바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.2
Citation Share

The Effect of Information Status of Noun Phrase on Korean Sentence Reading: 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
2012, v.24 no.2, pp.149-166
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.004

(Nanyang Technological University)
& (2012). The Effect of Information Status of Noun Phrase on Korean Sentence Reading: An Eye-tracking Study. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 24(2), 149-166, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.004
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the noun phrase(NP) characteristics during on-line sentence processing. The present study focused on the effect of the association between the type of the NPs and the syntactic position as well as the effect of the similarity of the NPs during on-line sentence processing. To do so, we measured eye-movements during the reading of sentences with scrambled subject-modifying subject-relative clauses. The type of the two critical NPs was varied as names or descriptive nouns. Results showed that when more prominent NPs(names) were in a more prominent syntactic position, shorter reading times were observed in various eye-tracking measures. The opposite pattern of results were observed when the names were in a less prominent syntactic position. Also, a shorter gaze duration was observed in a matrix subject position when the two critical NPs were of the same type compared to when they were of different types. These results suggest that, during the sentence comprehension, the understanding of sentences is influenced by the information status of the noun phrases.

keywords
Korean sentence processing, Noun phrase, On-line processing, Eye-tracking, 한글 문장의 이해, 명사구 특성, 실시간 정보처리, 안구운동

Reference

1.

고성룡, 홍효진, 윤소정, 조병환 (2008). 우리글 명사 어절에서의 단어 빈도 효과: 안구운동 추적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 20 (1), 21-37.

2.

김영삼, 고성룡 (2007). “~면서” 구문을 통해 본 관형절 처리 전략: 안구운동 추적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 19(3), 233-249.

3.

김영진 (2004). Resolving grammatical marking ambiguities of Korean. 인지과학, 15(4), 49- 59.

4.

도경수, 이은주 (2006). 텍스트 유형과 작업기억이 읽기 정상 아동과 읽기 지진 아동의 텍스트 이해에 미치는 영향. 인지과학, 17 (3), 191-206.

5.

고성룡, 윤낙영 (2007). 우리 문장 읽기에서 안구 운동의 특성: 어절 길이, 단어빈도 및 착지점 관련 효과. 인지과학, 18(4), 325- 350.

6.

이윤형 (2009). 안구운동과 문장의 이해: 안구운동의 측정시 방법론적 고려점들. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 21, 91-110.

7.

이윤형 (2011). 읽기폭 과제로 측정된 작업기억 용량과 추론 능력의 관계. Journal of the Korean Data Analysis Society, 13, 2535-2547.

8.

이춘길 (2004). 한글을 읽는 눈의 움직임. 서울: 서울대학교 출판부.

9.

조아정, 이영애 (2000). 작업기억의 용량이 유추에 의한 과학 개념의 학습에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 12(2), 215-226.

10.

Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435-483.

11.

Bever, T, G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the Development of language, 279- 362. NewYork: Wiley.

12.

Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., Shisler, R. J. (1995). A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Science, 6, 122-125.

14.

Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewaky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250-272.

15.

Gibson, E. (1998). Syntactic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.

16.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2001). Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 27, 1411-1423.

17.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Johnson, M. (2004). Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 97-114.

18.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13, 425-430.

19.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R.,. Johnson, M, & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 32, 1304-1321.

20.

Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122-149.

21.

Kintsch, W., van Dijk., T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394.

22.

Kwon, N, Lee Y, Gordon P, Kluender R, Polinsky M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of pre-nominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86, 546-582.

23.

Lee, Y., & Gordon, P. C. (2009). Understanding complex sentences: Memory constraints and information structure, In, Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics, 3, 454-462. Cambridge University Press.

24.

Lee, Y., Lee, H., & Gordon, P. C. (2007). Linguistic complexity and information structure in Korean: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Cognition, 104, 495-534.

25.

Lee, Y., Nam, K., Gordon, P. C. (2009). Processing of the Korean Eojoel ambiguity. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 38, 345-362.

26.

Mazuka, R., K. Itoh, & Kondo, T. (2002). Cost of Scrambling in Japanese Sentence Processing. In M. Nakayama. (Eds) Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI.

27.

Miyamoto, E. T., & Takahashi. S. (2002). Sources of Difficulty in Processing Scrambling in Japanese. In M. Nakayama. (Eds) Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages, Stanford: CSLI.

28.

Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading Ability. NY: Oxford University Press.

29.

Pickering, M. J., Frisson, S., Mcelree, D., & Traxler, M. J. (2004). Eye movements and semantic composition. In Carreiras, M & Clifton, c. Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension (33-50). NY: Psychology Press.

30.

Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372-422.

31.

Tenenbaum, J. B. (1999). Bayesian modeling of human concept learning. In M. S. Kearns, S. A. Solla & D. A. Cohn (Eds.) Advances in neural information processing systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

32.

Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2003). Event-related Brain Indices of Japanese Scrambling. Brain and Language, 86, 243-271.

33.

Van Dijk, T. A., Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.

34.

Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38, 41-63.

35.

Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.

36.

Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: Critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103, 761-772.

37.

Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (2001). Age, working memory and on-line syntactic processing in sentence comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 16, 128-144.

38.

Yuill, N. & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s Problems in Text Comprehension. Cambridge University Press, NY: Cambridge.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy