바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Next
e-Submission

Vol.24 No.2

Citation Share

The Effects of Real World Knowledge and Case-markers on Semantic Relation Processing during 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.89-105
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.001


& (2012). The Effects of Real World Knowledge and Case-markers on Semantic Relation Processing during Korean Sentence Reading: An Eye-tracking Study. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 24(2), 89-105, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.001

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

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.

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy