Linguistic Research 31(2), 한국어문장처리에서 부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 * 1 남윤주 정혜인 2 홍우평 * 3 ( 건국대학교 ) Nam, Yunju, Hyein Jeong and Upyong Hong Seman

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Linguistic Research 31(2), 한국어문장처리에서 부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 * 1 남윤주 정혜인 ** 2 홍우평 *** 3 ( 건국대학교 ) Nam, Yunju, Hyein Jeong and Upyong Hong Seman"

영하 진
4 years ago
Views:

1 Linguistic Research 31(2), 한국어문장처리에서 부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 * 1 남윤주 정혜인 ** 2 홍우평 *** 3 ( 건국대학교 ) Nam, Yunju, Hyein Jeong and Upyong Hong Semantic integration between an attributive adjective and a noun in Korean sentence processing. Linguistic Research 31(2), The present study investigates the cognitive mechanism underlying online semantic integration between an adjective(a) and a noun(n) in the processing of ambiguous constructions of Korean, in which an A might either modify the adjacent N or an additional N separated from the A by an intervening relative clause. The results of two psycholinguistic experiments indicate that the A-N semantic integration does not necessarily take place at the N position, at which multiple syntactic structures are still allowed, but is rather suspended to the position of the clause(sentence)-final verb, at which one of the previously assumed structures should be chosen. This result supports the single-stream model of language processing, which assumes an inextricable coupling between syntax and semantics. (Konkuk University) Keywords sentence processing, semantic integration, Korean, adjective, noun 1. 서론 /,,,. (phrase), (Jackendoff & Pinker, 2005)., * ** 1 ***

2 382 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평,, /. (1),., (head-final) ( : ), (1) /. (1). (1) (2). (2a), (2b). (2) a.. b.. (1) (2), (local ambiguity).,,. (1). 1 (3) a. [ NP [ A ] [ N ]]... b. [ A ] [ S [ N ]... c. 철수가 [ S [ NP [ A 시원한 ] [ N 수박을 ]]... 1 (3) a c b. a c a, c ( ).

3 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 383 (2), (1), (1) (global ambiguity). (sentence comprehension),. (3),., (3b). (3),.,.. 2, 한국어형용사와명사의의미통합에대한심리언어학적증거 (2014)., (2014), (4), - - (brain responses) (Event-related brain potentials, ERP ).

4 384 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 (4) a.. b.. ( - (local) ) c.. ( - (global) ) d.. ( - - ) ERP (event) (related) ( ) /, (violation paradigm) (time course) (Kutas and Federmeier, 2011). (4b/d) (4a/c), (4b/d). N400, ((4b) ) 400ms. (Negative). ERP N400 ERP, 2 (2014), (4b/d) N400, - N400.. (4b/d) N400. N400 (head-initial) (Hagoort, 2003), (head-directedness),,. 2 ERP ERP (2011).

5 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 385 (2014) N400 ERP Prior and Bentin(2006)., Prior and Bentin(2006) - N400, , N400. (2014).,,,, N400.,, (3b). 1 +.,,,.,,. ( ) N400. (manipulation). 3.

6 386 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 3. 언어실험 3.1 실험문장. (short-distance congruency) (long-distance congruency) [ 1] / (SCLC: short-distance congruent & long-distance congruent), (SCLI: short-distance congruent and long-distance incongruent), (SILC: short-distance incongruent and long-distance congruent), (SILI: short-distance incongruent and long-distance incongruent). 표 1. 실험조건및예문 SCLC. SCLI. SILC. SILI. 44, (inanimate). (SCLC, SCLI) (SILC, SILI)

7 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 (fillers). 3.2 오프라인문장수용성평가 (sentence acceptability) ( : 7, : 1), 실험재료 3.1 ( ) 피험자 1 21 (20~26 ) 68 ( 18, 50), 2 21 (20~26 ) 65 ( 38, 27) 실험방법., / ( ). 1 (5a) 1~7, 2 (5b). 4 4

8 388 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평. (5) a. b 가설 SC~ (SCLC, SCLI) SI~ (SILC/SILI). SILC SILI.,, - SILC / SILI. -, SILC SILI 실험결과 1, SCLC 5.90, SCLI 5.81, SILC 4.54, SILI 3.76, (SILC, SILI) (SCLC, SCLI) ([ 2] ).

