1887
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates how speakers of English and Korean, two typologically distinct languages, derive information from a verb and a construction to achieve sentence comprehension. In a sentence-sorting task, we manipulated verb semantics (real versus nonce) in each language. The results showed that participants from both languages were less inclined to sort sentences by a verb cue when the lexical-semantic information about a verb was obscured (i.e., nonce verb). In addition, the Korean-speaking participants were less likely affected by the verb semantics conditions than the English-speaking participants. These findings suggest the role of an argument structure construction in sentence comprehension as a co-contributor of sentence meaning, supporting the constructionist approach. The findings also imply language-specific mechanisms of sentence comprehension, contingent upon the varied impact of a verb on sentence meaning in English and Korean.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00087.shi
2021-10-11
2021-12-09
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahrens, K. V.
    (1995) The mental representation of verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen, K., Pereira, F., Botvinick, M., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2012) Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language, 123, 174–182. doi:  10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, G. T.
    (1999) Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 124–145. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1999.2640
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2640 [Google Scholar]
  4. Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y.
    (1999) Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. doi:  10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00059‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2007) The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 502–518. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R.
    (2008) The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 106, 87–129. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.015 [Google Scholar]
  7. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baicchi, A.
    (2013) The ontological status of constructions in the mind of Italian university learners of English: Psycholinguistic evidence from a sentence-sorting experiment. InL. D. Michele (Ed.), Regenerating Community, Territory, Voices (pp.12–24). Napoli: Liguori.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A.
    (2011) West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 49, 53–104. doi:  10.1515/ling.2011.002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J.
    (2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. doi:  10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bencini, G. M., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651. doi:  10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  12. Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A.
    (2018) Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110457155
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M.
    (1994) Language production: Grammatical encoding. InM. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2005) Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2005.00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Childers, J. B., & Paik, J. H.
    (2009) Korean-and English-speaking children use cross-situational information to learn novel predicate terms. Journal of Child Language, 36, 201–224. doi:  10.1017/S0305000908008891
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908008891 [Google Scholar]
  16. Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C.
    (2010) Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 41–61. doi:  10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. De Knop, S., & Mollica, F.
    (2016) A construction-based study of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp.53–88). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-004 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dryer, M.
    (2013) Order of subject, object and verb. InM. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved atwals.info/chapter/81 on 12-JUN-2020.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Du Bois, J. W.
    (2003) Argument structure. InJ. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf, & W. J. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function (pp.11–60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/sidag.14.04dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.14.04dub [Google Scholar]
  21. Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D.
    (2011) Cluster Analysis (5th edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9780470977811
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470977811 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R.
    (1991) On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 331–392. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0285(91)90013‑E
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(91)90013-E [Google Scholar]
  23. Frenck-Mestre, C., Kim, S. K., Choo, H., Ghio, A., Herschensohn, J., & Koh, S.
    (2019) Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(3), 385–404. doi:  10.1080/23273798.2018.1549332
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1549332 [Google Scholar]
  24. Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J.
    (2007) Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax–semantic interface. Brain Research, 1146, 50–58. doi:  10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.038
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.038 [Google Scholar]
  25. Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmuttter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A.
    (1997) The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 58–93. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1997.2512
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2512 [Google Scholar]
  26. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2013a) Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind and Language, 28, 435–465. doi:  10.1111/mila.12026
    https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2013b) Constructionist approach. InG. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2019) Explain me this. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B.
    (2009) Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 675–702. doi:  10.1515/COGL.2009.029
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.029 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions?Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200. doi:  10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  33. Hawkins, J. A.
    (2014) Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Healy, A., & Miller, G.
    (1970) The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 20, 372. 10.3758/BF03335697
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335697 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E.
    (2014) The role of the verb in grammatical function assignment in English and Korean. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1363–1376. doi:  10.1037/a0036797
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036797 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jackendoff, R.
    (1975) Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 51, 639–671. 10.2307/412891
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412891 [Google Scholar]
  37. Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2013) Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 1439–1452. doi:  10.1080/01690965.2012.717632
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.717632 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kako, E.
    (2006) Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition, 101, 1–42. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2005.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kako, E., & Wagner, L.
    (2001) The semantics of syntactic structures. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 102–108. doi:  10.1016/S1364‑6613(00)01594‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01594-1 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., & 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. doi:  10.1016/S0749‑596X(03)00023‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00023-8 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M.
    (2000) Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508–529. doi:  10.1006/jmla.2000.2705
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2705 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, H., & Grüter, T.
