본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

The role of non-syntactic factors in the production and processing of English relative clauses by Korean EFL learners: A L2 corpus-based approach

1

조회

0

다운로드

1

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류언어학

초록

There have been a growingnumber of corpus studies exploring the role of linguistic experience or input in sentenceprocessing. Previous studies have used frequencies in first language (L1) corpora torepresent the input of second language (L2) learners, but it has been claimed that L2output as well as L1 output contribute to L2 acquisition and processing (Ellis 2002;Ellis and Collins 2009; Ellis and Wulff 2020). By analyzing an L2 corpus produced byKorean adult learners of English, this paper aims to establish more accurate input forL2 learners and investigate why Korean adult learners of English are sensitive to nounanimacy and topicality in processing English relative clauses, as native speakers ofEnglish are. The results of the L2 corpus analysis reveal that object and subject relativeclauses display different distributional patterns with respect to head noun animacy,embedded noun animacy, and the topicality of the embedded NP due to their strongtendency to have unmarked subjects and objects in terms of animacy and topicality. This paper proposes that the experience of subjecthood and objecthood, which arecrosslinguistically associated with noun animacy and topicality, plays a role in producingand processing relative clauses in L2 which is syntactically different from the nativelanguage of L2 speakers. In addition, I discuss that some processing differences betweenL1 and L2 can arise due to L2 learners’ experience with their native language.

Abstract

There have been a growingnumber of corpus studies exploring the role of linguistic experience or input in sentenceprocessing. Previous studies have used frequencies in first language (L1) corpora torepresent the input of second language (L2) learners, but it has been claimed that L2output as well as L1 output contribute to L2 acquisition and processing (Ellis 2002;Ellis and Collins 2009; Ellis and Wulff 2020). By analyzing an L2 corpus produced byKorean adult learners of English, this paper aims to establish more accurate input forL2 learners and investigate why Korean adult learners of English are sensitive to nounanimacy and topicality in processing English relative clauses, as native speakers ofEnglish are. The results of the L2 corpus analysis reveal that object and subject relativeclauses display different distributional patterns with respect to head noun animacy,embedded noun animacy, and the topicality of the embedded NP due to their strongtendency to have unmarked subjects and objects in terms of animacy and topicality. This paper proposes that the experience of subjecthood and objecthood, which arecrosslinguistically associated with noun animacy and topicality, plays a role in producingand processing relative clauses in L2 which is syntactically different from the nativelanguage of L2 speakers. In addition, I discuss that some processing differences betweenL1 and L2 can arise due to L2 learners’ experience with their native language.

참고문헌 (59)

