개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술대회자료
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 2016.12
- 수록면
- 289 - 293 (5page)
이용수
이 논문의 연구 히스토리 (3)
- 이 논문의 후속연구가 궁금하신가요?
- 연관 학술논문 또는 학술발표를 통해 보다 발전된 연구결과를 확인하실 수 있습니다.
- 이 논문의 연구 히스토리 확인하기
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Purpose: This study purposes to figure out the difference of the ability to resolve homonymic ambiguity among children aged three to five. Methods: The study targets were children aged three to five, and each age group had 10 children, corresponding to a total of 30 children who participated in the study. The study task consisted of four separate pictures in one frame, and one of the pictures had a sentence with the opposite meaning of the homonym. Results: First, the number of children who comprehended homonymic ambiguity was significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. The number of children who resolved homonymic ambiguity was also significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. However, the number of children who comprehended and resolved homonymic ambiguity was not significantly different between three years old and four years old.
Second, the total number of attempts to resolve homonymic ambiguity was significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. The success rate of resolving homonymic ambiguity was also significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. Third, the colloquial language resolution rate among the homonymic ambiguity resolution types was significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. However, the resolution rate that involves the use of both colloquial language and gestures was not different between the groups. Fourth, the use of deictic and iconic gestures, which are gesture types used in the case of resolution through the use of both colloquial language and gestures, was not significantly different between the groups. Although the statistics did not show significant difference, three years old often used deictic gestures, and four years old frequently used deictic and iconic gestures, and five years old used iconic gestures relatively frequently. Conclusions: Based upon the results mentioned above, it appeared that the ability to comprehend and resolve homonymic ambiguity develops in the age of four and five. And the number of attempts by five years old decreased, and their success rate increased.
Second, the total number of attempts to resolve homonymic ambiguity was significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. The success rate of resolving homonymic ambiguity was also significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. Third, the colloquial language resolution rate among the homonymic ambiguity resolution types was significantly different between three years old and five years old as well as four years old and five years old. However, the resolution rate that involves the use of both colloquial language and gestures was not different between the groups. Fourth, the use of deictic and iconic gestures, which are gesture types used in the case of resolution through the use of both colloquial language and gestures, was not significantly different between the groups. Although the statistics did not show significant difference, three years old often used deictic gestures, and four years old frequently used deictic and iconic gestures, and five years old used iconic gestures relatively frequently. Conclusions: Based upon the results mentioned above, it appeared that the ability to comprehend and resolve homonymic ambiguity develops in the age of four and five. And the number of attempts by five years old decreased, and their success rate increased.
목차
Abstract
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 연구 방법
Ⅲ. 연구 결과
Ⅳ. 논의 및 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
언어 이전 의사소통적 몸짓 사용이 초기 24개월 언어발달에 미치는 영향 : 종단연구
한국언어치료학회 학술발표대회 논문집
2016 .12
-
Playing with Shadows: Understanding Preschool-age Children’s Gesture Use and Body Movements in Play-based Science Learning
International Journal of Early Childhood Education
2022 .06
-
취학 전 표현언어부진 아동과 일반 아동이 사용하는 제스처와 발화의 관계 특성 비교
아동학회지
2020 .08
-
장애 학생의 소통적 욕구를 반영한 특수교사의 수업 몸짓 언어 사용 특징
한국청각언어장애교육연구
2024 .08
-
한국과 일본 유아의 몸짓 경향에 대한 비교 연구
유아교육연구
2019 .01
-
The optimal insurance demand under an ambiguity aversion
선물연구
2022 .12
-
3-5세 일반아동의 도상적 제스처 이해 및 산출 특성
언어치료연구
2018 .07
-
목표모호성과 조직성과: 비선형 관계의 탐색 및 모호성 측정지표 개발을 중심으로
행정논총
2022 .06
-
정보비대칭과 모호성 하에서 비대칭적 변동성에 관한 연구
선물연구
2020 .01
-
동영상의 화면크기와 아바타의 제스처 유형이 학습자의 실재감 지각에 미치는 영향
교육방법연구
2019 .01
-
漢語模糊ㆍ多義ㆍ歧義分析
동북아 문화연구
2016 .06
-
모호성과 모호성 회피성향의 증가가 보험 수요에 미치는 영향: 배경위험을 중심으로
보험학회지
2020 .01
-
과학담화에서 과학자와 중학생의 제스처 비교 -분자운동과 물질의 상태변화를 중심으로-
한국과학교육학회지
2018 .01
-
영아 몸짓의 의미
육아지원연구
2016 .12
-
8-35개월 유아들의 제스처 어휘유형에 관한 연구
언어치료연구
2022 .07
-
Insider Trading under Two-Sided Ambiguity
金融工學硏究
2021 .12
-
이야기 회상 과제에서 나타난 학령전 단순언어장애 아동의 제스처 산출 특성
Communication Sciences and Disorders
2021 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
학령전기 아동의 관형절 사용 양상
김소영
,
이봉원
언어
2019
.12
4-6세 아동의 관형절 차등비교문 이해 및 표현 능력 특성
설다정
,
전희숙
언어치료연구
2022
.07
한국어 관형절 어순에 대한 실험통사론적 연구
박소영
,
진우현
언어학
2021
.12
학령 전기 아동의 자발화에서 나타난 관형절의 담화/의사소통 기능 특성
김효선
,
김정미
한국언어치료학회 학술발표대회 논문집
2015
.12
4~6세 일반아동 및 언어발달지연 아동의 음운인식 및 음운처리 능력이 언어 능력에 미치는 영향
김신영
,
손진경
,
임동선
말소리와 음성과학
2020
.03
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-037-003331577