Anaphoric Reference Resolution in Expository Text: The Effects of Demonstratives Type

이 연구는 한국어의 지시사로 분류되는 ‘이것’, ‘그것’, ‘저것’이 참조해결의 과정에서 어떤 효과를 미치는지를 확인하기 위해서 두 개의 실험을 실시하였다. 실험 1은 명사구(‘그 거울’)와 대명사(‘그것’)의 참조해결과정의 차이를 살펴보았다. 문장읽기과제에서는 명사구가 대명사보다 읽기시간이 느렸지만, 탐사재인과제에서는 명사구가 대명사보다 반응시간이 빨랐다. 그리고 대명사 조건에서만 전형성 효과와 언급순서 효과가 탐사재인과제에 반영되었다. 실험 2는 지시사인 ‘이것’과 ‘저것’의 참조해결과정의 차이를 살펴보았다. 문장읽기과제에서는 ‘이것’이 ‘저것’에 조건에 비해서 읽기시간이 빨랐지만, 탐사재인과제에서는 둘 간의 차이는 없었고, 전형성과 언급순서 효과가 관찰되었다. 두 개의 실험은 지시사 유형에 따라 참조해결의 과정이 다를 가능성을 시사하였다

keywords: anaphora, pronoun, typicality, mention order, reference resolution, expository text, demonstratives, 대용어, 대명사, 역전형성, 언급순서, 참조해결, 설명문, 지시사

Abstract

This study was conducted to explore anaphoric reference resolution of demonstratives in expository text for Korean. For this, the study manipulated three important variables concurrently for anaphoric inference: anaphora type (e.g. repeated noun-phrase, pronoun, demonstratives), antecedent typicality (e.g. typical antecedent and atypical antecedent) and mention order (e.g. first mention and second mention) with two different on-line tasks (e.g. sentence reading task and probe recognition task). In Experiment 1, compared repeated noun-phrase with pronoun, The results suggested that pronoun is more sensitive to typicality and mention order of antecedents than repeated noun-phrase. In Experiment 2, compared with two type of demonstratives: this and that. The results suggested that this and that are sensitive to typicality and mention order. The reference resolution of anaphora is occurred dynamically between demonstratives type and antecedent contexts. These results were discussed from a point of view of spreading-integration elaboration framework in discourse comprehension.

keywords: anaphora, pronoun, typicality, mention order, reference resolution, expository text, demonstratives, 대용어, 대명사, 역전형성, 언급순서, 참조해결, 설명문, 지시사

참고문헌

김기찬 (1990). 한국어와 영어의 지시사 비교. Taegu Review, 41, 165-188.

김명자, 채숙희, 조은영 (2004). 지시사 대조연구. 인지과학, 15, 13-24.

김태자 (2008). 대명사에서 인지칭의 설정에 대해. 한국어학, 41, 257-282.

이기갑 (2006). 국어 담화의 연결 표지: 완형 표현의 반복. 담화와 인지, 13, 133-158.

이재호 (1993). 시간경과에 따른 대명사 참조해결과정. 미발간 고려대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.

이재호 (2006). 담화글의 대명사 참조해결과정: 명명과제에 반영된 성별표지와 언급순서의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 실험, 18, 39-56.

이재호, 김성일 (1998). 언어 이해과정의 연구 방법. 이정모, 이재호 (편), 인지심리학의 제 문제 Ⅱ: 언어와 인지 (155-182쪽). 서울: 학지사.

이재호, 이정모, 김성일, 박태진 (2002). 한국어 어휘의 언급순서가 문장 기억의 표상에 미치는 효과: 첫 언급, 최신, 및 의미편향 효과의 상호작용. 한국심리학회지: 실험 및 인지, 14, 409-427.

이향천 (2008). 무엇을 명사라고 하는가? 언어학, 50, 153-183.

10.

