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

다음
논문 투고

Vol.28 No.2

Citation Share

인과 접속사 ‘왜냐하면’과 무관한 한국어 대인동사에 숨은 인과율 효과

The Implicit Causality Effect Observed in Korean Interpersonal Verbs Does not Require Causal Connective

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.2, pp.221-239
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.2.001
김지애 (계명대학교 심리학과)
박권생 (계명대학교)
김지애, & 박권생. (2016). 인과 접속사 ‘왜냐하면’과 무관한 한국어 대인동사에 숨은 인과율 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 28(2), 221-239, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.2.001

초록

Two experiments were conducted to exclude the possibility that the implicit causality effect observed in Park’s (2009, Experiment 2) study reflect the influence of the connective (왜냐하면) that was used to indicate the coherence relation between the two critical sentences in the stimulus texts. Experiment 1 replicated the results of Park’s Experiment 2, showing that the implicit causality effect is a robust phenomenon. In Experiment 2 of this study we used the same stimulus material that was used in Experiment 1 except for that the connective (왜냐하면) and the accompanying word (때문이다) were eliminated. We found almost the same result as that of Experiment 1. These results indicate that the implicit causality effect observed in both this and Park’s study do not reflect the influence of connective but the influence of special properties of some interpersonal verbs. The results were discussed in terms of three different theories.

keywords
숨은 인과율 효과, 인과 접속사, 담화 이해, 맘속표상, 통일성 관계, implicit causality effect, discourse comprehension, causal connective, mental representation, coherence relation

참고문헌

1.

박권생 (2009). 동사에 숨은 인과율: 한국어 대인동사에서 수집된 증거. 한국심리학회지:인지 및 생물, 21, 191-213.

2.

Bott, O., & Solstad, T. (2014). From verbs to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In B. Hemforth, B. Mertins, and C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches to meaning and understanding across languages (pp 213-251). Springer.

3.

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

4.

Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C., & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal and Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 601-609.

5.

Ehrlich, K. (1980). Comprehension of pronouns. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(2), 247–255.

6.

Garnham, A., Oakhill, J. V., & Cruttenden, H. (1992). The role of implicit causality and gender cue in the interpretation of pronouns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3-4), 231-255.

7.

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

8.

Garvey, C., Caramazza, A., & Yates, J. (1975). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition, 3(3), 227-243.

9.

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.

10.

Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (Ed.), Theories of text comprehension:The importance of reading strategies to theoretical foundations of reading comprehension (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.

Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29, 804-824. doi:10.1080/01690965.2013.796396

12.

Hartshorne, J. K., O’Donnell, T. J., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). The causes and consequences explicit in verbs. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 716-734. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1008524

13.

Hartshorne, J. K., & Snedeker, J. (2012). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, iFirst, 1-35. doi:10.1080/01690965.2012.689305.

14.

Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3(1), 67-90.

15.

Johnson-Laird, P. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

16.

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

17.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Koornneef, A. W., & van Berkum, J. J. 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(4), 445-465.

19.

Koornneef, A. W., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). Establishing coherence relations in discourse:The influence of implicit causality and connectives on pronoun resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(8), 1169-1206.

20.

Lea, R. B, & Long, D. L. (2005). Have we been searching for meaning in all the wrong places? Defining the “search after meaning”principle in comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39(2-3), 279-298.

21.

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

22.

Mak, W. M., & Sanders, T. J. M. (2013). The role of causality in discourse processing: Effects of expectation and coherence relations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1414-1437. DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2012.708423

23.

Maury, P., & Teisserenc, A. (2005). The role of connectives in science text comprehension and memory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20(3), 489-512.

24.

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.

25.

Millis, K. K., & Just, M.A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.

26.

Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106, 119-131.

27.

Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2008). The bidirectional influence between coherence establishment and pronoun interpretation. In Poster at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

28.

Rhode, H., Levy, R., & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118, 339-358.

29.

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

30.

Schumacher, P. B. (2014), Content and context in incremental processing: “the ham sandwich”revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168(1), 151-165. DOI 10.1007/s11098-013-0179-6

31.

Singer, M., & O’Connell, G. (2003). Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 607-631.

32.

Solstad, T., & Bott, O. (2013). Towards a formal theory of explanatory biases in discourse. In M. Aloni, M. Franke & F. Roelofsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, (pp. 203-210).

33.

van Silfhout, G., Evers-Vermeul, J., & Sanders, T. (2015). Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47-76.

34.

Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-85.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책