Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 29:3 (2022) ► pp.274–299

Effects of verb and construction frequency in sentence comprehension

The case of dative constructions in Korean

| Yonsei University
ORCID logo | Palacký University Olomouc
Two theoretical viewpoints provide different explanations about how people extract statistical regularities from input to assess the felicity of verb usage in a sentence. The lexical approach emphasizes the role of verb frequency in determining a verb’s distributional bias within a sentence, whereas the entrenchment hypothesis highlights the conjoined roles of the frequency information from both a verb and an argument structure construction. The present study tests these accounts by investigating Korean speakers’ interpretation of two dative patterns in Korean (Dative–Accusative and Accusative–Accusative). Through the analysis of a large-scale corpus, we calculated the frequency of each dative pattern as well as the frequency of dative verbs occurring therein. Using this information, we conducted an acceptability judgment task with Korean speakers by manipulating the dative type and the verb frequency. The results showed that the speakers’ acceptability rating behavior was affected by the interaction between the verb and construction frequency such that highly entrenched verb–construction combinations were evaluated to be more acceptable. Our finding supports the entrenchment hypothesis that emphasizes the conjoined roles of usage frequency of verbs and constructions in sentence comprehension.
Keywords: constructionist approach, entrenchment, frequency, dative construction, Korean sentence comprehension
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The lexical approach and the entrenchment hypothesis
  • 3.The present study
  • 4.Frequency in language use: Corpus analysis
    • 4.1Target corpus and analysis procedure
    • 4.2Results and discussion
  • 5.Acceptability judgment with reaction time measurement
    • 5.1Methods
      • 5.1.1Participants
      • 5.1.2Material
      • 5.1.3Procedure
      • 5.1.4Analysis
    • 5.2Predictions
    • 5.3Results and discussion
  • 6.General discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 28 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22028.kim
References (64)
References
Allan, Lorraine G. 1980. A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 15(3). 147–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Amy Bidgood, Katherine E. Twomey, Julian M. Pine, Caroline F. Rowland & Daniel Freudenthal. 2015. Preemption versus entrenchment: Towards a construction-general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. PloS one 10(4). 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Julian M. Pine, Caroline F. Rowland & Chris R. Young. 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
Arnon, Inbal & Neal Snider. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1). 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of memory and language 59(4). 390–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencini, Giulia ML & Adele E. Goldberg. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43(4). 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bidgood, Amy, Ben Ambridge, Julian M. Pine & Caroline F. Rowland. 2014. The retreat from locative overgeneralisation errors: A novel verb grammaticality judgement study. PLOS one 9(5). 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1988. The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 87(1). 55–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S. & Patricia J. Brooks. 1995. Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In Michael Tomasello & William E. Merriman (eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children’s acquisition of verbs, 352–376. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cho, Yongjoon & Moongee Jeon. 2015. hankwuke swuyongseng phantanuy silhempangpeplon pikyo yenkwu [A comparative study of acceptability judgement collection methods in Korean]. The Journal of Linguistics Science 721. 397–416.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Choo, Miho. & Hye-Young Kwak. 2008. Using Korean. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2010. Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desagulier, Guillaume. 2016. A lesson from associative learning: asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 12(2). 173–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 188–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Ute Römer & Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2016. Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar (Language Learning Monograph Series). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enochson, Kelly & Jennifer Culbertson. 2015. Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS one 10(3). 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1990. Construction grammar. Course reader for Linguistics 120A. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language 28(4). 435–465. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Healy, A., & Miller, G. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science 201. 372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilbig, Benjamin E. 2016. Reaction time effects in lab-versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods 48(4). 1718–1724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Holger Diessel. 2017. Entrenchment in construction grammar. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 57–74. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Matt A. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2013. Evidence for automatic accessing of constructional meaning: Jabberwocky sentences prime associated verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(10). 1439–1452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Gerry TM Altmann & Sarah L. Haywood. 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
Kim, Youngjin. 1999. The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 141. 687–714. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hyunwoo, Gyu-Ho Shin & Haerim Hwang. 2020. Integration of verbal and constructional information in the second language processing of English dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 42(4). 825–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Hung-gyu, Beom-mo Kang & Jungha Hong. 2007. 21seyki seycongkyeyhoyk hyentaykwuke kichomalmwungchi sengkwawa cenmang [21st century Sejong modern Korean corpora: Results and expectations]. Proceedings of Annual Conference on Human and Language Technology 311. 311–316.Google Scholar
Kim, Jonathan, Ute Gabriel & Pascal Gygax. 2019. Testing the effectiveness of the Internet-based instrument PsyToolkit: A comparison between web-based (PsyToolkit) and lab-based (E-Prime 3.0) measurements of response choice and response time in a complex psycholinguistic task. PLoS One 14(9). 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lachman, Roy, Juliet Popper Shaffer & Deborah Hennrikus. 1974. Language and cognition: Effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(6). 613–625. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2017. Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 39–56. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Tova R. Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. CLS 24 Part 1 1. 275–289.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Ikseop. 2011. kwukehakkaysel [Introduction to Korean linguistics]. Seoul: Hakyensa.Google Scholar
Lee, Yong-hun. 2014. Semantic relations and multiple case constructions: An experimental approach. Linguistic Research 31(2). 213–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, Soojong, Minjung Kwon, Junsu Kim & Hyunki Kim. 2015. ExoBrainul wihan hankwuke uymiyek kaitulain mich malmwungchi kwuchwuk [Korean Proposition Bank Guidelines for ExoBrain]. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference on human & cognitive language technology, 250–254.Google Scholar
Liu, Ho-Ling, Wan-Ting Liao, Shin-Yi Fang, Tieh-Chi Chu & Li Hai Tan. 2004. Correlation between temporal response of fMRI and fast reaction time in a language task. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 22(4). 451–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jeff. 1991. Reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: Bias varies with sample size. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 43(4). 907–912. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Discussion note: Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4). 850–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, Sang-Hee & Eunkyung Yi. 2021. Perception-production asymmetry for Korean double accusative ditransitives. Linguistic Research 38(1). 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, Florent & Adele E. Goldberg. 2017. Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition 1681. 276–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger. 1993. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 1141. 510–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robenalt, Clarice & Adele E. Goldberg. 2015. Judgement 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 26(3). 467–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho. 2020. People also avoid repetition in sentence comprehension: Evidence from multiple postposition constructions in Korean. Linguistics Vanguard 6(1). 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Hyunwoo Kim. 2021. Roles of verb and construction cues: Cross-language comparisons between English and Korean sentence comprehension. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19(2). 332–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Jeong-Ah. 2008. Structural priming in bilingual language processing and second language learning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PhD thesis.
Shin, Jeong-Ah & Kiel Christianson. 2009. Syntactic processing in Korean–English bilingual production: Evidence from cross-linguistic structural priming. Cognition 112(1). 175–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, Seo-in. 2016. A study on the functions of eul/reul through examining double accusative constructions: focusing on transitivity. URIMALGEUL: The Korean Language and Literature 681. 1–35.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Jon Sprouse. 2014. Judgement data. In Robert J. Podesva & Devyani Sharma (eds.), Research Methods in Linguistics, 27–50. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sohn, Ho Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael J. & Michael K. Tanenhaus. 1998. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24(6). 1521–1543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C. 1996. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35(4). 566–585. 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
Yoon, James Hye Sook. 2015. Double nominative and double accusative constructions. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 79–97. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lee, Chanyoung, Gyu-Ho Shin & Boo Kyung Jung
2023. How ‘good-enough’ is second language comprehension? Morphological causative and suffixal passive constructions in Korean. Applied Linguistics Review 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.