바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.19 No.4
Citation Share

한국어 모국어화자에서의 중의적 영어복문의 이해과정: ERP 연구

ERP Reflections of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in English Embedded Sentence as a Foreign Language

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2007, v.19 no.4, pp.299-312
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.003
김충명 (광주대학교)
남기춘 (고려대학교)
김충명, & 남기춘. (2007). 한국어 모국어화자에서의 중의적 영어복문의 이해과정: ERP 연구. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 19(4), 299-312, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.003
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

본 연구는 중의적 해석이 가능한 특정 영어구문에 대해 한국어 모국어화자들의 해석과정을 해당어구의 읽기시간과 신경생리학적 지표로서의 사건관련전위(Event-related Potentials; ERPs)를 이용하여 확인하고자 하였다. 외국어로서의 영어를 처리하는 과정에서의 구문적 중의성이 내포된 미로문장(garden path sentence; GPS)과 이른종결문장(early closure sentence; ECS)을 대상으로 자기 조절 읽기 과제(self-paced reading)를 사용하여, 중의어구가 포함된 실험문장과 중의성이 개재되지 않은 통제문장에서의 반응을 얻었다. 실험결과, 미로문장 통제조건 및 이른종결문장 조건의 중의성 관련어에서 유의미하게 읽기 반응시간이 지연되어 나타났다. 또한 동일 유형의 중의구문에 대한 ERP 실험에서도 차별적 신경활성화 지표를 확인할 수 있었는데, 미로문장 조건에서는 구문재분석 부담이 증가되는 방향의 지표인 P600이 두드러진 데 비해, 이른종결문장 유형은 해당어구의 의미역할 변화를 초래하는 방향으로 해석가능한 N400에서 그 차이가 나타났다. 이와 같은 결과는 각기 다른 해석방법을 지니는 복문의 상이한 유형이 그 구조의 차이 외에 의미적 해석이 우선적으로 적용될 수 있으며, 중의구조 유형 간 해소과정이 각기 다른 처리단원으로 분리되어 있음을 시사한다.

keywords
미로문장, 늦은종결문장, 통사적 중의성, 사건관련전위, N400, P600, garden-path sentence, early closure sentence, syntactic ambiguity, Event-related potentials(ERPs), N400, P600

Abstract

This study was conducted to find how to process an ambiguous sentence related with garden-path sentence(GPS) and early closure sentence(ECS), and to reveal the difference of contribution between their syntactic and semantic informations using ERPs. Task to be required is to read silently and respond to the presented English phrase by self-paced reading method. Analyses on behavioral response time show the significant delayed response to the controlled GPS and ECS condition. The current ERP results showed that embedded GPS sentences elicited more enhanced P600 but a slight difference of N400 while ECS sentences were more sensitive to N400 than small difference of P600. These results signify that on-line processing of ambiguity-related embedded sentence can be diverged based on the burden of interpretation of the given ambiguous word. Differential ERPs components in each type of experimental sentences suggest that the difficulty of sentential reanalysis as reflected on P600, and the need of the shift on thematic role indexed as N400 respectively were differently involved in processing English ambiguous-embedded sentences.

keywords
미로문장, 늦은종결문장, 통사적 중의성, 사건관련전위, N400, P600, garden-path sentence, early closure sentence, syntactic ambiguity, Event-related potentials(ERPs), N400, P600

참고문헌

1.

남기춘, 김태훈, 문성실, 서용원 (1999). 한국어 구문 중의성 해결과정: 용례기반 즉시적 해결. 언어정보 2, 5-25.

2.

정유진, 이윤형, 황유미, 남기춘 (2000). 외국어로서의 영어 구문 중의성 해결 과정, 2000년도 한국인지과학회 춘계학술대회 논문집, 한국인지과학회, 261-266.

3.

Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences 2, 146-152.

4.

Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language 51(4), 495-522

5.

Brown C. M., & Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration process in language comprehension: evidence from brain-imaging research. In M. S. Gazzaniga, (Eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 881-895.

6.

Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Except the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Process 13, 21-58.

7.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

8.

Faust, M. and Lavidor, M. (2003). Semantically convergent and semantically divergent priming in the cerebral hemispheres: lexical decision and semantic judgment. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3). 585-597.

9.

Frazier, L.(1987). Theories of sentence processing. In j. L. Garfield(Ed.), Modulrarity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding(pp. 291-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Frazier, L. (1989). Against Lexical Generation of Syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson, Lexical Representation and Process. MIT Press.

11.

Friederici, A. D., Mechlinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 11(2), 305-323.

12.

Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words, Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116.

13.

Kutas, M., & Van Patten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In M. Gensbacher, (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 83-144.

14.

Lewis, R. L. (2000). Specifying architectures for language processing: Process, control, and memory in parsing and interpretation. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

MacDonald, M. (1992). Working memory constrains on the processing of syntactic ambiguity, Cognitive Psychology 24, 56-98.

16.

Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related potential and language comprehension. In M. D. Rugg and M. G.. H. Coles, (Eds.), Electrophysiology of Mind. Event-related Brain Potentials and Cognition, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 171-215.

17.

Patel, S. H. & Azzam, P. N. (2005). Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the Event-related potential., International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2(4), 147-154.

18.

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

19.

Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.

20.

Titone, D. (1998). Hemispheric Differences in Context Sensitivity During Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, Brain and Language, 65(3), 361-394.

21.

Swinney,D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) condideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책