The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

[ Article ]

Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 26, No. 0, pp.707-725

ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)

Print publication date 30 Jun 2026

Received 08 Feb 2026 Revised 28 Apr 2026 Accepted 15 May 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.26..202606.707

Sensitivity to Argument-Structure Asymmetries in Sluicing: Evidence from Korean Learners of English

Jihyun Kim ; Myung-Kwan Park

(First author) Assistant Professor, Department of English Education, Daegu National University of Education 219, Jungang-daero, Nam-gu, Daegu, Republic of Korea 24211, Tel: +82-52-620-1531 jhkim@dnue.ac.kr
(Corresponding author) Professor, Division of English Language and Literature, Dongguk University Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea 04620, Tel: +82-2-2260-3153 parkmk@dongguk.edu

© 2026 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 investigates how L1-Korean learners of English interpret sluicing in English ditransitive constructions, with a focus on double-object constructions (DOCs) and prepositional dative constructions (PDCs). Sluicing provides a useful testing ground for examining learners’ sensitivity to abstract argument-structure constraints, particularly when critical elements such as direct objects or prepositions are not overtly realized. Using an acceptability judgment task, we compared the responses of L1-Korean learners to those of native English speakers across grammatical and ungrammatical sluicing conditions, and we further examined whether learners’ proficiency modulated their sensitivity to these constraints. The results revealed clear group differences. Native English speakers showed strong and categorical sensitivity to structural licensing constraints, assigning significantly higher ratings to grammatical sluices than to ungrammatical ones in both DOC and PDC conditions. In contrast, L1-Korean learners demonstrated significantly weaker and less consistent distinctions. While ungrammatical sentences were generally rated lower, learners’ judgments often remained in a mid-range and varied across conditions, particularly in cases involving implicit arguments. Moreover, proficiency did not significantly enhance learners’ ability to distinguish grammatical from ungrammatical structures. Importantly, the observed pattern cannot be explained by straightforward L1 transfer. If Korean-style argument omission had been transferred, uniformly permissive judgments for implicit structures would be expected. Instead, the learners’ responses reflected neither a consistent L1-based strategy nor target-like structural sensitivity. These findings suggest that L2 learners rely more on surface patterns and semantic plausibility than on fully specified syntactic representations, providing further support for accounts of “shallow” processing in second language comprehension.

Keywords:

sluicing, ditransitive constructions, structural sensitivity

References

Aoun, J. and Y.-H. A. Li. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20(2), 141-172.
Bruening, B. 2001. QR obeys superiority: Frozen scope and ACD. Linguistic Inquiry 32(2), 233-273. [https://doi.org/10.1162/00243890152001762]
Bruening, B. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41(4), 519-562. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00012]
Bruening, B. 2018. Double object constructions and prepositional dative constructions are distinct: A reply to Ormazabal and Romero 2012. Linguistic Inquiry 49(1), 123-150. [https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00268]
Bruening, B. 2021. Implicit arguments in English double object constructions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 39(4), 1023-1085. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-020-09498-4]
Chung, S., W. A. Ladusaw and J. McCloskey. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239-282. [https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01248819]
Clahsen, H. and C. Felser. 2006. Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 107-126. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060206]
Fox, D. and H. Lasnik. 2003. Successive cyclic movement and island repair: The difference between sluicing and VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 143-154. [https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903763255959]
Frazier, L. and C. Clifton, Jr. 2001. Parsing coordinates and ellipsis: Copy α. Syntax 4, 1-22. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9612.00034]
Harley, H. 2008. The bipartite structure of verbs cross-linguistically, or why Mary can’t exhibit John her paintings. In T. C. Silva & H. Mello, eds., Conferências do V Congresso Internacional da Associação Brasileira de Linguística, 45-84. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: FALE/UFMG.
Hassen, A. and A. Abeillé. 2025. Preposition omission in French interrogative sluices: Empirical findings and theoretical implications. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 10, 1-47. [https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.15197]
Kayne, R. S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris. [https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111682228]
Kim, S. 1999. Sloppy/strict identity, empty objects, and NP ellipsis. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 8, 255-284. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008354600813]
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 335-391.
Marantz, A. 1993. Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In S. A. Mchombo, ed. Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar1, 113-151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Martin, A. E. and B. McElree. 2008. A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis. Journal of Memory and Language 58(3), 879-906. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.010]
Merchant, J. 2001. The Syntax of Silence: Sluicing, Islands, and the Theory of Ellipsis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199243730.001.0001]
Murphy, G. L. 1985. Processes of understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24(3), 290-303. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90029-4]
Nykiel, J. 2017. Preposition stranding and ellipsis alternation. English Language and Linguistics 21, 27-45. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000477]
Ohtaka, A. 2025. On wh-movement under sluicing. Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 10, 5925. [https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v10i1.5925]
Park, M.-K. 1997. The syntax of VP ellipsis in Korean. Language Research 33(4), 629-648.
Park, M.-K. 2012. Passivization, structural case and A′-movement in double object constructions of American and British English. Studies in Generative Grammar 22(3), 647-663. [https://doi.org/10.15860/sigg.22.3.201208.647]
Pesetsky, D. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roberts, L. 2012. Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning 62(Suppl. 2), 172-188. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00711.x]
Ross, J. R. 1969. Guess who? In Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 252-286.
Saito, M. 2007. Notes on East Asian argument ellipsis. Language Research 43, 203-227.
Sato, M., N. Goto and M. Kitada. 2018. On the in-situ theory of sluicing in English: A new perspective from immobile elements. English Linguistics 35, 96-121. [https://doi.org/10.9793/elsj.35.1_96]
Tanenhaus, M. K. and G. N. Carlson. 1990. Comprehension of deep and surface verb phrase anaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 5(4), 257-280. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969008407064]
Yoshida, M., M. W. Dickey and P. Sturt. 2013. Predictive processing of syntactic structure: Sluicing and ellipsis in real-time sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(3), 272-302. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.622905]