바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.19 No.3

Citation Share

The Korean Relative Clause Processing Strategy:An Eye-Tracking Study

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2007, v.19 no.3, pp.233-249
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.3.004


& (2007). The Korean Relative Clause Processing Strategy:An Eye-Tracking Study. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 19(3), 233-249, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.3.004

Abstract

To study Korean relative clause processing(specifically, ‘gwan-hyeong’ clause), one eye movement experiment was conducted. Garden-path model was accepted as a research framework for this study and temporarily ambiguous sentences were invented to observe reanalysis during reading. The Korean gwan-hyeong clauses followed by ‘myeonseo’ clause were constructed to lead to syntactic ambiguity, which would be disambiguated in the main verb phrase at the end of the sentence. It was assumed that if a certain syntactic analysis would be preferred in the first pass reading as the garden-path theory argues, it would lead to processing difficulty when encountered with the main verb phrase requiring a different interpretation at the end of the sentence. In this study, it was hypothesized that the initial syntactic analysis formed before reaching the disambiguation region, should follow the strategy requiring more syntactically minimal change. In the eye-tracking experiment, it was observed the strong garden-path effect in the non-minimal change condition, that is the rapid increase of the go-past time at the disambiguation area. This result was interpreted as supporting the minimal change hypothesis.

keywords
syntactic processing, garden-path model, minimal change, gwan-hyeong clause, eye movement, 통사처리, 길 오인 모형, 최소변화 원리, 관형절 범위처리, 안구운동

Reference

1.

김영진 (2001). 안구운동 추적을 통한 한국어 중의성 해소 과정 연구. 한국 실험 및 인지 심리학회 여름 학술대회 발표논문집.

2.

김영진․최광일 (2001). 한국어 관계절 부착의 중의성, 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 14(3), 187-204.

3.

남기심 (2001). 현대 국어 통사론. 태학출판사.

4.

양정석 (2005). 한국어 통사구조론. 한국문화사.

5.

이정민 (1989). 국어의 통사적 중의성. 한글 및 한국어정보처리 학술발표논문집. 한국정보과학회/한국인지과학회 편. 282-287.

6.

장진덕 (1999). 여격 명사구가 일으키는 다의성 해소과정. 미발표학위논문. 아주대.

7.

조명한 등 (2003). 언어 심리학. 학지사.

8.

최재희 (2004). 한국어 문법론. 태학 출판사.

9.

Abney, S. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 129-144.

10.

Bever, T.G. (1970). The Cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley. 279-362.

11.

De Vincenzi, M. (1996). Syntactic analysis in sentence comprehension: Effects of dependency types and grammatical constraints. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1). 117-133.

12.

Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic parsing. Journal of Memory and Language. 25. 348-368.

13.

Fodor, J. D. & Frazier, L, (1980). Is the human sentence parsing mechanism an ATN? Cognition, 8, 417-459.

14.

Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 519-559.

15.

Frazier, L, & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine; A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 1-34.

16.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

17.

Jacob. G., Pearson, J., Pickering, M. J., & Van Gompel, R. P. G. (2006). The Activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 335- 362.

18.

Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A Theory of Reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.

19.

Koh, S. (1997). The Resolution of the dative NP ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistics, 26, 265-273.

20.

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703.

21.

McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 283-312.

22.

Masson, M. E., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 203-220.

23.

Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: an eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940-961.

24.

Pickering M. J., Clifton C. Jr., & Crocker, M. W. (2000). Architectures and mechanisms in sentence comprehension. Architectures and mechanisms for language processing. Cambrdrige Press. 1-31.

25.

Pritchett, B. A. (1988). Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing. Language, 64(3), 539-576.

26.

Pritchett, B. L.. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholingustic Research, 20(3). 251-270.

27.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A., (1989). The psychology of reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press. New Jersey.

28.

Staub, A. (2007). The return of the repressed: Abandoned parses facilitate syntactic reanalysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57. 299-323.

29.

Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influence on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33. 285-318.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy