Honorific Agreement Guides but Doesn’t Govern in Ambiguity Resolution

Lee, So Young

doi:10.30961/lr.2025.61.2.171

Lang. Res. 61(2):171-192

pISSN: 0254-4474, eISSN: 2586-7113

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2025.61.2.171

Article

Honorific Agreement Guides but Doesn’t Govern in Ambiguity Resolution

So Young Lee ¹ ^, ^†

Author Information & Copyright ▼

¹Miami University

^†Corresponding author: Assistant Professor Department of English Miami University 500 Harris Dr. 134 Harris Hall, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA, E-mail: soyounglee.linguist@gmail.com

ⓒ Copyright 2025 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: Jun 29, 2025 ; Revised: Aug 04, 2025 ; Accepted: Jun 19, 2025

Published Online: Aug 31, 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines how Korean speakers resolve relative clause attachment ambiguity, focusing on the role of honorific agreement. Korean honorifics encode social hierarchy through morphosyntactic marking but are pragmatically motivated, illuminating the interaction of grammar and social information in processing. Using a self-paced reading task and a comprehension measure, this study tested whether honorific marking functions as a strong morphosyntactic cue, such as number or gender agreement, or as a soft interpretive bias. Comprehension results showed a consistent high attachment preference modulated by honorific compatibility, suggesting honorifics operate as soft cues. Online reading times showed no early effects of honorific marking, indicating delayed attachment until sufficient structural and pragmatic information became emerged. Pragmatic expectations shaped interpretations even without explicit honorifics. These findings support an integrative model in which multiple linguistic and social cues are flexibly coordinated in real-time comprehension.

Keywords: RC ambiguity resolution; the effect of the honorific agreement; offline vs. online processing difference

References

Abney, S. P. (1989). A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 129-144 .

Aguilar, M., & Grillo, N. (2021). Spanish is not different: On the universality of minimal structure and locality principles. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics .

Altmann, G. (1986). Reference and the resolution of local syntactic ambiguity: The effect of context during human sentence processing .

Altmann, G. (1987). Modularity and interaction in sentence processing. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

Altmann, G., & Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30(3), 191-238 .

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

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(3), 255-278 .

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1-48 .

Britt, M. A. (1994). The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure in the parsing of prepositional phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 251-283 .

10.

Brown, L. (2015). Honorifics and politeness. The handbook of Korean linguistics. 303-319 .

11.

Brown, L. (2022). Politeness as normative, evaluative and discriminatory: The case of verbal hygiene discourses on correct honorifics use in South Korea. Journal of Politeness Research, 18(1), 63-91 .

12.

Carreiras, M., & Clifton Jr, C. (1993). Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English. Language and Speech, 36(4), 353-372 .

13.

Core Team, R. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Computer software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing .

14.

Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological syntax processor. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives, 320-358 .

15.

Cuetos, F., & Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in spanish. Cognition, 30(1), 73-105 .

16.

Ford, M. (1982). A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations .

17.

Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Ph.D. dissertation) University of Connecticut, Storrs .

18.

Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding (pp. 291-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .

19.

Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Mit Press .

20.

Gibson, E. (2001). Recency in verb phrase attachment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(2), 574-590 .

21.

Gibson, E., Pearlmutter, N., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., & Hickok, G. (1996). Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism. Cognition, 59(1), 23-59 .

22.

Grillo, N., & Costa, J. (2014). A novel argument for the universality of parsing principles. Cognition, 133(1), 156-187 .

23.

Hemforth, B., Fernandez, S., Clifton Jr, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., & Walter, M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43-64 .

24.

Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. W. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259-281). Cambridge University Press .

25.

Keating, G. D., & Jegerski, J. (2015). Experimental designs in sentence processing research: A methodological review and user's guide. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 1-32 .

26.

Lenth, R., Singmann, H., Love, J., Buerkner, P., & Herve, M. (2018). Package "emmean", R package version 4.0-3 .

27.

Lim, L. (2012). Processing of relative clauses in Korean. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 37(3), 719-736 .

28.

MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676 .

29.

Ni, W., & Crain, S. (1990). How to resolve structural ambiguities. In Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 20, GLSA, Amherst, MA .

30.

Pealmutter, N. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (1992). Plausibility and syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (14), 498-503 .

31.

Pozniak, C., Hemforth, B., Haendler, Y., Santi, A., & Grillo, N. (2019). Seeing events vs. entities: The processing advantage of pseudo relatives over relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language, 107, 128-151 .

32.

Sohn, H.-M. (2001). The Korean language. Cambridge University Press .

33.

Spivey-Knowlton, M., & Tanenhaus, M. (1994). Referential context and syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Perspectives on sentence processing (415-439). Psychology Press .

34.

Steedman, M., & Altmann, G. (1989). Ambiguity in context: A reply. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(3-4), 105-122 .

35.

Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(6), 597-632 .

36.

Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). Parsing and comprehension: A multiple-constraint view. In Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 231-264). Routledge .

37.

Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285-318 .

38.

Zehr, J., & Schwarz, F. (2018). Penncontroller for internet based experiments (ibex) .