Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 25, No. 0, pp.1214-1231
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 10 Jun 2025 Revised 18 Jul 2025 Accepted 19 Aug 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202508.1214

Syntactic Sensitivity to Binomial Each in Korean Learners of English

Jihyun Kim ; Wooseung Lee ; Myung-Kwan Park
(First author) Lecturer, Department of English Education Korea University jihyunkim@korea.ac.kr
(Second author) Professor, Department of English Education Konkuk University wlee6@konkuk.ac.kr
(Corresponding author) Professor, Division of English Language and Literature Dongguk University parkmk@dongguk.edu


© 2025 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study examines Korean learners’ sensitivity to the syntactic licensing conditions underlying Binomial each (BE) constructions, a domain that critically involves C-command relations for grammatical acceptability. In BE constructions, correct interpretation requires recognizing that the distributive quantifier each must be properly C-commanded by its antecedent. When such structures appear in ellipsis contexts such as sluicing, where parts of the sentence are missing, recovering the correct syntactic configuration becomes even more challenging. Building on theoretical distinctions between structural and non-structural approaches to ellipsis, the study employed a Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT) to assess learners’ sensitivity to C-command relations across fully-fledged declarative and sluicing sentences. Data were collected from 61 Korean L2 learners of English and 38 native English speakers. Three main findings emerged. First, L2 learners exhibited reduced structural sensitivity compared to native speakers, even when full syntactic information was available. Second, sensitivity weakened further in sluicing contexts, suggesting increased reliance on semantic plausibility when structural cues were absent. Third, proficiency modulated structural sensitivity: high-proficiency learners showed greater awareness of syntactic constraints, although their performance did not fully approximate native-like patterns. These results indicate that while L2 learners develop some structural competence, their ability to coordinate syntactic and discourse-level information during ellipsis resolution remains less stable. The findings highlight persistent challenges in acquiring syntax-discourse interface phenomena in a second language.

Keywords:

Ellipsis, Binomial each, C-command, L2 syntax, sluicing

References

  • Barss, A. 1986. Chains and Anaphoric Dependence: On Reconstruction and Its Implications. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Boeckx, C. and N. Hornstein. 2005. A gap in the ECM restructuring picture. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4), 437-441. [https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389054396926]
  • Chomsky, N. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In K. Hale and S. J. Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20, 1-52. MIT Press.
  • Chung, S., W. A. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3(3), 239-282. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248819]
  • Clahsen, H. and C. Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1), 3-42. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060024]
  • Culicover, P. W. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001]
  • Dussias, P. E. and T. R. Cramer Scaltz. 2008. Spanish-English L2 speakers’ use of subcategorization bias information in the resolution of temporary ambiguity during second language reading. Acta Psychologica 128, 501-513 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.09.004]
  • Felser, C. 2019. Structure-sensitive Constraints in Non-native Sentence processing. Journal of the European Second Language Association 3(1), 12-22. [https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.52]
  • Fiengo, R. and R. May. 1994. Indices and Identity. MIT Press.
  • Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. CSLI Publications.
  • Hankamer, J. 1979. Deletion in Coordinate Structures. Garland Publishing.
  • Hardt, D. 1993. Verb Phrase Ellipsis: Form, Meaning, and Processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Hornstein, N. 1984. Logic as Grammar: An Approach to Meaning in Natural Language. MIT Press. [https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4287.001.0001]
  • Kim, H. 2023. Understanding Ellipsis: Internal Structure, Connectivity Effects, and Incremental Processing. Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
  • Lasnik, H. 2001. When can you save a structure by destroying it? In M. Kim and U. Strauss, eds., The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 301-320. MIT Press.
  • Lobeck, A. C. 1995. Ellipsis: Functional Heads, Licensing, and Identification. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195091816.001.0001]
  • Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001]
  • O’Grady, W. 1997. Syntactic Development. University of Chicago Press.
  • Omaki, A. and B. Schulz. 2011. Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(4), 563-588. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000313]
  • Pan, H.-Y. and C. Felser. 2011. Referential context effects in L2 ambiguity resolution: Evidence from self-paced reading. Lingua 121, 221-236. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.08.003]
  • Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of Binding Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2), 261-303.
  • Reinhart, T. 1976. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Reinhart, T. 1983. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. Croom Helm.
  • Reinhart, T. and E. Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24(4), 657-720.
  • Ross, J. R. 1969. Guess who? In R. Binnick et al., eds., Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252-286. Chicago Linguistic Society.
  • Sag, I. A. 1976. Deletion and Logical Form. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  • Safir, K. and T. Stowell. 1987. Binominal each. In Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 18, 426-450.
  • Slabakova, R. 2006. Is there a critical period for semantics? Second Language Research 22(4), 302-338. [https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658306sr270oa]
  • Yoon, J. 1990. Case, permissive constructions, and specificity in Korean. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics III.
  • Yoshida, M., M. W. Dickey and P. Sturt. 2013. Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and binding. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3), 299-326. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.622905]