9 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 389 표 2. 의미적합성판단결과 (scale:1~7) SCLC SCLI SILC SILI ,. SILC (4.54) / SILI (3.76)., -. (2) (2) (within subject factor), (4) (between subject factor) (repeated measures 3-way ANOVA).,., (compared t-test). ( :F(1,64)=215.60, p <.01; :F(1,64)=53.45, p <.01) (F(1,64)=37.92, p <.05). (compared t-test), (t(67)=1.165, p >.1) (t(67)=6.919, p =.000)., 1. 2 SCLC 5.84,

10 390 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 SCLI 5.70, SILC 4.18, SILI 3.83, 1 ([ 2] )., ( :F(1,61)=208.33, p<.001; :F(1,64)=19.5, p<.001) (F(1,61)=5.255, p<.05). (compared t-test), 1 (t(67)=2.468, p <.05) (t(67)=3.263 p <.01)..,,.,.,. 3.3 온라인자기조절읽기 (SPR: self-paced reading)., (reading time) (ms), /.

11 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 실험재료 3.1 ( ) 피험자 65., 실험방법, (self-paced reading with secondary judgement task)., YES NO. (Mauner, Tanenhaus, and Carlson, 1995), (rejection rates). - (E-Prime 2.0 Professional, Psychology Software Tools, USA).,. (moving window). 3 3 (moving window)...

12 392 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평.., 10. 4, (pseudorandom). ( 5 ) NO, YES. ( vs. ) ( vs. ) (repeated measures 2-way ANOVA) 가설. 3.1 [ 1] [ 3]. 4 표 3. 실험조건및예문 (=[ 표 1]) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 SCLC SCLI SILC SILI 4 [ 3] R1~R7, R Region.

13 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 393 R3.,, SILC/SILI SCLC/SCLI R4,. R4 SI~ SC~,,. 1 (3c) - -,, [ S [ NP [ A [ N ]] [ V ]] (3b) - [ A ] [ S [ NP ] [ V ] ].... R5., R5 SILC SILI.,.. (6) a. R3 1: R3 RT(SC~) 5 < RT(SI~) 2: R3 RT(SC~) = RT(SI~) (* RT(SC~) > RT(SI~): ) 5 RT reading time( ) : RT(SC~) = SC~

14 394 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 b. R4 3: R4 [ S [ NP [ A [ N ]] [ V ]] RT(SC~) < RT(SI~) (, SI~ ) 4: R4 [ A ] [ S [ NP ] [ V ] ] RT(SC~) = RT(SI~) ( ) (* RT(SC~) > RT(SI~): ) c. R5 5: R5 RT(SILC) < RT(SILI) 6: R5 RT(SILC) = RT(SILI), 3/ 4 2, R 실험결과 거부율.

15 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 395 그림 1. 거부율 [ 1]. R3, SCLC SCLI, SILC SILI. (SCLC & SCLI) 1.17%, (SILC & SICL) 17.45% (F(1,61) = , p <.000) R7. R3 R4, R4 SILC 42.52%, SILI 41.64% (F(1,61) = , p <.000). R6 R7 (R6: F(1,61) = 5.74, p =.05; R7: F(1,61) = 14.04, p <.01)([ 4] ) 표 4. 거부율에대한통계요약 R3 R4 R5 R6 R ** ** ** ** ** * ** * 3.625^ ** p <.01 / *:.01 < p <.05 / ^:.05 < p <.07