Abbott, B. (2006). Definite and indefinite. In K. Browh (ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., vol. 3, pp.392-399). Oxford: Elsevier.

11.

Almor, A. (1999). Noun-phrase anaphora and focus: The informational load hypothesis. Psychological Review, 106, 748-765.

12.

Almor, A., & Eimas, P. D. (2008). Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 201-225.

13.

Almor, A., & Nair, V. A. (2007). The form of referential expressions in discourse. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 84-99.

14.

Ariel, M. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects (pp.29-87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

15.

Foraker, S., & McElree, B. (2007). The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 357-383.

16.

Cowles, H. W., & Garnham, A. (2005). Antecedent focus and conceptual distance effects in category noun-phrase anaphora. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 725–750.

17.

Garrod, S. C. and Sanford, A. J. (1977). Interpreting anaphoric relations: The Integration of semantic information while reading. Journal of Verbal learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 77-90.

18.

Garrod, S., & Sanford, A. (1990). Referential processes in reading: Focusing on roles and individuals. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d'Arcais, K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp.465-486). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

19.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access. Cognition, 32, 99- 156.

20.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21.

Gernsbacher, M. A. (1997). Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes, 23, 265-304.

22.

Gordon, P. C., & Chan, D. (1995). Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 216-231.

23.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Foster, K. L. (2000). Language comprehension and probe-list memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 766-775.

24.

Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Ledoux, K., & Yang, C. L. (1999). Processing of reference and the structure of language: An analysis of complex noun phrases. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 353-379.

25.

Gundel, J. K., & Hedberg, N. (Eds.) (2008). Reference: Interdisciplinary perspectives. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

26.

Gundel, J. K., Hegarty, M., & Borthen, K. (2001). Information structure and pronominal reference to clausally introduced entities. In I. Kruijff-Korbay & M. Steedman, (Eds.), Proceedings from the Workshop on Information Structure. European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information (ESSLLI). Helsinki, pp.37-51.

27.

Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274- 307.

28.

Gundel, J., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (2005). Demonstrative pronouns in natural discourse. In A. Branco, T. McEnery, & R. Mitkov (eds.), Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive and computational Modelling (pp.351-364). John Benjamins.

29.

Haberlandt, K. (1994). Methods in reading research. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.1-31). N.Y.: Academic Press.

30.

Kim, S. I., Lee, J-H., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2004). The advantage of first mention in Korean: The temporal contributions of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic factors. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33, 475-491.

31.

Klin, C. M., Weingartner, K. M., Guzman, A. E., & Levine, W. H. (2004). Readers' sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: How salience influences anaphor resolution. Memory and Cognition, 32, 511-522.

32.

Lee, J-H. (2005). Anaphoric inference in expository text: The effects of anaphora type, mention order and typicality of antecedent. The 27th Cognitive Science Society Annual Meeting. Stresa, Italy.

33.

Lee, J-H., & Kim, S. (2009). Sentence processing and memory representation in Korean. In J. Lee, G. Simpson & Y. Kim (Eds.), Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics: Vol. III: Korean (pp.442-453). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Lee, J-M., & Lee, J-H. (2005). Contrast information processing in discourse comprehension. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 16, 69-92.

35.

Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp.37-62). Cambridge: MIT Press.

36.

Sanders, T., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2004). Accessibility in text and discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 37, 79-89.

37.

Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. N.Y.: John Wiley.

38.

Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. E. (1989). What, when, and how?: Questions of immediacy in anaphoric reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 235-262.

39.

Tapiero, I. (2007). Situation models and levels of coherence: Toward a definition of comprehension. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

40.

van Gompel, R. P. G., & Mijid, A. (2004). Antecedent frequency effects during the processing of pronouns. Cognition, 90, 255-264.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.28 No.3

설명문의 대용어 참조해결과정: 지시사 유형의 효과

Anaphoric Reference Resolution in Expository Text: The Effects of Demonstratives Type

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 일반