1887
Volume 29, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Two theoretical viewpoints provide different explanations about how people extract statistical regularities from input to assess the felicity of verb usage in a sentence. The lexical approach emphasizes the role of verb frequency in determining a verb’s distributional bias within a sentence, whereas the entrenchment hypothesis highlights the conjoined roles of the frequency information from both a verb and an argument structure construction. The present study tests these accounts by investigating Korean speakers’ interpretation of two dative patterns in Korean (Dative–Accusative and Accusative–Accusative). Through the analysis of a large-scale corpus, we calculated the frequency of each dative pattern as well as the frequency of dative verbs occurring therein. Using this information, we conducted an acceptability judgment task with Korean speakers by manipulating the dative type and the verb frequency. The results showed that the speakers’ acceptability rating behavior was affected by the interaction between the verb and construction frequency such that highly entrenched verb–construction combinations were evaluated to be more acceptable. Our finding supports the entrenchment hypothesis that emphasizes the conjoined roles of usage frequency of verbs and constructions in sentence comprehension.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22028.kim
2022-10-28
2022-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Allan, Lorraine G.
    1980 A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society15(3). 147–149. 10.3758/BF03334492
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334492 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ambridge, Ben, Amy Bidgood, Katherine E. Twomey, Julian M. Pine, Caroline F. Rowland & Daniel Freudenthal
    2015 Preemption versus entrenchment: Towards a construction-general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. PloS one10(4). 1–20. 10.1371/journal.pone.0123723
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123723 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambridge, Ben, Julian M. Pine, Caroline F. Rowland & Chris R. Young
    2008 The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition1061. 87–129. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arnon, Inbal & Neal Snider
    2010 More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language62(1). 67–82. 10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates
    2008 Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language59(4). 390–412. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily
    2013 Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language68(3). 255–278. 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bencini, Giulia ML & Adele E. Goldberg
    2000 The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language43(4). 640–651. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bidgood, Amy, Ben Ambridge, Julian M. Pine & Caroline F. Rowland
    2014 The retreat from locative overgeneralisation errors: A novel verb grammaticality judgement study. PLOS one9(5). 1–12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0097634
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097634 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bowerman, Melissa
    1988 The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar?InJohn A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg
    2011 Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language87(1). 55–83. 10.1353/lan.2011.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0012 [Google Scholar]
  12. Braine, Martin D. S. & Patricia J. Brooks
    1995 Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. InMichael Tomasello & William E. Merriman (eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs, 352–376. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cho, Yongjoon & Moongee Jeon
    2015 hankwuke swuyongseng phantanuy silhempangpeplon pikyo yenkwu [A comparative study of acceptability judgement collection methods in Korean]. The Journal of Linguistics Science721. 397–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, Noam
    1965Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Choo, Miho. & Hye-Young Kwak
    2008Using Korean. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139168496
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168496 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dąbrowska, Ewa
    2010 Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review27(1). 1–23. 10.1515/tlir.2010.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2010.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Desagulier, Guillaume
    2016 A lesson from associative learning: asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory12(2). 173–219. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0012 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, Nick C.
    2002 Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24(2). 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, Nick C. & Fernando Ferreira-Junior
    2009 Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7(1). 188–221. 10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, Nick C., Ute Römer & Matthew Brook O’Donnell
    2016Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar (Language Learning Monograph Series). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Enochson, Kelly & Jennifer Culbertson
    2015 Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS one10(3). 1–17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0116946
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0116946 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore, Charles J.
    1990Construction grammar. Course reader for Linguistics 120A. University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, Adele E.
    1995Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2013 Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language28(4). 435–465. 10.1111/mila.12026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2019Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Healy, A., & Miller, G.
    (1970) The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science201. 372. 10.3758/BF03335697
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335697 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hilbig, Benjamin E.