16 396 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 읽기시간 NO, Yes RT. 그림 2. 영역별 Yes RT 표 5. Yes RT 에대한통계요약 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R ** * **: p <.01 / *:.01 < p <.05 [ 2] Yes RT., (SILC, SILI) R3 (SCLC, SCLI)

17 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 397 ( ms vs ms: F(1,61)=.482, n.s) R4 ( ms vs ms: F(1,61)=20.976, p=.000)([ 5] ). R5 (SILC vs. SILI) R5, ([ 5] ). 4. 논의 Yes RT (6). [ 1] R3 SILC/SILI ( 17%) R4 SILC/SILI ( 42%)., (6) 2 3. R5, SILC (54%) SILI (51%),,. ( 5/ 6) 6,, R5. R3~R5 2, 3, 6,. R7 SILC (75%) SILI (65%), /. 6

18 398 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 SILC SILI R7. R7. R3 R R5, SILC SILI 6. R3~R5 2, 3, 6, (i) R3,, ( 2) (ii) R4,, [ S [ NP [ A [ N ]] [ V ]] ( 3), (iii) R5,, ( 6). SILC,.,,, R7 SILC , - SILC SCLC - SCLI, SILI,.,

19 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 399.,,,., (2014) ERP.,,,. (single-stream model: Ferreira & Clifton, 1986; MacDonald, Pearlmutter, & Seidenberg, 1994; Trueswell & Tanenhaus, 1994; Friederici, 2002; Hagoort, 2008; Stroud and Philips, 2012).., (multi-stream model: Kolk, Chwilla, Van Herten, Van Herten, Kolk, and Chwilla, 2003; Kuperberg, Sitnikova, Caplan, and Holcomb, 2003; Hoeks, Stowe, and Doedens, 2004; Kim and Osterhout, 2005).. 5. 결론,,,.

20 400 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평,,., (tolerance)..,., (Eye-movement tracking), ERP. 참고문헌 Ferreira, Fernanda, and Charles Jr. Clifton The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25: Friederici, Angela D Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: Hagoort, Peter Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(6): Hoeks, John C. J., Laurie A. Stowe, and Gina Doedens Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 19: Hong, Upyong Zu neurokognitiven Mechanismen der Sprachverarbeitung: Ein Überblick über die elektrophysiologischen Untersuchungen zum Deutschen. Koreanische Zeitschrift für Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft 23:

21 한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 401 Jackendoff, Ray and Steven Pinker The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition 97(2): Kim, Albert and Lee Osterhout The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 52: Kolk, Herman H. J., Dorothee J. Chwilla, Marieke Van Herten, and Patrick J. W. Oor Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 85: Kuperberg, Gina R., Tatiana Sitnikova, David Caplan, and Phillip. J. Holcomb Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 17: Kutas, Marta., and Kara D. Federmeier Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP). Annual Reviews of Psycholinguistics 62: MacDonald, Maryellen C., Neal J. Pearlmutter, and Mark S. Seidenberg The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101: Mauner, Gail, Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Greg N. Carlson Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing. Jounal of Memory and Language 34: Nam, Yunju Semantic integration in sentence comprehension: An ERP study on Korean, Ph. D. Dissertation, Konkuk University, Seoul, Prior, Anat and Shlomo Bentin Differential integration efforts of mandatory and optional sentence constituents. Psychophysiology 43(5): Stroud, Clare and Phillips, Colin Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language 120(2): Trueswell, John C. and Michael K. Tanenhaus Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, K. Rayner, and Lyn Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van Herten, Marieke, Herman H. J. Kolk, and Dorothee J. Chwilla An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 22:

22 402 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 ( ) ( ) ( ) : : :

03±èÀçÈÖ¾ÈÁ¤ÅÂ

03±èÀçÈÖ¾ÈÁ¤ÅÂ x x x x Abstract The Advertising Effects of PPL in TV Dramas - Identificaiton by Implicit Memory-based Measures Kim, Jae - hwi(associate professor, Dept. of psychology, Chung-Ang University) Ahn,