The Structure of Process of Students’ Learning the Visual-Semantic Representation of a Hieroglyphs
The article discovers the structure of students` learning the visual-semantic representation of a hieroglyph during their mastering the hieroglyph language at the linguistic faculties. The article gives explanations of the differences between the alphabetic and the hieroglyph writing implying the unusual symbol structure of the hieroglyph writing, the distinctions between the correlations of its graphic and phonemic components, the compression of the interpretation chain to “symbol-meaning” unlike in the phonemic writing where graphic nomination and sense interpretation are based on the principle of “a sound – a letter (a combination of letters) – a meaning”. There is the substantiation for the choice of an image as a form of cognition. In the article it is explained that an image is used in cases of possible conceptualizing, preserving, processing and knowledge transferring which stem from the commonness of objects` features when they are compared. The source for students` understanding the hieroglyph writing in this format is their already formed narrative of things and phenomena (obtained through their own experience), the vocabulary of their native language, knowledge of other languages etc. The article describes the process of mental reflection during image creation occurring at three levels of human mind: the sensor-perceptive level, the ideas level and the verbal-logic level. It proposes the definition of the visual-semantic image of a hieroglyph as an integral product of visual sensor perception of all graphic elements of the hieroglyph formal structure, its substantive understanding (preserved in the image memory) and ideas (sense) display secured by the meaning. The structure of a visual-semantic image is represented by a symbol (graphic elements of a hieroglyph); by a thing (phenomenon) which it renders; by a meaning (generally recognized in the language vocabulary); by personalized sense (subjective meaning) and by the feelings context as a special perceptive measure attributing specific features to an image. The article presents the scheme and describes the mechanism of the process of learning the visual-semantic representation of a hieroglyph as a symbol of writing possessing image, logical, symbolic features and containing the meaning of the language unit being written. There is the following conclusion done in the article: effective learning the hieroglyph writing by university students occurs by means of their obtaining the skill to form a visual-semantic image, to preserve it and to restore it, but it does not imply memorizing only and includes a wider spectrum of cognitive processes: perception, imagination, visual and conceptual thinking, speaking, personal cognitive strategies to learn the new, etc.
Asadchykh, O.V. (2017). Navchannia yaponskoi movy u vyshchii shkoli: intehratyvnasystema formuvannia i rozvytku akademichnoi hramotnosti: monohrafiia [Teaching the Japanese language in a higher education: an integrative system for the formation and development of academic literacy: monograph]. Kyiv:Vydavnychyi dim Dmytra Buraho [in Ukrainian].
Barabanshchikov, V.A. (2006).Psihologiya vospriyatiya. Organizaciya i razvitie perceptivnogo processa [Psychology of perception. Organization and development of the perceptual process]. Moscow: Kogito-Tsentr [in Russian].
Berezina, T.N. (2012). Psihicheskie obrazyi vyisshih poryadkov v strukture obraznoy formyi [Mental images of higher orders in the structure of the figurative form]. Psihologiya i psihotehnika – Psychology and Psychotechnics, 1, 13–24 [in Russian].
Burtseva, E.V. (2015). Aktualnost zapominaniya ieroglifov studentami v sovremennyih usloviyah dostupa v globalnoe informatsionnoe prostranstvo [The urgency of memorizing hieroglyphs by students in modern conditions of access to the global information space]. Sibirskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal – Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 6, 113–119 [in Russian].
Vasilyuk, F. (1993). Struktura obraza [The structure of image]. Voprosyi psihologii – Problems of Psychology, 5, 5–19 [in Russian].
Vekker, L.M., & Lomov, B.F. (1961). O chuvstvennom obraze kak izobrazhenii [About the sensual image as an image]. Voprosy filosofii – Problems of philosophy, 4, 47–59 [in Russian].
Golovanova, E.I. (2014). Obraz, ponyatie, geshtalt kak formyi professionalnogo znaniya [Image, concept, gestalt as forms of professional knowledge]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.Filologiya. Iskusstvovedenie – Chelyabinsk State University Bulletin. Philology. Art. History, 88, 122–125 [in Russian].
