Article

The Role of Frequency in the Processing of giving and receiving Events in Korean

Hongoak Yun1, Eunkyung Yi2,
Author Information & Copyright
1Jeju National University
2Seoul National University
*Corresponding Author : Lecturer, Department of English Language and Literature, College of Humanities, Seoul National University 1 Kwanak-ro, Kwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, Korea, E-mail: yieunkyung@snu.ac.kr

ⓒ Copyright 2019 Language Education Institute, Seoul National University. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Mar 13, 2019 ; Revised: Apr 28, 2019 ; Accepted: May 03, 2019

Published Online: Aug 31, 2019

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to examine the processing benefits of frequency information associated with the case marker -eykey in comprehending Korean declarative sentences. By using a picture description task in which pictures ambiguously illustrated either a giving event (-eykeyRECcwuta ‘give … to’) or a receiving event (-eykeySOURCEpatta ‘receive … from’), we found that giving events were predominantly preferred to receiving events. The results of the online sentence comprehension study revealed that 1) give-type verbs were integrated into sentences faster than receive-type verbs overall and 2) the reading-time differences between the verb types were significant when role NPs were canonically ordered (NP-eykey … NP-(l)ul) but not when they were noncanonically presented (NP-(l)ul … NP-eykey). We claim that structural and semantic frequency bias associated with -eykey facilitates readers’ anticipatory processing in the integration of upcoming information. We further discuss how the processing differences in giving and receiving events might attribute to the argument-adjunct distinction between recipients and sources.

Keywords: frequency; ambiguity in thematic role assignment; case marker; Korean sentence comprehension

References

1.

Abney, Steven A. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 129-144 .

2.

Aziz-Zadeh, Lisa, Stephen M. Wilson, Giacomo Rizzolatti and Marco Iacoboni. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology 16(18), 1818-1823 .

3.

Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker and Steve Walker. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-eff ects models using lme4 . Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1-48 .

4.

Baayen, Harald. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press .

5.

Baayen, Harald R, Debra J. Davidson and Douglas M. Bates. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4), 390-412 .

6.

Bandura, Albert. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychology 28, 117-148 .

7.

Bingham, Geoffrey P, Frank T. Zaal and David R. Collins. (2001). The effect of frequency on the visual perception of relative phase and phase variability of two oscillating objects. Experimental Brain Responses 136(4), 543-552 .

8.

Boland, Julie. (2005). Visual arguments. Cognition 95(3), 237-274. doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.01.008 .

9.

Boland, Julie E. and Heather Boehm-Jernigan. (1998). Lexical constraints and prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 394, 684-719 .

10.

Boland, Julie. E., Michael K. Tanenhaus, Susan M. Garnsey and Gregory N. Carlson. (1995). Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 34, 774-806 .

11.

Carlson, Gregory N. and Michael K. Tanenhaus. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. Syntax and Semantics 21, 263-300. Academic Press .

12.

Chater, Nick and Christopher D. Manning. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science 10.7, 335-344. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.05.006 .

13.

Choi, Hyewon. (2007). Length and order: A corpus study of Korean dative -accusative construction. Korean Discourse and Cognition 14, 207-227 .

14.

Croft, William. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press .

15.

Diessel, Holger. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25, 108-127 .

16.

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 Acquisition 24(2), 143-188. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002024 .

17.

Elman, Jeffrey, Mary Hare and Ken McRae. (2004). Cues, constraints, and competition in sentence processing. In Michale Tomasello and Dan Slobin, ed., Beyond Nature-Nurture: Essays in Honor of Elizabeth Bates, 111-138. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates .

18.

Frazier, Lin and Charles Jr. Clifton. (1996). Construal. MIT Press .

19.

Garnsey, Susan M., Neal J. Pearlmutter, Elizabeth Meyers and Melanie A. Lotocky. (1997). The contribution of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 58-93 .

20.

Glenberg Arthur M. and Michale P. Kaschak. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psycholonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 558-565. doi:10.3758/BF03196313 .

21.

Goldberg, Adele, E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press .

22.

Goldberg, Adele, E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press .

23.

Griffis, Thomas. (2011). Rethinking language: How probabilities shape the words we use. PANAS, 108.10, 3825-3826 .

24.

Hale, John. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University .

25.

Hare, Mary, Ken McRae and Jeffrey L. Elman. (2003). Sense and structure: Meaning as a determinant of verb subcategorization preferences. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 281-303 .

26.

Harre, Rome and Grant Gillet, G. (1993). The Discursive Mind. Sage .

27.

Janssen, Niels and Barber Horacio. (2012). Phrase frequency effects in language production. PloS one 7.3, e33202 .

28.

Juhasz, Babara J. and Keith Rayner. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 29(6), 1312-1318 .

29.