    2016 Reaction time effects in lab-versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods48(4). 1718–1724. 10.3758/s13428‑015‑0678‑9
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0678-9 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hilpert, Martin & Holger Diessel
    2017 Entrenchment in construction grammar. InHans-Jörg Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 57–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-004 [Google Scholar]
  29. Johnson, Matt A. & Adele E. Goldberg
    2013 Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes28(10). 1439–1452. 10.1080/01690965.2012.717632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.717632 [Google Scholar]
  30. Kamide, Yuki, Gerry TM Altmann & Sarah L. Haywood
    2003 The time course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language491. 133–156. 10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00023‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kim, Youngjin
    1999 The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes141. 687–714. 10.1080/016909699386239
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386239 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kim, Hyunwoo, Gyu-Ho Shin & Haerim Hwang
    2020 Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition42(4). 825–847. 10.1017/S0272263119000743
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000743 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, Hung-gyu, Beom-mo Kang & Jungha Hong
    2007 21seyki seycongkyeyhoyk hyentaykwuke kichomalmwungchi sengkwawa cenmang [21st century Sejong modern Korean corpora: Results and expectations]. Proceedings of Annual Conference on Human and Language Technology311. 311–316.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim, Jonathan, Ute Gabriel & Pascal Gygax
    2019 Testing the effectiveness of the Internet-based instrument PsyToolkit: A comparison between web-based (PsyToolkit) and lab-based (E-Prime 3.0) measurements of response choice and response time in a complex psycholinguistic task. PLoS One14(9). 1–19. 10.1371/journal.pone.0221802
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221802 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lachman, Roy, Juliet Popper Shaffer & Deborah Hennrikus
    1974 Language and cognition: Effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13(6). 613–625. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(74)80049‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80049-6 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lakoff, George
    1970Irregularity in syntax. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2017 Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar. InHans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 39–56. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1037/15969‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Levin, Beth & Tova R. Rapoport
    1988 Lexical Subordination. CLS 24 Part11. 275–289.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav
    2005Argument realization. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, Ikseop
    2011kwukehakkaysel [Introduction to Korean linguistics]. Seoul: Hakyensa.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lee, Yong-hun
    2014 Semantic relations and multiple case constructions: An experimental approach. Linguistic Research31(2). 213–247. 10.17250/khisli.31.2.201408.001
    https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.31.2.201408.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lim, Soojong, Minjung Kwon, Junsu Kim & Hyunki Kim
    2015 ExoBrainul wihan hankwuke uymiyek kaitulain mich malmwungchi kwuchwuk [Korean Proposition Bank Guidelines for ExoBrain]. InProceedings of the 27th annual conference on human & cognitive language technology, 250–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, Ho-Ling, Wan-Ting Liao, Shin-Yi Fang, Tieh-Chi Chu & Li Hai Tan
    2004 Correlation between temporal response of fMRI and fast reaction time in a language task. Magnetic Resonance Imaging22(4). 451–455. 10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  44. Miller, Jeff
    1991 Reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: Bias varies with sample size. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology43(4). 907–912. 10.1080/14640749108400962
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749108400962 [Google Scholar]
  45. Müller, Stefan
    2006 Discussion note: Phrasal or lexical constructions?Language82(4). 850–883. 10.1353/lan.2006.0213
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0213 [Google Scholar]
  46. Park, Sang-Hee & Eunkyung Yi
    2021 Perception-production asymmetry for Korean double accusative ditransitives. Linguistic Research38(1). 27–52. 10.17250/khisli.38.1.202103.002
    https://doi.org/10.17250/khisli.38.1.202103.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Perek, Florent & Adele E. Goldberg
    2017 Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition1681. 276–293. 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.019 [Google Scholar]
  48. Pinker, Steven
    1989Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ratcliff, Roger
    1993 Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin1141. 510–532. 10.1037/0033‑2909.114.3.510
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 [Google Scholar]
  51. Robenalt, Clarice & Adele E. Goldberg
    2015 Judgement evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics26(3). 467–503. 10.1515/cog‑2015‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0004 [Google Scholar]
  52. Shin, Gyu-Ho
    2020 People also avoid repetition in sentence comprehension: Evidence from multiple postposition constructions in Korean. Linguistics Vanguard6(1). 1–12. 10.1515/lingvan‑2019‑0043
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0043 [Google Scholar]
  53. Shin, Gyu-Ho & Hyunwoo Kim
    2021 Roles of verb and construction cues: Cross-language comparisons between English and Korean sentence comprehension. Review of Cognitive Linguistics19(2). 332–362. 10.1075/rcl.00087.shi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00087.shi [Google Scholar]
  54. Shin, Jeong-Ah
    2008 Structural priming in bilingual language processing and second language learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Shin, Jeong-Ah & Kiel Christianson
    2009 Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition112(1). 175–180. 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  56. Shin, Seo-in
    2016 A study on the functions of eul/reul through examining double accusative constructions: focusing on transitivity. URIMALGEUL: The Korean Language and Literature681. 1–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse
    2014 Judgement data. InRobert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139013734.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013734.004 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sohn, Ho Min
    1999The Korean language. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Spivey, Michael J. & Michael K. Tanenhaus
    1998 Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition24(6). 1521–1543. 10.1037/0278‑7393.24.6.1521
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.24.6.1521 [Google Scholar]
  60. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries
    2003 Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2). 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  61. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Trueswell, John C.
    1996 The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language35(4). 566–585. 10.1006/jmla.1996.0030
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0030 [Google Scholar]
  63. Yong, N., & Lee, M.
    (2012) Semantic effects of a pre-verbal argument on the online processing of Korean sentences: An eye-tracking study. Korean Journal of Linguistics371. 639–657. 10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.3.009
    https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.3.009 [Google Scholar]
  64. Yoon, James Hye Sook
    2015 Double nominative and double accusative constructions. InLucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 79–97. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118371008.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118371008.ch5 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22028.kim
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.22028.kim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error