바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

  • P-ISSN1226-9654
  • E-ISSN2733-466X
  • KCI

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.19 No.4

Citation Share

생략된 주어가 있는 문장 처리에 담화특출성이 미치는 영향

The Influence of Discourse Prominence on the Comprehension of Null-subject Sentences in Korean Adults

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2007, v.19 no.4, pp.383-400
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.008
송현주 (연세대학교)
윤정은 (연세대학교)
송현주, & 윤정은. (2007). 생략된 주어가 있는 문장 처리에 담화특출성이 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 19(4), 383-400, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.008

초록

본 연구는 생략된 주어 처리에 있어서 선행어의 이전 담화에서의 문장 성분과 어순의 영향을 검증하였다. 실험 참가자들은 세 문장으로 된 짧은 이야기들을 컴퓨터 스크린 상에서 읽거나(실험 1) 녹음된 동일한 이야기들을 헤드폰을 통해 들었다(실험 2). 각 이야기에서 마지막 문장인 검사 문장은 주어가 생략된 문장이었는데(예: 성악가에게 서점에 같이 가자고 했습니다), 그 생략된 주어의 지시체(referent)는 바로 이전 문장의 주어이거나, 혹은 목적어 또는 부사어였다. 각 문장은 한 문장씩 제시되었고, 피험자들은 각 문장을 이해하자마자 반응버튼을 누르도록 요청되었다. 실험 1과 2 모두에서 검사 문장의 생략된 주어가 이전 문장의 주어를 지시할 때 검사 문장의 이해 속도가 빨라지는 것으로 나타났다. 실험 1에서는 생략된 주어가 이전 문장에서 주어가 아닌 다른 개체를 지시할 경우 맥락 문장에서 그 개체가 주어보다 앞에 언급되었을 때(예: 성악가를 목수가 길에서 만났다)에, 주어 이후에 언급되었을 때(예: 목수가 성악가를 길에서 만났다)보다 검사 문장의 처리 속도가 빠른 패턴이 발견되었으나 실험 2의 듣기 과제에서는 이러한 패턴이 나타나지 않았다. 이러한 실험 결과는 한국어에서 담화 개체의 특출성(prominence)을 증진시키는 요소로서의 문장 성분이나 어순의 역할에 대한 경험적 증거를 제공하며, 담화 정보의 언어 보편적, 언어 특정적 영향에 대한 시사점을 제공한다.

keywords
Korean language processing, discourse comprehension, discourse prominence, ellipsis, null subject, 한국어 문장 처리, 담화 처리, 담화특출성, 생략주어

Abstract

The current research examined what type of discourse information Korean adults exploit when understanding sentences with null subjects. Adults read or heard short stories which consisted of 3 context sentences and one target sentence. The target sentence's subject was omitted. The target sentence either continued the subject of the preceding context or shifted subjects. The subject of the preceding context sentence was first or second mentioned within the sentence. The sentences of each stimulus story was presented one at a time either visually on a computer screen or auditorially over headphones, and subjects pressed a key as soon as they understood each sentence. The button-press reaction times was an index of comprehension difficulty. The results showed that Korean-speaking adults was quicker to understand null pronoun subject sentences when the subject was continued than when it was shifted from the prior context sentence. This pattern was found regardless of the position of the subject of the preceding context sentence. The first-mention advantage was found only in the self-paced reading task. The results are discussed in terms of language-universal and language-specific cues that enhance the discourse prominence of discourse entities.

keywords
Korean language processing, discourse comprehension, discourse prominence, ellipsis, null subject, 한국어 문장 처리, 담화 처리, 담화특출성, 생략주어

참고문헌

1.

김성일, 이재호 (1995). 통사적 제약과 화용적 제약이 문장의 표상과 기억접근에 미치는 효과. 인지과학, 6, 97-116.

2.

김영진 (1993). 작업기억내에서의 한국어 통사처리과정. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 5, 153-169.

3.

남기심, 고영근 (2004). 표준 국어 문법론. 탑출판사.

4.

이재호, 이정모, 김성일, 박태진 (2002). 한국어 어휘의 언급순서가 문장 기억의 표상에 미치는 효과: 첫 언급, 최신, 및 의미편향 효과의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 14, 409-427.

5.

이정모, 이재호 (2004). 담화글의 이해과정: 대명사 참조해결의 성별 표지와 초점 효과. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 16, 151-168.

6.

Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483-521.

7.

Arnold, J. E., Eisenband, J. G., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Trueswell, J. C. (2000). The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course for pronoun resolution from eye tracking. Cognition, 76, B13-B26.

8.

Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Early referential understanding: Infants' ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Developmental Psychology, 29, 832-843.

9.

Birch, S., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365–391.

10.

Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137-167.

11.

Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The Pear Stories: cognitive, cultural and lexical aspects of narrative production (pp. 127-202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

12.

Clancy, P. M. (1992). Referential strategies in the narratives of Japanese children. Discourse Processes, 15, 441-467.

13.

Clancy, P. M. (1997). Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition. In H. Sohn & J. Haig (Eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol. 6 (pp. 639-659). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

14.

Crawley, R. A., Stevenson, R. J., & Kleinman, D. (1990). The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19, 245-264

15.

Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 292-314.

16.

Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805-855.

17.

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

18.

Fisher, C., & Tokura, H. (1995). The given-new contract in speech to infants. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 287-310.

19.

Gelman, S. A., & Raman, L. (2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74, 308-325.

20.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

21.

Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699-717.

22.

Gernsbacher, M. A., Hargreaves, D. J., & Beeman, M. (1989). Building and accessing clausal representations: The advantage of first mention versus the advantage of clause recency. Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 735-755.

23.

Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321-376.

24.

Gordon,P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.

25.

Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325-370.

26.

Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389-424.

27.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Ledoux, K., & Yang, C. L. (1999). Processing of reference and the structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 353-379.

28.

Hudson-D'Zmura, S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Assigning antecedents to ambiguous pronouns: the role of the center of attention as the default assignment. In M. A. Walker, A. K. Joshi, & E. F. Prince (Eds.), Centering theory in discourse (pp. 199-226). Oxford: Clarendon.

29.

Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

30.

Järvikivi, J., van Gompel, R., Hyönä, R & Bertram, R. (2005). Ambiguous pronoun resolution: Contrasting the first-mention and subject-preference accounts. Psychological Science, 16, 260-264.

31.

Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2003, March). The quest for a referent: Investigating the interpretation of pronouns and demonstratives in real time. Poster presented at the 16th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Boston.

32.

Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113-147.

33.

Kim, S., Lee, J., & Gernsbacher, A.(2004). The advantage of first mention in Korean: The temporal contributions of syntactic, semantic,and pragmatic factors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(6), 475-491.

34.

Pollatsek, A., & Well, A. D. (1995). On the use of counterbalanced designs in cognitive research: a suggestion for a better and more powerful analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 785-794.

35.

Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who's "she"? Discourse prominence influences preschoolers' comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 29-57.

36.

Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. Pick, & L. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research and application (pp.225-282). New York: Plenum.

37.

Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40, 21-81.

38.

Walker, M., & Prince, E. (1996). A bilateral approach to givenness: A hearer-status algorithm and a centering algorithm. In T. Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility. Philadelphia, PA: J. Benjamins.

39.

Wykes, T. (1981). Inference and children's comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 264-278.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책