    (2019) Cross-linguistic activation of implicit causality biases in Korean learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(3), 441–455. doi:  10.1017/S1366728918000561
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728918000561 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim, H., & Rah, Y.
    (2016) Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 716–731. doi:  10.1111/modl.12345
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12345 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2019) Constructional processing in a second language: The role of constructional knowledge in verb-construction integration. Language Learning, 69(4), 1022–1056. doi:  10.1111/lang.12366
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12366 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kim, H., Shin, G-H., & Hwang, H.
    (2020). Cross-linguistic influence in the second language integration of verb and construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 825–847. doi:  10.1017/S0272263119000743
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000743 [Google Scholar]
  46. Kim, J-B.
    (2016) The syntactic structures of Korean: A construction grammar perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781316217405
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316217405 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kim, J-B., & Choi, I.
    (2004) The Korean case system: A unified, constraint-based approach. Language Research, 40(4), 885–921.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, J. B., & Sells, P.
    (2010) Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language, 34(3), 602–635. doi:  10.1075/sl.34.3.04kim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.3.04kim [Google Scholar]
  49. Kim, K.
    (2016) A contrastive analysis of English and Korean news headlines. Studies in Linguistics, 41, 25–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kim, Y.
    (1999) The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 687–714. doi:  10.1080/016909699386239
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386239 [Google Scholar]
  51. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1995) Unaccusativity in the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Liang, J.
    (2002) Sentence comprehension by Chinese learners of English: Verb-centered or construction-based. Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdong.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Lyngfelt, B.
    (2009) Towards a comprehensive Construction Grammar account of control: A case study of Swedish infinitives. Constructions and Frames, 1, 153–189. doi:  10.1075/cf.1.2.01lyn
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.1.2.01lyn [Google Scholar]
  54. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S.
    (1994) The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.101.4.676
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676 [Google Scholar]
  55. Mantel, N.
    (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 27, 209–220.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L.
    (1997) Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 137–176. doi:  10.1080/016909697386835
    https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386835 [Google Scholar]
  57. Miyamoto, E. T.
    (2002) Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 307–347. doi:  10.1023/A:1019540324040
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019540324040 [Google Scholar]
  58. Nolan, B.
    (2013) Constructions as grammatical objects. InB. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp.143–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.145.06nol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.145.06nol [Google Scholar]
  59. O’Grady, W. D.
    (1991) Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean (Vol.71). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.71 [Google Scholar]
  60. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 601–635. doi:  10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  61. Perek, F., & Hilpert, M.
    (2014) Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions. Constructions and Frames, 6, 266–304. doi:  10.1075/cf.6.2.06per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.06per [Google Scholar]
  62. Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S.
    (2008) Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.134.3.427
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427 [Google Scholar]
  63. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLhttps://www.R-project.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2015) Judgment 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 Linguistics, 26, 467–503. doi:  10.1515/cog‑2015‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2015-0004 [Google Scholar]
  66. Shin, G-H.
    (2018) Event structure composition in Korean verbless constructions by particles and verbal nouns: Evidence from newspaper headlines. Journal of Language Sciences, 25(3), 403–425. doi:  10.14384/kals.2018.25.3.403
    https://doi.org/10.14384/kals.2018.25.3.403 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2020) Connecting input to comprehension: First language acquisition of active transitives and suffixal passives by Korean-speaking preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sohn, H. M.
    (1999) The Korean Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Suzuki, T., & Kobayashi, T.
    (2017) Syntactic cues for inferences about causality in language acquisition: Evidence from an argument-drop language. Language Learning and Development, 13, 24–37. doi:  10.1080/15475441.2016.1193019
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2016.1193019 [Google Scholar]
  70. Trueswell, J. C.
    (1996) The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566–585. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1996.0030
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1996.0030 [Google Scholar]
  71. Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K.
    (1994) Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. InC. Clifton, K. Rayner & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp.155–179). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Västi, K., & Kittilä, S.
    (2014) Semantic roles and verbless constructions: A Finnish challenge for verb-centered approaches. Studies in Language, 38(3), 512–542. doi:  10.1075/sl.38.3.04vas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.38.3.04vas [Google Scholar]
  73. Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M.
    (2005) German-speaking children’s productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: Local cues act locally. First Language, 25, 103–125. doi:  10.1177/0142723705049120
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723705049120 [Google Scholar]
  74. 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 Linguistics, 37, 639–657. 10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.3.009
    https://doi.org/10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.3.009 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
    (1998) Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00087.shi
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00087.shi
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