Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 19:2 (2021) ► pp.332–362

Roles of verb and construction cues

Cross-language comparisons between English and Korean sentence comprehension

| Palacký University Olomouc
| Yonsei University
This study investigates how speakers of English and Korean, two typologically distinct languages, derive information from a verb and a construction to achieve sentence comprehension. In a sentence-sorting task, we manipulated verb semantics (real versus nonce) in each language. The results showed that participants from both languages were less inclined to sort sentences by a verb cue when the lexical-semantic information about a verb was obscured (i.e., nonce verb). In addition, the Korean-speaking participants were less likely affected by the verb semantics conditions than the English-speaking participants. These findings suggest the role of an argument structure construction in sentence comprehension as a co-contributor of sentence meaning, supporting the constructionist approach. The findings also imply language-specific mechanisms of sentence comprehension, contingent upon the varied impact of a verb on sentence meaning in English and Korean.
Keywords: sentence comprehension, argument structure construction, sentence sorting, cross-linguistic analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Lexical approach
    • 2.2Constructionist approach
    • 2.3Typological differences between English and Korean
  • 3.Present study
  • 4.Methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Stimuli
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Data coding and analysis
    • 4.5Predictions
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 11 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00087.shi
References (75)
References
Ahrens, K. V. (1995). The mental representation of verbs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Allen, K., Pereira, F., Botvinick, M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis. Brain and Language, 1231, 174–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T. (1999). Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 411, 124–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, G. T., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 731, 247–264. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: Linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 571, 502–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition, 1061, 87–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2013). The ontological status of constructions in the mind of Italian university learners of English: Psycholinguistic evidence from a sentence-sorting experiment. In L. D. Michele (Ed.), Regenerating Community, Territory, Voices (pp. 12–24). Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Kristoffersen, K. E., & Sveen, A. (2011). West Scandinavian ditransitives as a family of constructions: With a special attention to the Norwegian ‘V-REFL-NP’ construction. Linguistics, 491, 53–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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, 681, 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G. M., & Goldberg, A. E. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Ziem, A. (2018). Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In M. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 81, 500–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Childers, J. B., & Paik, J. H. (2009). Korean-and English-speaking children use cross-situational information to learn novel predicate terms. Journal of Child Language, 361, 201–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Y., & Trueswell, J. C. (2010). Children’s (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1061, 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2016). A construction-based study of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 53–88). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved at [URL] on 12-JUN-2020.
Du Bois, J. W. (2003). Argument structure. In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf, & W. J. Ashby (Eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function (pp. 11–60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Everitt, B. S., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster Analysis (5th edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 231, 331–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Kim, S. K., Choo, H., Ghio, A., Herschensohn, J., & Koh, S. (2019). Look and listen! The online processing of Korean case by native and non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(3), 385–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D., & Weissenborn, J. (2007). Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax–semantic interface. Brain Research, 11461, 50–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Pearlmuttter, N. J., Myers, E., & Lotocky, M. A. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 371, 58–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013a). Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind and Language, 281, 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Constructionist approach. In G. Trousdale & T. Hoffmann (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain me this. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., & Markman, A. B. (2009). Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension. Cognitive Linguistics, 201, 675–702. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healy, A., & Miller, G. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 201, 372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hwang, H., & Kaiser, E. (2014). The role of the verb in grammatical function assignment in English and Korean. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 401, 1363–1376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 511, 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 281, 1439–1452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kako, E. (2006). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition, 1011, 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kako, E., & Wagner, L. (2001). The semantics of syntactic structures. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 51, 102–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 491, 133–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 508–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., & Grüter, T. (2019). Cross-linguistic activation of implicit causality biases in Korean learners of English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 22(3), 441–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., & Rah, Y. (2016). Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal, 100(3), 716–731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Constructional processing in a second language: The role of constructional knowledge in verb-construction integration. Language Learning, 69(4), 1022–1056. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H., Shin, G-H., & Hwang, H. (2020). Cross-linguistic influence in the second language integration of verb and construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 421, 825–847. DOI logo
Kim, J-B. (2016). The syntactic structures of Korean: A construction grammar perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, J-B., & Choi, I. (2004). The Korean case system: A unified, constraint-based approach. Language Research, 40(4), 885–921.Google Scholar
Kim, J. B., & Sells, P. (2010). Oblique case marking on core arguments in Korean. Studies in Language, 34(3), 602–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. (2016). A contrastive analysis of English and Korean news headlines. Studies in Linguistics, 411, 25–48.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (1999). The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 141, 687–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity in the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liang, J. (2002). Sentence comprehension by Chinese learners of English: Verb-centered or construction-based. Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdong.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 1011, 676–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mantel, N. (1967). The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research, 271, 209–220.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 121, 137–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miyamoto, E. T. (2002). Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 311, 307–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolan, B. (2013). Constructions as grammatical objects. In B. Nolan & E. Diedrichsen (Eds.), Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar (pp. 143–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W. D. (1991). Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean (Vol. 711). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 231, 601–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 1341, 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Robenalt, C., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics, 261, 467–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, G-H. (2018). Event structure composition in Korean verbless constructions by particles and verbal nouns: Evidence from newspaper headlines. Journal of Language Sciences, 25(3), 403–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Connecting input to comprehension: First language acquisition of active transitives and suffixal passives by Korean-speaking preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Sohn, H. M. (1999). The Korean Language. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T., & Kobayashi, T. (2017). Syntactic cues for inferences about causality in language acquisition: Evidence from an argument-drop language. Language Learning and Development, 131, 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 351, 566–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, K. Rayner & L. Frazier (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155–179). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Västi, K., & Kittilä, S. (2014). Semantic roles and verbless constructions: A Finnish challenge for verb-centered approaches. Studies in Language, 38(3), 512–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). German-speaking children’s productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: Local cues act locally. First Language, 251, 103–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yong, N., & Lee, M. (2012). Semantic effects of a pre-verbal argument on the online processing of Korean sentences: An eye-tracking study. Korean Journal of Linguistics, 371, 639–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1231, 162–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Liu, Yingying & Kevin McManus
2023. Investigating the psychological reality of argument structure constructions and N1 of N2 constructions: a comparison between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Cognitive Linguistics 34:3-4 ► pp. 503 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Hyunwoo & Gyu-Ho Shin
2022. Effects of verb and construction frequency in sentence comprehension. Functions of Language 29:3 ► pp. 274 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.