- Log In/Sign Up
- P-ISSN1226-9654
- E-ISSN2733-466X
- KCI
ISSN : 1226-9654
Article Contents
- 2024 (Vol.36)
- 2023 (Vol.35)
- 2022 (Vol.34)
- 2021 (Vol.33)
- 2020 (Vol.32)
- 2019 (Vol.31)
- 2018 (Vol.30)
- 2017 (Vol.29)
- 2016 (Vol.28)
- 2015 (Vol.27)
- 2014 (Vol.26)
- 2013 (Vol.25)
- 2012 (Vol.24)
- 2011 (Vol.23)
- 2010 (Vol.22)
- 2009 (Vol.21)
- 2008 (Vol.20)
- 2007 (Vol.19)
- 2006 (Vol.18)
- 2005 (Vol.17)
- 2004 (Vol.16)
- 2003 (Vol.15)
- 2002 (Vol.14)
- 2001 (Vol.13)
- 2000 (Vol.12)
- 1999 (Vol.11)
- 1998 (Vol.10)
- 1997 (Vol.9)
- 1996 (Vol.8)
- 1995 (Vol.7)
- 1994 (Vol.6)
- 1993 (Vol.5)
- 1992 (Vol.4)
- 1991 (Vol.3)
- 1990 (Vol.2)
- 1989 (Vol.1)
The Influence of Discourse Prominence on the Comprehension of Null-subject Sentences in Korean Adults
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
Reference
김성일, 이재호 (1995). 통사적 제약과 화용적 제약이 문장의 표상과 기억접근에 미치는 효과. 인지과학, 6, 97-116.
김영진 (1993). 작업기억내에서의 한국어 통사처리과정. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 5, 153-169.
남기심, 고영근 (2004). 표준 국어 문법론. 탑출판사.
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.
이정모, 이재호 (2004). 담화글의 이해과정: 대명사 참조해결의 성별 표지와 초점 효과. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 16, 151-168.
Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483-521.
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.
Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Early referential understanding: Infants' ability to recognize referential acts for what they are. Developmental Psychology, 29, 832-843.
Birch, S., & Clifton, C., Jr. (1995). Focus, accent, and argument structure: effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech, 38, 365–391.
Brennan, S. E. (1995). Centering attention in discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 137-167.
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.
Clancy, P. M. (1992). Referential strategies in the narratives of Japanese children. Discourse Processes, 15, 441-467.
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.
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
Dahan, D., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chambers, C. G. (2002). Accent and reference resolution in spoken-language comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 47, 292-314.
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805-855.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 348-368.
Fisher, C., & Tokura, H. (1995). The given-new contract in speech to infants. Journal of Memory & Language, 34, 287-310.
Gelman, S. A., & Raman, L. (2003). Preschool children use linguistic form class and pragmatic cues to interpret generics. Child Development, 74, 308-325.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gernsbacher, M. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (1988). Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 699-717.
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.
Gleitman, L., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321-376.
Gordon,P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311-347.
Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1997). Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition, 62, 325-370.
Gordon, P. C., & Hendrick, R. (1998). The representation and processing of coreference in discourse. Cognitive Science, 22, 389-424.
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.
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.
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113-147.
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.
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.
Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2005). Who's "she"? Discourse prominence influences preschoolers' comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 29-57.
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.
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40, 21-81.
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.
Wykes, T. (1981). Inference and children's comprehension of pronouns. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 32, 264-278.
- Downloaded
- Viewed
- 0KCI Citations
- 0WOS Citations