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.21 No.3

Citation Share

동사에 숨은 인과율: 한국어 대인동사에서 수집된 증거

Effects of Implicit Causality: Evidence from Korean Interpersonal Verbs

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2009, v.21 no.3, pp.191-213
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2009.21.3.003
박권생 (계명대학교)
박권생. (2009). 동사에 숨은 인과율: 한국어 대인동사에서 수집된 증거. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 21(3), 191-213, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2009.21.3.003

초록

한국어 대인동사를 이용하여 동사에 숨은 인과율 효과를 검토하였다. 우리말 대인동사 1,000여개를 Rudolph와 Försterling(1997)의 준거에 따라 분류하고 네 가지 유형별 빈도를 검토한 예비연구 결과, 독일어 및 영어의 유형별 빈도와는 사뭇 다른 것으로 밝혀졌다. 대인동사로 묘사된 48가지 사건(예, 갑은 을을 칭찬했다)에 대해 각각의 발생 원인을 적어보라고 지시한 실험 1에서는, 경험-자극 상태동사나 주체-유발체 행위동사로 묘사된 사건의 원인은 주로 동사의 목적어에 그리고 주체-객체 행위동사로 묘사된 사건의 원인은 대개 동사의 주어에 있다고 판단하는 편파성이 발견되었다. 한국어에서도 숨은 인과율 효과가 관찰된 것이다. 독해과제를 이용한 실험 2에서는 표적문장 내용이 앞 문장 속 대인동사에 숨은 인과율의 편파성과 일치 또는 불일치하는 조건의 표적문장 읽기시간을 비교하였다. 일치조건의 읽기시간이 보다 짧은 것으로 드러났다. 동사에 숨은 인과율이 글 이해에 개입한다는 뜻이다. 실험 3은 실험 2의 결과가 여타 변인의 효과일 가능성이 배제시켰다. 동사에 숨은 인과율 효과가 글 이해에 관여하는 자연스런 인지과정을 반영한다는 증거를 확보된 것이다.

keywords
implicit causality, Korean interpersonal verb, sentence comprehension, discourse comprehension, comprehension task, reading time., implicit causality, Korean interpersonal verb, sentence comprehension, discourse comprehension, comprehension task, reading time., 숨은 인과율, 한국어 대인동사, 문장 이해, 담화 이해, 독해과제, 읽기 시간

Abstract

A normative study and 3 experiments were conducted to explore implicit causality of Korean interpersonal verbs. Following Rudolphn & Försterling's (1997) taxonomy, Preliminary study classified about 1050 Korean verbs into 4 types: agent-patient, agent-evocator, stimulus-experiencer, experiencer-stimulus. The frequency distribution of the Korean interpersonal verbs differed significantly from that of German verbs. Experiment 1 presented sentences like ‘Paul praised Ted.’ and asked subjects to provide the reason why might that event happen. The cause of the event described by either agent-evocator or experiencer -stimulus verb was biased toward the object of the sentence, while that of event described by agent -patient verb was biased toward the subject, showing implicit causality effects. Experiment 2 compared reading times for the 2 types of target sentences; one type had a meaning congruent with the verbal bias of the sentence presented immediately before the target sentence and the other had a meaning incongruent with that bias. Reading times for congruent sentences were shorter than those for incongruent sentences, indicating implicit causality of the verb automatically affected cognitive processes involved in text comprehension. Experiment 3 excluded the possibility that the implicit causality effects found in Experiment 2 only reflect the differences between the 2 types of target sentences. Theoretical and practical implications of the results were discussed.

keywords
implicit causality, Korean interpersonal verb, sentence comprehension, discourse comprehension, comprehension task, reading time., implicit causality, Korean interpersonal verb, sentence comprehension, discourse comprehension, comprehension task, reading time., 숨은 인과율, 한국어 대인동사, 문장 이해, 담화 이해, 독해과제, 읽기 시간

참고문헌

1.

윤훈희 (1984). 동사의 원인성이 문장의 읽기 속도와 대명사 파악에 미치는 효과. 석사학위논문, 서울대학교.

2.

Au, T. K. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 104-122.

3.

Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.

4.

Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983a). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14, 237-273.

5.

Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983b). Are there universal schemas of psychological causality? Archives de Psychologie, 51, 145-153.

6.

Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15, 601-609.

7.

Desmet, T., & Ferreira, F. (2003). Implicit Causality as an Inherent Feature of Verbs and Verb Classes. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing August 25-27, 2003, Glasgow, Scotland.

8.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23-41.

9.

Elman, J. L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinasaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33, 1-36.

10.

Erlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 247-255.

11.

Fiedler, K., & Semin, G. R. (1988). On the causal information conveyed by different interpersonal verbs: The role of implicit sentence context. Social Cognition, 6, 21-39.

12.

Garnham, A., Traxler, M., Oakhill, J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1996). The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 517-543.

13.

Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A., (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459-464.

14.

Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1976). Factors influencing assignments of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3, 227-243.

15.

Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What is memory for? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1-55.

16.

Goikoetxea, E., Pascual, G., & Acha, J. (2008). Normative study of the implicit causality of 100 interpersonal verbs in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 760-772

17.

Greene, S. B., & McKoon, G. (1995). Telling something we can't know: Experimental approaches to verbs exhibiting implicit causality. Psychological Science, 6, 262-270.

18.

Guéraud, S., Tapiero, I., & O'Brien, E. J. (2008). Context and the activation of predictive inferences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 351-356.

19.

Hoffman, C., & Tchir, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal verbs and dispositional adjectives: The psychology of causality embodied in language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 765-778.

20.

Li, X., Shu, H., Liu, Y., & Li, P. (2006). Mental representation of verb meaning: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(10), 1774-1787.

21.

Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44.

22.

Koornneef, A. W., & Berkum, J. S. A. (2006). On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 445-465.

23.

Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106, 1126-1177.

24.

Long, D. L., & De Ley, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 526-570.

25.

Majid, A., Sanford, A. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2006). Covariation and qualifier polarity: What determines causality attribution in vignettes. Cognition, 99, 35-51.

26.

McDonald, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1995). The time course of anaphor resolution: Effects of implicit verb causality and gender. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 453-466.

27.

McKoon, G., Greene, S. B., Ratcliff, R. (1993). Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and the implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19(5), 1040-1052.

28.

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.

29.

Peracchi, K. A., & O'Brien, E. J. (2004). Character profiles and the activation of predictive inferences. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1044-1052.

30.

Rhode, H., & Kehler, A. (2008). Demanding an explanation: Implicit causality bias in discourse interpretation. Paper presented at The 21st CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, March 13-15, 2008, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

31.

Rudolph, U., & Försterling, F. (1997). The psychological causality implicit in verbs: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 121(2), 192-218.

32.

Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558-568.

33.

Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). The time course of the influence of implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 423-443.

34.

Tomasello, M. (2003). Introduction: Some Surprises for Psychologists. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol., 2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

35.

Van Berkum, J. J. A., Otten, M., Jansen, J., Koornneef, A., De Boer, S., Huizinga, F., & Junge, C. (2005). Why does “David praised Linda because he was proud” feel odd? ERP evidence for the predictive use of verb-based interpersonal bias. 9th International Conference for Cognitive Neuroscience (ICON-2005), Havana, September 5-10.

36.

Wolf, F., Gibson, E., & Desmet, T. (2004). Discourse coherence and pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(6), 665-675.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책