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.856-875
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2025
Received 10 Jun 2024 Revised 21 Apr 2025 Accepted 13 May 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.25..202506.856

Online Processing of Aspectual Coercion in English and Korean: Comparisons Between L1 Speakers and Korean Learners of English

Jeonghwa Cho ; Jeong-Ah Shin
(First author) Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Hongik University jhcho@hongik.ac.kr
(Corresponding author) Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Dongguk University jashin@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

It has been argued that the combination of semelfactive verbs and durational modifiers such as in the baby hiccupped for an hour causes an aspectual mismatch, and therefore additional processing time is necessary to reanalyze the event as iterative (e.g., Brennan and Pylkkänen 2008, Piñango et al. 1999, 2006, Todorova et al. 2000). This process of reinterpretation is called aspectual coercion. The current study investigates whether this process proceeds in the same manner in Korean and English with Korean and English monolinguals and further tests processing of English aspectual coercion by Korean learners of English. Experiment 1 examines online and offline processing of aspectual coercion in Korean. Results show that aspectually coerced sentences are processed faster than control sentences and are also rated to be more natural. Experiment 2 investigates the same structure in English with Korean learners of English and English native speakers. Both groups did not slow down in processing aspectually coerced sentences compared to control sentences although coerced sentences were rated to be less natural in the offline measure. In summary, the current study shows that aspectual coercion is processed differently in the two languages. However, despite such differences in the L1 and L2, Korean learners of English behave similarly to English native speakers in processing English aspectual coercion both in online and offline measures.

Keywords:

self-paced reading, English, Korean, language learning, acceptability judgment

References

  • Bates, D., M. Machler, B. Bolker and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1), 1-48. [https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01]
  • Brennan, J. and L. Pylkkänen. 2008. Processing events: Behavioral and neuromagnetic correlates of aspectual coercion. Brain and Language 106(2), 132-143. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2008.04.003]
  • Chan, H. L. 2013. Aspectual coercion in non-native speakers of English. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35.
  • Christianson, K. 2016. When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5), 817-828. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603]
  • Drummond, A. D. 2013. Ibexfarm. https://spellout.net/ibexfarm/
  • Ferreira, F., K. G. Bailey and V. Ferraro. 2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11(1), 11-15. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00158]
  • Ferreira, F. and N. D. Patson. 2007. The ‘good enough’ approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1/1-2,71-83. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x]
  • Frazier, R. and K. Rayner. 1990. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 29(2), 181-200. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7]
  • Gabriele, A. 2008. Calculating telicity in native and non-native English. In R. Slabakova, J. Rothman, P. Kempchinsky and E. Gavruseva, eds., Proceedings of the 9th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 37-46. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Ju, M. 2014. Semelfactive verbs in English and Korean. Studies in Modern Grammar 2014(81), 113-137. [https://doi.org/10.14342/smog.2014.81.113]
  • Kim, H. J. 2016. Acquiring the semantics of aspectual -ing in L2: Evidence from Production and Processing. In D. Stringer, J. Garrett, B. Halloran and S. Mossman, eds., Proceedings of the 13th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference, 72-79. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  • Moens, M. and M. Steedman. 1988. Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics 14(2), 15-28.
  • Oh, E. J. 2015. The acquisition and interpretation of English telicity by Korean speakers. English Language and Linguistics 21, 79-101. [https://doi.org/10.17960/ell.2015.21.1.004]
  • Park, M. and Y. Na. 2012. An ERP study of semantic coercion: The brain responses to the semantic coercion construction by Korean learners of English. Studies in Generative Grammar 22(1), 157-183. [https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.22.1.201202.157]
  • Pickering, M. J., B. McElree, S. Frisson, L. Chen and M. J. Traxler. (2006). Underspecification and aspectual coercion. Discourse Processes 42(2), 131-155. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4202_3]
  • Piñango, M. M., A. Winnick, R. Ullah and E. Zurif. 2006. Time-course of semantic composition: The case of aspectual coercion. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 35(3), 233-244. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-006-9013-z]
  • Piñango, M. M., E. Zurif and R. Jackendoff. 1999. Real-Time processing implications of enriched composition at the syntax-semantics interface. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28(4), 395-414. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023241115818]
  • R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/, .
  • Rothstein, S. 2004. The syntactic forms of predication. In S. Rothstein, ed., Predicates and Their Subjects, 100-129. Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0690-3_5]
  • Todorova, M., K. Straub, W. Badecker and R. Frank. 2000. Aspectual coercion and the online computation of sentential aspect. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 22.
  • van Valin Jr., R.D. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zehr, J. and F. Schwarz. 2018. PennController for Internet Based Experiments (IBEX). [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578]