmatic information that conflicts with mutual exclusivity. Developmental Science, 9, Ji, J. H. (2013). The effects of gestures on fast mappong of verbs with late-talkers (Master s thesis). Dankook University, Yongin, Korea. Jin, K. S., Kim, M. Y., Kim, Y. J., Yoon, E. J., & Song, H. J. (2008). Three- to four-year-old Korean children s use of mutual exclusivity and pragmatic cues in word learning. Korean Journal of Psychology: Development, 21, Jones, S. S. (2003). Late talkers show no shape bias in a novel name extension task. Developmental Science, 6, Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (2005). Object name learning and object perception: a deficit in late talkers. Journal of Child Language, 32, Kim, Y. T., Kim, K. H., Yoon, H. R., & Kim, H. S. (2003). Sequenced Language Scale for Infants (SELSI). Seoul: Special Education Publishing. Kobayashi, H. (1998). How 2-year-old children learn novel part names of unfamiliar objects. Cognition, 68, B41-B51. Kouri, T. A. (2005). Lexical training through modeling and elicitation procedures with late talkers who have specific language impairment and developmental delays. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, Lederberg, A. R., Prezbindowski, A. K., & Spencer, P. E. (2000). Word-learning skills of deaf preschoolers: the development of novel mapping and rapid word-learning strategies. Child Development, 71, Lee, H. J. (2005). Mutual exclusivity constraint versus intention in word learning: based on Korean data. Korean Journal of Psychology: Development, 18, Lee, H. J. (Trans.) (2012). Language development (4th ed.). Seoul: Cengage Learning Korea Ltd. Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Liittschwager, J. C., & Markman, E. M. (1994). Sixteen- and 24-month-olds use of mutual exclusivity as a default assumption in second-label learning. Developmental Psychology, 30, Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: problems of induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Markman, E. M. (1990). Constraints children place on word meanings. Cognitive Science, 14, Markman, E. M., & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children s sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16, Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20, Markman, E. M., Wasow, J. L., & Hansen, M. B. (2003). Use of the mutual exclusivity assumption by young word learners. Cognitive Psychology, 47, Mather, E., & Plunkett, K. (2009). Learning words over time: the role of stimulus repetition in mutual exclusivity. Infancy, 14, Merriman, W. E. (1991). The mutual exclusivity bias in children s word learning: a reply to Woodward and Markman. Developmental Review, 11, Merriman, W. E., Bowman, L. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children s word Markman learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54, Mirak, J., & Rescorla, L. (1998). Phonetic skills and vocabulary size in late talkers: concurrent and predictive relationships. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, Nelson, K. (1988). Constraints on word learning? Cognitive Development, 3, Oh, D. Y., & Yim, D. S. (2013). Non-word repetition and sentence repetition performance in 2-3 years old late talkers and normal children. Communication Sciences and Disorders, 18, Pae, S. Y., & Kwak, K. J. (2011). MacArthur-Bates communicative development inventory-korean: words and gestures. Seoul: Mind Press. Paul, R. (1991). Profiles of toddlers with slow expressive language development. Topics in Language Disorders, 11, Paul, R. (1993). Patterns of development in late talkers: preschool years. Journal of Childhood Communication Disorder, 15, Paul, R., Looney, S. S., & Dahm, P. S. (1991). Communication and socialization skills at ages 2 and 3 in late-talking young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 34, Preissler, M. A., & Carey, S. (2005). The role of inferences about referential intent in word learning: evidence from autism. Cognition, 97, B13-B23. Preston, J. L., Frost, S. J., Mencl, W. E., Fulbright, R. K., Landi, N., Grigoren

8 Il-Ran Choi, et al. Late-Talkers Use of the Mutual Exclusivity ko, E.,... Pugh, K. R. (2010). Early and late talkers: school-age language, literacy and neurolinguistic differences. Brain, 133, Rescorla, L. (1989). The language development survey: a screening tool for language delay in toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, Rescorla, L. (1991). Identifying expressive language delay at age two. Topics in Language disorders, 11, Rescorla, L., Bascome, A., Lampard, J., & Feeny, N. (2001). Conversational patterns in late talkers at age 3. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, Rescorla, L., & Roberts, J. (2002). Nominal versus verbal morpheme use in late talkers at ages 3 and 4. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, Rescorla, L., Roberts, J., & Dahlsgaard, K. (1997). Late talker at 2: outcome at age 3. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, Shin, H. S., Han, K. J., Oh, K. S., Oh, J. J., & Ha, M. N. (2002). Korean Denver II. Seoul: Hyunmoonsa. Sim, H. R., & Ha, S. H. (2014). Comparison of phonological development between typically developing children and late talking children aged months. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 19, Stark, R. E., & Tallal, P. (1981). Selection of children with specific language deficits. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, Stevens, T., & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1997). Word learning in a special population: do individuals with Williams syndrome obey lexical constraints? Journal of Child Language, 24, Thal, D., & Bates, E. (1988). Language and gesture in late talkers. Journal of Speech and hearing Research, 31, Waxman, S. R., & Hatch, T. (1992). Beyond the basics: preschool children label objects flexibly at multiple hierarchical levels. Journal of Child Language, 19, Weismer, S. E., Murray-Branch, J., & Miller, J. F. (1993). Comparison of two methods for promoting productive vocabulary in late talkers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 36,

9 24-35 개월말늦은아동의새단어의미연결특성 : 상호배타성가정활용을중심으로 최일란외 국문초록 개월말늦은아동의새단어의미연결특성 : 상호배타성가정활용을중심으로 최일란 1 황민아 2 1 단국대학교특수교육대학원, 2 단국대학교특수교육학과 배경및목적 : 본연구에서는초기언어발달단계의어휘습득에영향을미치는상호배타성가정의활용을중심으로말늦은아동의새단어의미연결특성을조사하였다. 방법 : 연구대상은 24-35개월의말늦은아동 14명과일반아동 15명이었다. 실험 1에서는검사자가말해주는새로운단어 ( 예, 보가 ) 를듣고친숙한사물사진과낯선사물사진중에서하나를고르게하였고, 아동이상호배타성가정을따른 ( 낯선사물선택 ) 반응빈도를측정하였다. 실험 2에서는검사자가아동에게친숙한사물사진을보여주며새로운단어 ( 예, 푸티 ) 를그사물의이름이라고알려준뒤, 실험 1과동일한과제를실시했을때, 아동이상호배타성가정을무시한 ( 친숙한사물선택 ) 반응빈도를측정하였다. 결과 : 실험 1에서두집단은모두상호배타성가정을활용하여새단어의의미를연결하였고, 두집단간수행에유의미한차이가없었다. 실험 2에서일반아동은상호배타성가정을무시하고새단어를친숙한사물의두번째이름으로연결하는반면말늦은아동은여전히상호배타성가정에따라새단어의의미를낯선사물과연결하는경향을보였다. 논의및결론 : 본연구결과에서나타난, 말늦은아동이보이는상호배타성편향은사물의첫번째이름학습에는유용하나하나의사물에연관되는다양한어휘의습득을제한할가능성이있다. 핵심어 : 말늦은아동, 상호배타성가정, 단어의미연결본논문은제1저자의석사학위논문을수정 보완하였음. 참고문헌 김영태, 김경희, 윤혜련, 김화수 (2003). 영 유아언어발달검사 (SELSI). 서울 : 도서출판특수교육. 김혜리 (1994). 단어의미추론과정에나타나는상호배타성가정 : 긍정적증거와부정적증거. 한국심리학회지 : 발달, 7, 김혜리 (1997). 단어의미추론에작용하는상호배타성가정 : 생후 21-23개월된영아의자료. 인간발달연구, 4, 배소영, 곽금주 (2011). 한국형맥아더- 베이츠의사소통발달평가 (K M-B CDI). 서울 : 마인드프레스. 신희선, 한경자, 오가실, 오진주, 하미나 (2002). 한국형 Denver II 검사. 서울 : 현문사. 심혜림, 하승희 (2014) 개월말늦은아동과일반아동의음운발달비교. 언어청각장애연구, 19, 오다연, 임동선 (2013). 2-3세말늦은아동과정상아동의비단어따라말하기와문장따라말하기수행능력. 언어청각장애연구, 18, 이현진 (2005). 단어의미추론에서상호배타성제약과의도의역할 : 한국어자료를중심으로. 한국심리학회지 : 발달, 18, 이현진 ( 역 )(2012). 언어발달제4판. 서울 : 센게이지러닝코리아. 조경자 (1993). 아이들이단어의미획득과정에서보이는상호배타성가정. 충북대학교대학원석사학위논문. 지정희 (2013). 몸짓 (gesture) 이말늦은유아 (late talker) 의빠른의미연결 (fast-mapping) 에미치는효과. 단국대학교대학원석사학위논문. 진경선, 김민영, 김유진, 윤정은, 송현주 (2008). 3, 4세한국아동의단어학습에서상호배타성과화용단서의역할. 한국심리학회지 : 발달, 21, 하은빈 (2012). 말늦은아동 (late-talker) 과일반아동의기질및어머니-아동간의사소통특성비교. 단국대학교대학원석사학위논문. 홍경훈 (2007). 말늦은아동 의표현어휘발달예측을위한의사소통의도산출특성종단연구. 유아특수교육연구, 7, 홍경훈, 김영태 (2005). 종단연구를통한 말늦은아동 (late-talker) 의표현어휘발달예측요인분석. 언어청각장애연구, 10, 홍지숙 (1994). 정신지체아동의단어의미추론양식의비교. 영남대학교대학원석사학위논문