Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vsgnj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T06:44:03.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

34 - Korean sentence processing

from Part II - Language processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Chungmin Lee
Affiliation:
Seoul National University
Greg B. Simpson
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Youngjin Kim
Affiliation:
Ajou University, Republic of Korea
Ping Li
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

One of the most important issues in the study of language processing concerns the universality of sentence processing strategies across different languages (e.g. Hillert, 1998; de Vincenzi, 2000). As all researchers agree, if the goal of psycholinguistics is to study the human sentence processor and not the sentence processing mechanisms of a specific language, the test of universality is not an option but a necessary condition for evaluating various models of sentence processing.

Crosslinguistic comparisons of sentence processing can be attempted from two different perspectives. One is the universality hypothesis. It argues that there are universal processing strategies that apply to all languages, because processing strategies are independent of specific languages and are based on cognitive universals. The strategies or principles that could be considered as being universal are minimal attachment and late closure (Frazier, 1987;) as well as the minimal chain principle (de Vincenzi, 1991). These principles are assumed to operate in all languages, with only the ‘vocabulary,’ i.e. lexical items and specific grammar, differing across languages.

Another reason to do crosslinguistic studies might be the expectation that different languages show different processing strategies, under an assumption that parsing strategies are a reflection of language-specific characteristics and a by-product of exposure to a given language. Some processing strategies may not be universal but are instead language specific or parameterized (e.g. Mazuka, 1998). So, there is no need, at least in principle, to test the same strategy in different languages.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×