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

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

다음
논문 투고

Vol.24 No.2
Citation Share

글 읽기에서 세상사 지식 및 조사 정보가 의미 관계 처리에 미치는 영향: 안구운동 추적 연구

The Effects of Real World Knowledge and Case-markers on Semantic Relation Processing during Korean Sentence Reading: An Eye-tracking Study

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2012, v.24 no.2, pp.89-105
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.001
최소영 (단국대학교)
고성룡 (서울대학교)
최소영, & 고성룡. (2012). 글 읽기에서 세상사 지식 및 조사 정보가 의미 관계 처리에 미치는 영향: 안구운동 추적 연구. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 24(2), 89-105, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.001
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

이 연구에서는 세상사 지식과 조사 정보가 의미 관계(thematic role) 처리에 미치는 영향을 안구 운동 추적으로 알아보았다. 실험 1에서는 ‘누가 누구에게/에게서 무엇을 받았다’라는 문장 구조에서 동사 앞에 나오는 주어, 여격 목적어, 직접 목적어 사이의 의미 관계가 세상 지식에 비추어 보면 ‘받았다’가 어울리도록 편향되거나 (의미편향 조건, 예: 시민이 시장에게 표창장을) 혹은 편향되지 않도록 (의미비편향 조건, 예: 시민이 시장에게 이메일을) 조작하였다. 그리고 여격 목적어의 조사로는 조사 정보가 의미 관계를 결정짓는 조사 ‘에게서’와 의미 관계를 결정짓지 못하는 ‘에게’를 썼다. 실험 결과, 조사 ‘에게서’ 조건에서 동사 영역에 고정한 시간이 조사 ‘에게’ 조건보다 짧았고 또한 목적어 편향 조건에서 동사 영역에 고정한 시간이 목적어 비편향 조건보다 짧았다. 이 결과는 세상사 지식과 조사 정보가 의미 관계 처리에 영향을 미친다는 것을 보인다. 실험 2에서는 의미 관계를 더욱 강하게 편향시키는 맥락 문장을 실험 문장 앞에 주어 의미 관계 처리를 살펴보았다. 실험 결과, 동사 영역에 고정한 시간에서 의미 편향 효과는 여전하게 나타났으나 조사 효과는 유의미하지 않았다. 이와 더불어 얻어진 중요한 결과는 동사 영역의 고정수에서 의미 편향과 조사 유형 사이의 상호작용효과였다. 이 연구 결과들은 세상사 지식과 조사 정보가 문장 구성 성분들의 의미 관계 계산에 즉각적으로 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여준다.

keywords
문장처리, 의미 관계, 안구운동, 세상사지식, 조사, sentence processing, thematic role, eye movement, world knowledge, case marker

Abstract

This study investigated whether real world knowledge and case markers have any effect on on-line thematic relation processing in Korean. To examine the effects of pragmatic information among arguments and case markers on the anticipation of thematic relation, we ran two eye-movement experiments. In both experiments, four versions of a sentence which ended with the verb “badatta” (means ‘receive’) were constructed with two types of case markers and two types of objects. In Experiment 1, there were significant main effects of the bias of object and type of case marker in total and go-past reading times at the verb position: participants read the verb more quickly when the biased object or case marker “aegeseo” appeared in the clause. In Experiment 2, semantic bias among arguments was more strengthened by introducing the situational contexts. The reading time results of Experiment 2 were similar to those of Experiment 1. Furthermore, there was significant interaction on number of fixations. This study indicates that information about thematic relation is computed and can be used immediately in on-line sentence comprehension with the Korean language.

keywords
문장처리, 의미 관계, 안구운동, 세상사지식, 조사, sentence processing, thematic role, eye movement, world knowledge, case marker

참고문헌

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.

이선희 (2004). 국어의 조사와 의미역: 조사 {-를}과 논항 실현을 중심으로. 연세대학교 언어정보개발연구원.

4.

이춘길 (2004). 한글을 읽는 시선의 움직임. 서울대학교 출판부

5.

이홍식 (2004). 조사 ‘을’의 의미에 대하여. 한국어의미학, 15, 303-327.

6.

최광일, 김영진 (2007). 재귀대명서의 다의성 해소과정: 안구운동 분석. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 19(4), 263-277.

7.

최기용 (1996). 의미역 배정과 관련된 명사의 성격에 대하여, 생성문법연구, 6(1), 85-119.

8.

Altmann, G., Garnham, A., & Dennis, Y. (1992). Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 685-712.

9.

Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.

10.

Balota, D. A. Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading, Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364-390.

11.

Boland, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Carlson, G. N. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 774-.806.

12.

Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177-220.

13.

Brysbaert, M., Drieghe, D., & Vitu, F. (2005). Word skipping: implications for theories of eye movement control in reading. In Underwood, G. (Ed), Cognitive processes in eye guidance (pp.53-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

14.

Carlson, G. N. & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension in thematic relations, In Wilkins, W. (Ed), Syntax and semantics, Vol.21: Thematic relations (pp.263-288). San Diego: Academic Press.

15.

Clifton, C. (1993). Thematic roles in sentence parsing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 222-246.

16.

Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.

17.

Ehrlich, S. F. & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 641-655.

18.

Engbert, R. Nuthman, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccae generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777-813.

19.

Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating Verbs, Situation Schemas, and Thematic Role Concepts, Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516-547.

20.

Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1-90). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

21.

Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.

22.

Gennari, S. P. & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses, Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 161-187.

23.

Inhoff, A. W., & Rayner, K. (1986). Parafoveal word processing during eye fixations in reading: Effects of word frequency. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 431-439.

24.

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar. Oxford University Press.

25.

Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A Theory of Reading: From Eye Fixations to Comprehension, Psychological Review, 87, 329-354.

26.

Kamide, Y. (1998). The role of argument structure requirments and recency constraints in human sentence processing. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Exeter.

27.

Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements, Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156.

28.

MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157-201.

29.

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.

30.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226-228.

31.

Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. (1975). Processing structure of sentence perception, Nature, 257, 784-786.

32.

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.

33.

O'Regan, J. K. (1990). Eye movements and reading. In Kowler, E. (Ed), Eye movements and their role in visual and cognitive processes (pp. 395-453). Elsevier.

34.

Pollatsek, A., Reichle, E. D., & Rayner, K. (2006). Tests of the E-Z reader model: Exploring the interface between cognition and eye-movement control. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 1-56.

35.

Potts, G. R., Keenan, J. M., & Golding, J. M. (1988). Accessing the occurrence of elaborative inferences: Lexical decision versus naming. Journal of Memory of Language, 27, 399-415.

36.

Rayner, K., (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research, Psychological Bulletin, 124 (3), 372- 422.

37.

Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The Interaction of Syntax and Semantics During Sentence Processing: Eye Movements in the Analysis of Semantically Biased Sentences, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.

38.

Rayner, K., & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14, 191-201.

39.

Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Press. New Jersey.

40.

Rayner, K., Fischer, M. H., & Pollatsek, A. (1998). Unspaced text interferes with both word identification and eye movement control. Vision Research, 38, 1129-1144.

41.

Rayner, K., & McConkie, G.W. (1976). What guides a reader's eye movements. Vision Research, 16 829-837.

42.

Rayner, K., Sereno, S. C., & Raney, G. E. (1996). Eye movement control in reading: A comparison of two types of models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1188-1200.

43.

Rayner, K. & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 3 (4), 504-509.

44.

Shapiro, L. P., Nagel, N., & Levine, B. A. (1993). Preferences for a Verb's Complements and Their Use in Sentence Processing, Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 96-114.

45.

Schmauder, A. R., & Egan, M. C. (1998). The influence of semantic fit on on-line sentence processing. Memory and Cognition, 26, 965-978.

46.

Swinney, D. A. (1979). The resolution of indeterminacy during language comprehension: Perspectives on modularity in lexical, structural, and pragmatic processing. In G. B. Simpson (Ed.), Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: North Holland.

47.

Tabossi, P., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., McRae, K., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds), Attention and performance XV. (pp.589-616). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

48.

Tanenhaus, M. K., Garnsey, S. M., & Boland, J. E. (1990). Combinatory lexical information and language comprehension. In G. Altman (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

49.

Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.

50.

Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence comprehension. In J. Miller & P. D. Eimas (Eds.). Speech, language, and communication (Vol. xviii, pp.217-262). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

51.

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.

52.

Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 16, 283-298.

53.

Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. (1993). Verbspecific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528-553.

54.

Tyler, L. K. & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1977). The On-Line Effects of Semantic Context on Syntactic Processing, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 683-692.

55.

Vitu, F. (1991). Against the existence of a range effect during reading. Vision Research, 31 (11), 2009-2015.

56.

Vu, H., Kellas, G., & Paul, S. T. (1998). Sources of constraint on lexical ambiguity resolution. Memory and Cognition, 26, 979-1001.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책