The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19 , No. 2

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.211-232
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2019
Received 10 May 2019 Revised 10 Jun 2019 Accepted 16 Jun 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.19.2.201906.211

한국인 학습자들의 영어 재귀대명사 해석 양상: 통사적 결속 조건과 화용적 결속 조건을 중심으로
김지혜 ; 안수진
대학원생, 한국교원대학교 영어교육과 충청북도 청주시 흥덕구 강내면 태성탑연로 250 (engteacherknue@gmail.com)
교수, 한국교원대학교 영어교육과 충청북도 청주시 흥덕구 강내면 태성탑연로 250, Tel: 043) 230-3553 (jkim@knue.ac.kr)

An experimental study of binding interpretations on English reflexive pronouns by Korean L2 learners: Conditions on grammatical binding vs. pragmatic binding
Kim, Ji-Hye ; Soojin An

Abstract

Kim, Ji-Hye and Soojin An. 2019. An experimental study of binding interpretations on English reflexive pronouns by Korean L2 learners: Conditions on grammatical binding vs. pragmatic binding. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 19-2, 211-232. This study investigates how Korean learners of English as Foreign Language interpret English reflexives in regard to i) whether the learners interpret English reflexives in accordance with binding domain and c-commanding conditions of binding, and ii) whether pragmatic information affects the learners’ interpretation of grammatical binding of English reflexives. Two tasks ― acceptability judgment task based on truth value and truth value judgment task based on stories ― to decide the appropriate antecedent for reflexives were conducted with 67 university students in Korea (as the experimental group) and 12 English native speakers (as a control group). Overall results demonstrated that i) Korean learners of English showed L1 transfer effects with English reflexives in their interpretations related to binding domain and commanding condition, and ii) For Korean learners of English, pragmatic conditions often override syntactic conditions for binding, especially when appropriate context is given. Further discussions will follow.


Keywords: Binding Principle A, reflexive binding, pragmatic/logophoric binding, grammatical/core/syntactic binding, Korean learners of English

References
1. 김희숙, 문은주, 여도수(Kim, H., E. Moon and D. Yeo). 2002. 외국어 습득에서 하위집합 우선 원리와 보편문법: 영어 학습자의 재귀대명사 습득을 중심으로(The Subset Principle and UG in L2 acquisition: The acquisition of reflexives by Korean students learning English). 《공주영상정보대학 논문집》(Articles in Kongju Multimedia University), 153-170.
2. 박희문(Park, H.). 1994. 재귀대명사의 인식자 결속(Logophoric Binding)에 관한 연구. 《언어연구》(Linguistic Research) 12, 53-74.
3. 신봉수(Shin, B.). 2006. 한국인의 제2언어 습득에 있어서 결속 매개변항에 관한 연구: 영어의 재귀사를 중심으로. 《새한영어영문학》(The New Korean Journal of English Language and Literature) 48(4), 173-198.
4. 유기윤, 김수연(Yoo, K. and S.-Y. Kim). 2015. 한국인 EFL학습자 영어재귀사 습득에 나타난 ‘성분통어조건’ 구현 양상(The patterns of the acquisition of English reflexives by Korean EFL learners in terms of c-command). 《영어학》(Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics) 15-4, 889-916.
5. 유기윤(Yoo, K.). 2016. 『한국인 EFL 학습자들의 영어 재귀사 습득연구: 문맥에 따른 재귀사 해석양상을 중심으로』(Korean EFL Learners’ Acquisition of English Reflexives). 미출간 박사학위 논문, 세종대학교: 서울.
6. 최정아, 이예식(Choi, J.-A. and Y.-S. Lee). 2016. 한국인 영어학습자의 재귀대명사 습득: 부분집합 원리 위반을 중심으로(The acquisition of reflexive pronouns by Korean EFL learners: Focus on their violation of subset principle). 《언어학》(The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal) 24(4), 395-411.
7. 윤만근(Yoon, M. K.). 2001. 『지배결속 이론』(Government and Binding Theory). 서울: 경진문화사.
8. 윤미영(Yoon, M.). 2003. 『한국인 학습자들의 영어 재귀사 습득에 관한 연구』(A Study of the Acquisition of English Reflexives by Korean EFL Learners). 미출간 박사학위 논문, 부산대학교: 부산.
9. 최정아(Choi, J.). 2016. 『한국인 영어학습자의 습득과정에 대한 보편문법적 접근: 재귀대명사 현상을 중심으로』(A Universal Grammar Approach to the Language Acquisition Process of Korean EFL Learners: With Reference to English Reflexive Pronouns). 미출간 박사학위 논문, 경북대학교: 대구.
10. Felser, C., M. Sato and N. Bertenshaw. 2009. The on-line application of binding principle A in English as a second language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(4), 485-502.
11. Chomsky, N. 1980. On binding. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1-46.
12. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Holland: Foris Publications.
13. Cole, P., G. Hermon and L.-M. Sung. 1990. Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21(1), 1-22.
14. Demirci, M. 2000. Reflexive interpretation by Turkish learners of English. Second Language Research 16(4), 325-353.
15. Eckman, F. R. 1996. On evaluating arguments for special nativism in second language acquisition theory. Second Language Research 12(4), 398-419.
16. Pollard, C. and I. A. Sag. 1992. Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23(2), 261-303.
17. Sells, P. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3), 445-479.
18. Hamilton, R. 1996. Against underdetermined reflexive binding. Second Language Research 12(4), 420-446.
19. Huang, Y. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20. Huang, C.-T. J. and C.-S. L. Liu. 2001. Logophoricity, attitudes, and ziji at the interface. In P. Cole, G. Hermon and C.-T. J. Huang, Eds., Syntax and Semantics 33: Long Distance Reflexives, 141-195. San Diego: Academic Press.
21. Kim, J.-H. and J. H. Yoon. 2009. Long-distance bound local anaphors in Korean: An empirical study of the Korean anaphor caki-casin. Lingua 119, 733-755.
22. Manzini, R. and K. Wexler. 1987. Parameters, binding theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 413-444.
23. Schütze, C. and J. Sprouse. 2013. Judgement data. In R. Podesva and D. Sharma, eds., Research Methods in Linguistics, 27-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Tang, C.-C. J. 1989. Chinese reflexives. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7(1), 93-121.
25. Yang, D.-W. 1983. The extended binding theory of anaphors. Language Research 19, 169-192.