Jurafsky, Daniel. (2003) Probabilistic modelling in psycholinguistics: linguistic comprehension and production. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay and Stefanie Jannedy, eds., Probabilistic Linguistics, 39-96. MIT Press .

30.

Just, Marcel A. and Patricia A. Carpenter. (1980). A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87, 329-354 .

31.

Justus, Timothy and Alexandra List. (2005). Auditory attention to frequency and time: An analogy to visual local-global stimuli. Cognition 98(1), 31-51. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.11.001 .

32.

Kamide, Yuki, Gerry T. Altmann and Sarah L. Haywood. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 133-159 .

33.

Kennisson, Shelia M. (2002). Comprehending noun phrase arguments and adjuncts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31, 65-81 .

34.

Kim, Hyeong-jeong. (2009). Argument '에게(ege)' as an Objective Recipient. Han-Geul 285, 97-130. Written in Korean .

35.

Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Gail Mauner and Brenton Bienvenue. (2003). Arguments for adjuncts. Cognition 89, 67-103 .

36.

Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Brockhoff Per B. and Rune H. B. Christensen. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82(3), 1-26. doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 .

37.

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

38.

Liversedge, Simon P., Martin J. Pickering, Holly P. Branigan and Roger P. G. van Gompel. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: the case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 24, 461-475 .

39.

MacDonald, Mary. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 9, 157-201 .

40.

MacDonald, Mary. C., Neal J. Pearlmutter and Mark S. Seidenberg. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676-703 .

41.

Matthews, Peter H. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge University Press .

42.

Mersad, Karima and Thierry Nazzi. (2011). Transitional probabilities and positional frequency phonotactics in a hierarchical model of speech segmentation. Memory and Cognition 39(6), 1085-1093. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0074-3 .

43.

Michell, Don C. (1989). Verb guidance and lexical effects in ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, 123-154 .

44.

Muncer, Steven and David Knight. (2006). The bigram trough and the syllable number effect in lexical decision. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65, 2221-2230. doi:10.1080/17470218.2012.697176 .

45.

Pulvermüller, Fridemann and Luciano Fadiga. (2010). Active perception: sensorimotor circuits as a cortical basis for language. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11, 351-360 .

46.

Pulvermüller, Friedemann, Yury Shtyrov and Risto Ilmoniemi. (2005). Brain signatures of meaning access in action word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17, 884-892 .

47.

R Development Core Team. (2018). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.Rproject.org .

48.

Radford, Andrew. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge University Press .

49.

Roland, Douglas and Daniel Jurafsky. (2002). Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities. In Stevenson Suzanne and Paola Merlo, eds., The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational, and Experimental Issues, 325-345. John Benjamins .

50.

Rott, Susanne. (2007). The effect of frequency of input‐enhancements on word learning and text comprehension. Language Learning 57, 165-199 .

51.

Schotter, Elizabeth R, Klinton Bicknell, Ian Howard, Roger Levy and Keith Rayner. (2014). Task effects reveal cognitive flexibility responding to frequency and predictability: evidence from eye movements in reading and proofreading. Cognition 131(1), 1-27. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.018 .

52.

Schütze, Carson T. and Edward Gibson. (1999). Argumenthood and English prepositional phrase attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 409-431 .

53.

Somers, Harold L. (1984). On the validity of the complement-adjunct distinction in valency gramma. Linguistics 22, 507-550 .

54.

Spivey-Knowlton, Michael and Julie C. Sedivy. (1995). Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition 55, 227-267 .

55.

Taraban, Roman and Jay L. McClelland. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language 27, 597-632 .

56.

Trueswell, John C. (1996). The role of lexical frequencyin syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35, 566-585 .

57.

Trueswell, John C., Michael K. Tanenhaus and Christopher Kello. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, 528-553 .

58.

Tutunjian, Damon and Julie E. Boland (2008). Do we need a distinction between arguments and adjuncts? Evidence from psycholinguistic studies of comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(4), 631-646, doi:10.1111/j.1749-818x.2008.00071.x .

59.

van Valin Robert. (2001). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press .

60.

Wilson, Michael P. and Susan M. Garnsey. (2009). Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 60(3), 368-392 .

61.

Wu, Ling-Ling and Lawrence W. Barsalou. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica 132(2), 173-189 .

62.

Yun, Hongoak and Upyung Hong. (2014). Role predictability and role filler predictability. Journal of Cognitive Science 15(3), 346-390 .

63.

Zamune, Tania S. (2009). Phonotactic probabilities at the onset of language development: speech production and word position. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 49-60 .

64.

Zwaan, Rolf A. and Lawlence L. Taylor. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language com-prehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135, 1-11 .

The submission guidelines have been revised.


The submission guidelines of the Language Research have been revised as of September 25, 2019.

Please check and submit new papers based on the new guidelines.

https://www.elanguageresearch.org/author/guideline

Thank you for your interest in the Language Research.

I don't want to open this window for a day.