All Issue

2018 Vol.34, Issue 3 Preview Page

Research Article

English Island Constraints by Natives and Korean Non-natives
Yong-hun Lee, Yeonkyung Park
30 November 2018. pp. 439-455
PDF Citation
Abstract
This paper examined how native English speakers (NS) and non-native Korean speakers (NNS) processed English island sentences differently, by taking an experimental design and its statistical analysis. Sprouse et al. (2012) demonstrated that NS identified four types of island sentences (Whether, Complex NP, Subject, and Adjunct) in their language. Kim (2015), on the other hand, adopted the similar method and observed that Korean NNS did not identify two island constraints (Complex NP and Adjunct islands). This study performed similar experiments in previous studies but it adopted the magnitude estimation (ME) method, rather than the Likert scale. The target sentences came from Sprouse et al. (2012), and the same set of sentences were used for both American NS and Korean NNS. A total of 100 students participated in the experiment respectively, and the acceptability scores were gauged with the ME method. Then, the collected data were analyzed with a generalized linear model (GLM). Through the experiments, the followings were found: (i) Korean NNS identified all of the four types of island constraints in English and (ii) DD-scores of Korean NNS were smaller than those of American NS. (Chungnam National University · Hannam University)
Keywords
island constraints
American native speakers
Korean non-native speakers
magnitude estimation
generalized linear model
References
  1. Agresti, A. 2007. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  2. Agresti, A. 2010. Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9780470594001
  3. Bard, E., D. Robertson, and A. Sorace, 1996. Magnitude Estimation of Linguistic Acceptability. Language 72, 32-68.10.2307/416793
  4. Chomsky, N. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In Stephen, A. and P. Kiparsky (eds.) A festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 232-286.
  5. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  6. Chung, D. 2005. Why is How in Korean Insensitive to Islands?: A Revised Nominal Analysis. Studies in Modern Grammar 39, 115-131.
  7. Cowart, W. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  8. Gravetter, F. and L. Wallnau. 2013. Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. 9th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
  9. Han, J. 1992. Syntactic Movement Analysis of Korean Relativization. Language Research 28, 335-357.
  10. Hawkins, R. and H. Hattori. 2006. Interpretation of English Multiple Wh-questions by Japanese Speakers: A Missing Uninterpretable Feature Account. Second Language Research 22, 269-301.10.1191/0267658306sr269oa
  11. Hong, S. 2004. On the Lack of Syntactic Effects in Korean Wh-Questions. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal 12.3, 43-57.
  12. Hwang, H. 2007. Wh-phrase Questions and Prosody in Korean. Proceedings of the 17th Japanese-Korean Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  13. Johnson, J. and E. Newport. 1991. Critical Period Effects on Universal Properties of Language: The Status of Subjacency in the Acquisition of a Second Language. Cognition 39.3, 215-258.10.1016/0010-0277(91)90054-8
  14. Johnson, K. 2008. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  15. Kang, Y. 1986. Korean Syntax and Universal Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
  16. Keller, F. 2000. Gradient in Grammar: Experimental and Computational Aspects of Degrees of Grammaticality. Doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
  17. Kim, B. 2015. Sensitivity to Islands in Korean-English Bilinguals. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.
  18. Kim, H. 2015. Aspects of Sentence Processing Island Structures in English by Korean Learners of English. MA thesis. Dongkuk University.
  19. Kim, I. 2013. Rethinking ‘Island Effects’ in Korean Relativization. Language Sciences 38, 59-82.10.1016/j.langsci.2013.01.003
  20. Lee, H. 1982. Asymmetry in Island Constrains in Korean, ms., University of California at Los Angeles.
  21. Lee, Y. 2016. Corpus Linguistics and Statistics Using R. Seoul: Hankuk Publishing Co.
  22. Lodge, M. 1981. Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.10.4135/9781412984874 PMC216236
  23. Maxwell, S. and H. Delaney. 2003. Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Odlin, T. 1989. Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524537
  25. Odlin, T. 2003. Cross-linguistic Influence. In Catherine, D. and M. Long (eds.) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, New York: Blackwell, 436-386.10.1002/9780470756492.ch15
  26. Park, B. 2001. Island-insensitive Sluicing. Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics 9, 669-682.
  27. Park, B. 2009. Island Sensitivity in Ellipsis and Its Implications for Movement. Studies in Generative Grammar 19.4, 599-620.10.15860/sigg.19.4.200911.599
  28. Park, Yeonkyung and Lee, Yong-hun. 2018. English Island Sentences by Korean EFL Learners. English Language and Linguistics 24.1, 153-172.
  29. R Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
  30. Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  31. Ross, J. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  32. Schachter, J. 1990. On the Issue of Completeness in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research 6.2, 93-124.
  33. Schütze, C. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Selinker, L. 1969. Language Transfer. General Linguistics 9.2, 67-92.
  35. Sohn, H. 1980. Theme-prominence in Korean. Korean Linguistics 2, 2-19.10.1075/kl.2.01hms
  36. Sprouse, J, M. Wagers, and C. Phillips. 2012. A Test of the Relation between Working Memory Capacity and Syntactic Island Effects. Language 88, 82-123.10.1353/lan.2012.000410.1353/lan.2012.0029
  37. Sprouse, J. 2008. Magnitude Estimation and the Non-Linearity of Acceptability Judgments. In Abner, N. and J. Bishop (eds.) Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 397-403.
  38. Stevenson, S. 1975. Psycholinguistics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural, and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.
  39. Suh, C. 1987. Wh-constructions in Korean. Seoul: Top Press.
  40. White, L. and A. Juffs. 1998. Constraints on wh-movement in Two Different Contexts of Nonnative Language Acquisition: Competence and Processing. In Flynn, S., G. Martohardjono, and W. O'Neil (eds.) The Generative Study of Second Language Acquisition, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 111-129.
  41. White, L. and F. Genesee. 1996. How Native is Near-native? The Issue of Ultimate Attainment in Adult Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research 12.3, 233-265.10.1177/026765839601200301
  42. Yoon, J. 2011. Wh-island Effects of Wh-in-situ Questions in Korean. Studies in Generative Grammar 21.4, 763-778.10.15860/sigg.21.4.201112.763
  43. Yoon, J. 2012. Wh-island Effects in Korean Wh-in-situ Questions. Korean Journal of Linguistics 37.2, 357-382.10.18855/lisoko.2012.37.2.006
Information
  • Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
  • Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
  • Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
  • Volume : 34
  • No :3
  • Pages :439-455
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.3.201811.439
Journal Informaiton The Journal of Studies in Language The Journal of Studies in Language
E-Book
  • NRF
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close