  1. Ai, Chunrung, "Interaction terms in logit and probit models", Economics Letters, 80(1), pp.123~129 (2003)
  2. Aissen, Judith, "Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 17(4), pp.673~711 (1999)
  3. Aissen, Judith, "Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy", Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), pp.435~483 (2003)
  4. (2020)[URL]
  5. Baek, Soondo, "Processing of English relative clauses by adult L2 learners", PhD, pp.2012
  6. Bates, Douglas, "Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4", Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), pp.1~48 (2015)
  7. Bossong, Georg, "New analyses in Romance linguistics: Selected papers from the XVIII linguistic symposium on Romance languages", pp.143~170 (1991), John Benjamins Publishing Company
  8. Choe, Jinsun, "Pronoun advantage in L2 relative clause processing", Proceeding of the 44th Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp.105~113 (2020), Cascadilla Press
  9. Comrie Bernard, "Language universals and linguistic typology" (1989), University of Chicago Press
  10. Dixon, Robert, "Ergativity", Language, 55(1), pp.59~138 (1979)
  11. Dixon, Robert, "Ergativity" (1994), Cambridge University Press
  12. Ellis, Nick, "Frequency effect in language processing : A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition", Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), pp.143~188 (2002)
  13. Ellis, Nick, "Input and second language acquisition : The roles of frequency, form, and function introduction to the special issue", Modern Language Journal, 93(3), pp.329~335 (2009)
  14. Ellis, Nick, "Theories in second language acquisition:An introduction", pp.63~82 (2020), Routledge
  15. "Effect displays for linear, generalized linear, and other models" (2022)[URL]
  16. Gennari, Silvia, "Semantic indeterminacy in object relative clauses", Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), pp.161~187 (2008)
  17. Gennari, Silvia, "Linking production and comprehension processes : The case of relative clauses", Cognition, 111(1), pp.1~23 (2009)
  18. Gibson, Edward, "Linguistic complexity : Locality and syntactic dependencies", Cognition, 68(1), pp.1~76 (1998)
  19. Gibson, Edward, "Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium", pp.95~126 (2000), MIT Press
  20. Gordon, Peter, "Relativization, ergativity, and corpus frequency", Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), pp.456~463 (2005)
  21. Gries, Stefan, "The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics : Multi-level(and mixed-effects)models", Corpora, 10(1), pp.95~125 (2015)
  22. Grodner, Daniel, "Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input", Cognitive Science, 29(2), pp.261~291 (2005)
  23. Gundel, Jeanette, "Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse", Language, 69(2), pp.274~307 (1993)
  24. Hothorn, Torsten, "partykit : A modular toolkit for recursive partytioning in R", Journal of Machine Learning Research, 16(118), pp.3905~3909 (2015)
  25. "ctree: Conditional inference trees, Vignette R package partykit version 1.1-1" (2019)[URL]
  26. Hsiao, Yaling, "Experience and generalization in a connectionist model of Mandarin Chinese relative clause processing", Frontiers in Psychology, 4, pp.767~ (2013)
  27. Kang, Sooyeon, "A corpus-based study on the use of English relative clauses by Korean EFL learners of different proficiency", The Journal of Asia TEFL, 19(1), pp.1~16 (2022)
  28. Kang, Soyeon, "The role of syntactic and semantic information in the frequency distribution of relative clauses in Korean : A corpus-based analysis", Language Information, 19, pp.5~32 (2014)
  29. Keenan, Edward, "Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar", Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1), pp.63~99 (1977)
  30. Kim, Hyunwoo, "The effects of accessibility of English reference in Korean EFL learners’sentence processing", ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(1), pp.78~97 (2016)
  31. Kim, Kitaek, "Selected Proceedings of the 2011Second Language Research Forum", pp.118~128 (2013), Cascadilla Proceedings Project
  32. Kim, Taeho, "Subject and object markings in conversational Korean", PhD, pp.2008
  33. Lee, Hanjung, "Parallel optimization in case systems : Evidence from case ellipsis in Korean", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 15, pp.69~96 (2006)
  34. Lee, Hanjung, "Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis : Economy versus iconicity", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 19, pp.291~318 (2010)
  35. Lee, Hanjung, "Information structure, topic predictability and gradients in Korean case ellipsis : A probabilistic account", Linguistic Research, 32(3), pp.749~771 (2015)
  36. Lee, Jeongjun, "A syntactic analysis of English relative clauses used by Korean EFL Speakers : A corpus-based study", English 21, 30(3), pp.219~245 (2017)
  37. Levy, Roger, "Probabilistic methods in linguistics. Lecture 14: Logistic regression", University of California San Diego, ~ (2012)
  38. MacDonald, Maryellen, "The emergence of language", pp.177~196 (1999), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers
  39. MacDonald, Maryellen, "How language production shapes language form and comprehension", Frontiers in Psychology, 4, pp.226~ (2013)[DOI]
  40. MacDonald, Maryellen, "The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution", Psychological Review, 101(4), pp.676~703 (1994)
  41. Mak, Willem, "The influence of animacy on relative clause processing", Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), pp.50~68 (2002)
  42. Mak, Willem, "Animacy in processing relative clauses : The hikers that rocks crush", Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), pp.466~490 (2006)
  43. Manning, Christopher, "Logistic regression (with R)", Stanford University, ~ (2007)
  44. Monteiro, Kátia, "In search of new benchmarks : Using L2 lexical frequency and contextual diversity indices to assess second language writing", Applied Linguistics, 41(2), pp.280~300 (2020)
  45. Mulkern, Ann E., "Reference and referent accessibility", pp.235~250 (1996), John Benjamins Publishing Company
  46. Norton, Edward, "Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models", Stata Journal, 4(2), pp.154~167 (2004)
  47. Ortega, Lourdes, "The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence", pp.50~76 (2016), Cambridge University Press
  48. "R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing" (2023)[URL]
  49. Reali, Florencia, "Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence", Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), pp.1~23 (2007)
  50. Roland, Douglas, "Frequency of basic English grammatical structures : A corpus analysis", Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), pp.348~379 (2007)
  51. Roland, Douglas, "Discourse expectations and relative clause processing", Journal of Memory and Language, 66(3), pp.479~508 (2012)
  52. Shin, Keun Young, "An expectation-based account for the processing difficulty of it object-extracted relative clauses", Korean Journal of Linguistics, 44(4), pp.807~829 (2019)
  53. Shin, Keun Young, "Non-linear interactions of factors influencing relative clause distribution and their implications on relative clause processing", Korean Journal of Linguistics, 45(4), pp.919~940 (2020)
  54. Shin, Keun Young, "An integrated interaction of multiple linguistic factors in logistic regression models : Comparison with tree models", The Journal of Studies in Language, 37(3), pp.291~305 (2021)
  55. Silverstein, Michael, "Grammatical categories in Australian languages", pp.112~171 (1976), Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies
  56. Sung, HyunMi, "A study on the use of English relative clauses in Korean EFL learners’writing", English Language Teaching, 26(1), pp.65~83 (2014)
  57. Traxler, Matthew, "Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses", Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), pp.204~224 (2005)
  58. Traxler, Matthew, "Processing subject and object relative clauses : Evidence from eye movements", Journal of Memory and Language, 47(1), pp.69~90 (2002)
  59. Warren, Tessa, "The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity", Cognition, 85(1), pp.79~112 (2002)

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)