Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 29:3 (2022) ► pp.274–299

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Effects of verb and construction frequency in sentence comprehension

The case of dative constructions in Korean

 | Yonsei University
ORCiD logo with link | Palacký University Olomouc
Published online: 28 October 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22028.kim
Abstract
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.
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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Neal Snider. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1). 67–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects and the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choo, Miho. & Hye-Young Kwak. 2008. Using Korean. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2010. Naive v. expert intuitions: An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The Linguistic Review 27(1). 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Enochson, Kelly & Jennifer Culbertson. 2015. Collecting psycholinguistic response time data using Amazon Mechanical Turk. PloS one 10(3). 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1990. Construction grammar. Course reader for Linguistics 120A. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language 28(4). 435–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Healy, A., & Miller, G. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science 201. 372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hilbig, Benjamin E. 2016. Reaction time effects in lab-versus Web-based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research Methods 48(4). 1718–1724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Youngjin. 1999. The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 141. 687–714. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Irregularity in syntax. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Tova R. Rapoport. 1988. Lexical Subordination. CLS 24 Part 11. 275–289.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Ikseop. 2011. kwukehakkaysel [Introduction to Korean linguistics]. Seoul: Hakyensa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Yong-hun. 2014. Semantic relations and multiple case constructions: An experimental approach. Linguistic Research 31(2). 213–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Discussion note: Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4). 850–883. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, Sang-Hee & Eunkyung Yi. 2021. Perception-production asymmetry for Korean double accusative ditransitives. Linguistic Research 38(1). 27–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ratcliff, Roger. 1993. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin 1141. 510–532. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sohn, Ho Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2). 209–243. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C. 1996. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35(4). 566–585. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Domazetoska, Ivana & Helen Zhao
2025. Distributional Cues in Construction Acquisition: A Comparative Study of Native and Nonnative English Speakers Using the As‐Predicative Construction. Language Learning DOI logo
Lee, Chanyoung, Gyu-Ho Shin & Boo Kyung Jung
2024. How ‘good-enough’ is second language comprehension? Morphological causative and suffixal passive constructions in Korean. Applied Linguistics Review 15:6 ► pp. 2685 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue