영어 초점사 only의 중의성에 대한 한국인 영어 학습자의 이해 선호도에 관한 연구
A study on Korean EFL learners’ interpretive preferences regarding focus ambiguity of only
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study examines Korean EFL learners’ interpretations of ambiguous focuses in sentences with preverbal only (e.g., Max only carries the stones). Ambiguous sentences containing preverbal only are known to evoke three possible meanings depending on which of the following its scope is assigned to: a noun phrase (NP) as a direct object, a verb (V) or a verb phrase (VP). To investigate which default meaning is preferred in the comprehension of preverbal only, forty four Korean EFL learners and ten native English speakers participated in the study using a sentence completion task which differed from a picture-based Truth-value Judgment Task used in previous studies. Participants were asked to read a background story followed by a sentence with preverbal only and then fill in the blank in a following sentence with NP, V or VP contrast information depending on their preferred interpretation. As a result, Korean EFL learners as well as native English speakers were found to prefer the NP-focused interpretation as the default meaning. These results are discussed in relation to methodological issues and sentence processing principles.
Abstract
This study examines Korean EFL learners’ interpretations of ambiguous focuses in sentences with preverbal only (e.g., Max only carries the stones). Ambiguous sentences containing preverbal only are known to evoke three possible meanings depending on which of the following its scope is assigned to: a noun phrase (NP) as a direct object, a verb (V) or a verb phrase (VP). To investigate which default meaning is preferred in the comprehension of preverbal only, forty four Korean EFL learners and ten native English speakers participated in the study using a sentence completion task which differed from a picture-based Truth-value Judgment Task used in previous studies. Participants were asked to read a background story followed by a sentence with preverbal only and then fill in the blank in a following sentence with NP, V or VP contrast information depending on their preferred interpretation. As a result, Korean EFL learners as well as native English speakers were found to prefer the NP-focused interpretation as the default meaning. These results are discussed in relation to methodological issues and sentence processing principles.
참고문헌 (15)
- Crain, S., "Perspectives on sentence processing", pp.443~466 (1994), Lawrence Erlbaum
- Frazier, L., "Taking on semantic commitments, II: Collective versus distributive readings", Cognition, 70(1), pp.87~104 (1999)
- Johnson-Laird, P. N., "Mental models" (1983), Harvard University Press
- 김소영, "The Interpretation of Focus Ambiguity in Sentences with English Focus Particle only", 언어연구, 27(1), pp.23~45 (2011), 한국현대언어학회[DOI]
- 김소영, "The Resolution of Focus Ambiguity of only in L2 Acquisition", 언어과학연구, (62), pp.41~58 (2012), 언어과학회
- König, E., "The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective" (1991), Routledge
- Matsuoka, K., "The acquisition of Japanese focus particles: Dake (only) and mo (also)", Poster session presented at the 30th annual Boston University conference on language development (2005)
- Notley, A., "Children’s interpretation of focus expressions in English and Mandarin", Language Acquisition, 16(4), pp.240~282 (2009)
- Paterson, K, "Children’s comprehension of sentences with focus particles", Cognition, 89(3), pp.263~294 (2003)
- Paterson, K., "Children’s interpretation of ambiguous focus in sentences with ‘‘only’’", Language Acquisition, 13(3), pp.253~284 (2006)
- Reinhart, T., "Interface strategies: Reference-set computation" (2006), MIT Press
- Rooth, M., "A theory of focus interpretation", Natural Language Semantics, 1(1), pp.75~116 (1992)
- Ross, J. R., "Like syntax", Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett, pp.343~418 (1979), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
- Sedivy, J. C., "Invoking discourse-based contrast sets and resolving syntactic ambiguities", Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), pp.341~370 (2002)
- Yamamoto, M., "Animacy and reference" (1999), John Benjamins