Linguistic Research 31(2), 381-402 한국어문장처리에서 부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 * 1 남윤주 정혜인 ** 2 홍우평 *** 3 ( 건국대학교 ) Nam, Yunju, Hyein Jeong and Upyong Hong. 2014. Semantic integration between an attributive adjective and a noun in Korean sentence processing. Linguistic Research 31(2), 381-402. 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)., * 2012.. ** 1 ***
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 ( ).
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 383 (2), (1), (1) (global ambiguity). (sentence comprehension),. (3),., (3b). (3),.,.. 2,. 3 2. 4 3 5. 2. 한국어형용사와명사의의미통합에대한심리언어학적증거 (2014)., (2014), (4), - - (brain responses) (Event-related brain potentials, ERP ).
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).
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 385 (2014) N400 ERP Prior and Bentin(2006)., Prior and Bentin(2006) - N400, -. - -, N400. (2014).,,,, N400.,, (3b). 1 +.,,,.,,. ( ) N400. (manipulation). 3.
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).. 176 4.
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 387 44 36 44 (fillers). 3.2 오프라인문장수용성평가 (sentence acceptability). 3.1 1 7 ( : 7, : 1), 1. 3.2.1 실험재료 3.1 ( ). 3.2.2 피험자 1 21 (20~26 ) 68 ( 18, 50), 2 21 (20~26 ) 65 ( 38, 27). 3.2.3 실험방법., / ( ). 1 (5a) 1~7, 2 (5b). 4 4
388 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평. (5) a. b.. 3.2.4 가설 SC~ (SCLC, SCLI) SI~ (SILC/SILI). SILC SILI.,, - SILC / SILI. -, SILC SILI.. 3.2.5 실험결과 1, SCLC 5.90, SCLI 5.81, SILC 4.54, SILI 3.76, (SILC, SILI) (SCLC, SCLI) ([ 2] ).
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 389 표 2. 의미적합성판단결과 (scale:1~7) SCLC 5.90 5.84 SCLI 5.81 5.70 SILC 4.54 4.18 SILI 3.76 3.83,. 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,
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), /.
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 391 3.3.1 실험재료 3.1 ( ). 3.3.2 피험자 65.,. 3.3.3 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)...
392 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평.., 10. 4, (pseudorandom). ( 5 ) 3 62. NO, YES. ( vs. ) ( vs. ) (repeated measures 2-way ANOVA). 3.3.4 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.
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 393 R3.,, SILC/SILI SCLC/SCLI.. +.. 1 R4,. R4 SI~ SC~,,. 1 (3c) - -,, [ S [ NP [ A [ N ]] [ V ]].... 1 (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~
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, R7. 3.3.5 실험결과 3.3.5.1 거부율.
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 395 그림 1. 거부율 [ 1]. R3, SCLC SCLI, SILC SILI. (SCLC & SCLI) 1.17%, (SILC & SICL) 17.45% (F(1,61) = 42.216, p <.000) R7. R3 R4, R4 SILC 42.52%, SILI 41.64% (F(1,61) = 131.108, 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 R7 42.216 ** 131.108 ** 46.502 ** 30.160 ** 33.982 **.082.442 2.789 5.740 * 14.046 **.067.841.285 4.795 * 3.625^ ** p <.01 / *:.01 < p <.05 / ^:.05 < p <.07
396 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 3.3.5.2 읽기시간 NO, Yes RT. 그림 2. 영역별 Yes RT 표 5. Yes RT 에대한통계요약 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7.066.025.482 20.976 ** 1.247 1.203.441 1.148.711.091 2.886 2.034.011 1.264 1.852 2.851.724.047.931.781 3.953 * **: p <.01 / *:.01 < p <.05 [ 2] Yes RT., (SILC, SILI) R3 (SCLC, SCLI)
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 397 ( 666.20ms vs. 689.69ms: F(1,61)=.482, n.s) R4 ( 645.69ms vs. 813.88ms: 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
398 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 SILC SILI R7. R7. R3 R4. 2 3. 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 3.3.5.1., - SILC SCLC - SCLI, SILI,., 6 3.2.5.
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,,,.
400 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평,,., (tolerance)..,., (Eye-movement tracking), ERP. 참고문헌 Ferreira, Fernanda, and Charles Jr. Clifton. 1986. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 348 368. Friederici, Angela D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 78 84. Hagoort, Peter. 2003. Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(6): 883-899. Hoeks, John C. J., Laurie A. Stowe, and Gina Doedens. 2004. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 19: 59 73. Hong, Upyong. 2011. Zu neurokognitiven Mechanismen der Sprachverarbeitung: Ein Überblick über die elektrophysiologischen Untersuchungen zum Deutschen. Koreanische Zeitschrift für Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft 23: 245-273.
한국어문장처리에서부가어적형용사와명사의의미통합 401 Jackendoff, Ray and Steven Pinker. 2005. The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language (Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky). Cognition 97(2): 211-225. Kim, Albert and Lee Osterhout. 2005. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 52: 205 225. Kolk, Herman H. J., Dorothee J. Chwilla, Marieke Van Herten, and Patrick J. W. Oor. 2003. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 85: 1 36. Kuperberg, Gina R., Tatiana Sitnikova, David Caplan, and Phillip. J. Holcomb. 2003. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 17: 117 129. Kutas, Marta., and Kara D. Federmeier. 2011. Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP). Annual Reviews of Psycholinguistics 62: 621-647. MacDonald, Maryellen C., Neal J. Pearlmutter, and Mark S. Seidenberg. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101: 676 670. Mauner, Gail, Michael K. Tanenhaus, and Greg N. Carlson. 1995. Implicit Arguments in Sentence Processing. Jounal of Memory and Language 34: 357-382 Nam, Yunju. 2014. Semantic integration in sentence comprehension: An ERP study on Korean, Ph. D. Dissertation, Konkuk University, Seoul, 2014. Prior, Anat and Shlomo Bentin. 2006. Differential integration efforts of mandatory and optional sentence constituents. Psychophysiology 43(5): 440-449. Stroud, Clare and Phillips, Colin. 2012. Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language 120(2): 108-126. Trueswell, John C. and Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1994. 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. 2005. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 22: 241 255.
402 남윤주 정혜인 홍우평 (143-701) 120 E-mail: supia0525@naver.com (143-701) 120 E-mail: 10little@paran.com (143-701) 120 E-mail: uphong@konkuk.ac.kr : 2014. 07. 17 : 2014. 08. 19 : 2014. 08. 19