Kochergin, I.V. (2006). Ocherki lingvodidaktiki kitayskogo yazyika [Essays on Chinese linguistics.] (2-nd ed., rev.). Moscow: AST. Vostok-Zapad [in Russian].
Leontev, A.N. (1979). Psihologiya obraza [Psychology of the image]. Vestnik MGU – MSU Bulletin, 2, 3–14 [in Russian].
Molotkova, Yu.V. (2014). Obuchenie ieroglificheskomu pismu studentov yazyikovogo vuza (kitayskiy yazyik) [Teaching hieroglyphic writing to students at a language university (Chinese)]. Extended abstract of candidate’s thesis. Minsk: BSU [inRussian].
Oshanin, D.A. (1999). Predmetnoe dejstvie i operativnyj obraz [Objective action and operational image]. Voronezh: NPO “MODEK” [in Russian].
Pavlov, I. (1973). Dvadcatiletnij opyt ob ektivnogo izucheniya vysshej nervnoj deyatelnosti (povedeniya) zhivotnyh [Twenty-year experience of objective study of higher nervous activity (behavior) of animals]. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
Payusov, E.I. (1954). Metodika obucheniya ieroglifike [Teaching methods of hieroglyphs]. Candidate’s thesis. Moscow [inRussian].
Pirogov, V.L. (2013). LogografIchne pismo yak instrument pіznannya y modelyuvannya svіtu [Logotypical writing as an instrument of cognition and modeling of the world]. Vіsnyk KNLU Seriya Filolohiya – Visnyk of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Philology, 16, 88–97 [in Ukrainian].
Rezanenko, V.F. (1978) Psiholingvisticheskie mehanizmyi vospriyatiya ieroglificheskih znakov [Psycholinguistic mechanisms of perception of hieroglyphic signs]. Candidate’s thesis. Kyiv: KSU [inRussian].
Rubinshtejn, S.L. (2000). Osnovy obshchej psihologii [Fundamentals of General Psychology]. Saint-Petersburg: Piter [inRussian].
Sechenov, I.M. (2011). Ehlementy mysli. Vpechatleniya i dejstvitelnost [Elements of thought. Impressions and reality]. Moscow: Librokom [in Russian].
Strizhak, U.P. (2005). Sistema obucheniya ieroglificheskoy pismennosti: Yaponskiy yazyik [The System of Hieroglyphic Writing Training: the Japanese Language]. Candidate’s thesis. Moscow: MGU [inRussian].
Halimova, A.V. (2015). Obuchenie ieroglifike kitajskogo yazyka s ispolzovaniem metodov ehffektivnogo zapominaniya informacii [Teaching the Chinese language with the use of effective information storage methods]. Evrazijskij soyuz uchenyh – The Eurasian Union of Scientists, 4(13), 16–18 [in Russian].
Tollini, A. (1994). The importance of form in the teaching of kanji. Sekaino nihohgo kyoiku, 4, 107–116.
Kano, Ch. (2016). Research on the Assessment of Kanji Ability viewed from the Japanese Language Education Standarts https://nrid.nii.ac.jp/index/https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/ja/file/KAKENHI-PROJECT-23320102/23320102seika.pdf.
常用漢字表Retrieved from http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/pdf/joyokanjihyo_20101130.pdf.
Miyaki, Y. (1996). Nihongo kyou:jyuho: wo rikaisuru hon – Jissenhen [Book to understand the Japanese teaching methods: practice]. Tokyo: Berupress [in Japanese].
Jyo:yo: Kanjihyo: [A List of Kanji in common use]. (n.d.). bunka.go.jp – Retrieved from:http://www.bunka.go.jp/kokugo_nihongo/sisaku/joho/joho/kijun/naikaku/pdf/joyokanjihyo_20101130.pdf [in Japanese].
Kokusaiko:ryu: kikin Nihongokyou:jyuho: shiri:zu Dai8kan “Kakukotowooshieru” [The Japan Foundation Japanese Teaching Methods Series, vol.8Teaching writing ]. 2010. Tokyo, 124 [in Japanese].
Abstract views: 68 PDF Downloads: 71
Copyright (c) 2018 Psycholinguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.