The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19 , No. 4

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.587-612
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Dec 2019
Received 31 Oct 2019 Revised 15 Dec 2019 Accepted 22 Dec 2019

Identification of Focus Information with Contextual and Lexical Cues by Korean Learners of English: Evidence from Reaction Times Analyzed by Linear Mixed-Effect Models
Wonil Chung ; Bum-Sik Park
Dongguk University
Dongguk University

Funding Information ▼


The current study examined the interaction between contextual and lexical focus cues in sentence processing of the identification of focus information in double object construction by Korean Learners of English. The study conducted three self-paced reaction time experiments and the results were analyzed by linear mixed-effects models (LMM). We found Korean speakers preferred the context specifying focus on direct object when processing interrogative contexts specifying focus on either the indirect or direct object in double object constructions. We also found that unlike English speakers, Korean speakers had difficulty in processing the elliptical remnant, cued by lexical focus. We suggest that the processing difficulty might be ascribed to Korean speakers’ insensitivity to the effect of relative positions of lexical focus cues.

Keywords: focus, double-object construction, focus particle, remnant


We are very grateful to three anonymous reviewers of Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics for very helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are solely ours. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A5B5A02024154).

1. Bates, D. M., M. Maechler and B. Dai. 2009. lme4: Linear Mixed-effect Models Using S4 Classes: R Package, Version 0.999375-31. [Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
2. Beaver, D. I. and B. Z. Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
3. Birch, S. and C. Clifton. 1995. Focus, accent, and argument structure: Effects on language comprehension. Language and Speech 38, 365–391.
4. Birch, S. and K. Rayner. 1997. Linguistic focus affects eye movements during reading. Memory & Cognition 25, 653-660.
5. Birch, S. and C. Clifton. 2002. Effects of varying focus and accenting of adjuncts on the comprehension of utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 47, 571–588.
6. Bock, J. K. and J. R. Mazzella. 1983. Intonational marking of given and new information: Some consequences for comprehension. Memory & Cognition 11, 64–76.
7. Bresnan, J., A. Cueni, T. Nikitina and R. H. Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, I. Kramer and J. Zwarts, eds., Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69-94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences.
8. Clifton, C., Jr. and L. Frazier. 2004. Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory & Cognition 32, 886-895.
9. Chomsky, N. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits, eds., Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Philosophy, 183–216. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cowles, H. W., R. Klunder, M. Kutas and M. Polinsky. 2007. Violations of information structure: An electrophysiological study of answers to wh-questions. Brain and Language 102, 228-242.
11. Cutler, A. and J. A. Fodor. 1979. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension. Cognition 7, 49–59.
12. Dimitrova, D. V., L. A. Stowe, G. Redeker and J. C. J. Hoeks. 2010a. ERP correlates of focus accentuation in Dutch. Proceedings of the Speech and Prosody 2010, Chicago, USA.
13. Dimitrova, D. V., L. A. Stowe, G. Redeker and J. C. J. Hoeks. 2010b. Focus particles and prosody processing in Dutch: Evidence from ERPs. Proceedings of the Speech and Prosody 2010, Chicago, USA.
14. Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.
15. Hamlin, C. L. 1973. Questions in Montague English. Foundations of Language 10, 41-53.
16. Hornby, P. A. 1974. Surface structure and presupposition. Journal of Verbal Leaning and Verbal Behavior 13, 530–538.
17. Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
18. Kadmon, N. 2001. Formal Pragmatics. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
19. Kiss K. 1988. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74, 245–273.
20. König, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles. London: Routledge.
21. Krifka, M. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55, 243-276.
22. Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of Information Structure. In C. Fery, G. Fanselow and M. Krifka, eds., The Notions of Information Structure, Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure (ISIS) 6. Potsdam: Universitatsverlag Potsdam.
23. Malt, B. 1985. The role of discourse structure in understanding anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 24, 271–289.
24. Noteboom, S. G. and J. G. Kruyt. 1987. Accent, focus distribution, and perceived distribution of given and new information: An experiment. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 82, 1512–1524.
25. Park, B.-S. 2005. Locality and Identity in Ellipsis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Connecticut.
26. Park, B.-S. 2013. Multiple fragment answers in Korean. Linguistic Research, 30-3, 453-472.
27. Paterson, K. B., S. P. Liversedge, R. Filik, B. J. Juhasz, S. J. White and K. Rayner. 2007. Focus identification during sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60, 1423-1445.
28. R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 2.9.9). [Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
29. Reinhart, T. 1999. The Processing Cost of Reference-set Computation: Guess Patterns in Acquisition, OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.
30. Rochemont, M. S. 1986. Focus in Generative Grammar. John Benjamins.
31. Rooth M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75-116.
32. Sauermann, A., F. Ruth and K. B. Paterson. 2013. Processing contextual and lexical cues to focus: Evidence from eye movements in reading. Journal Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 875-903.
33. Schafer, A., K. Carlson, C. Clifton and L. Frazier. 2000. Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: Disambiguating embedded questions. Language and Speech 43, 75–105.
34. Singer, M. 1976. Thematic structure and integration of thematic information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19, 573–582.
35. Winter, B. 2013. Linear models and linear mixed effects models in R with linguistic applications. arXiv:1308.5499 []

Chung, Wonil (first author), ProfessorProfessor, Dongguk University-SeoulDepartment of English language and literature30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 02) 2260-3153E-mail:

Park, Bum-Sik (corresponding author), ProfessorProfessor, Dongguk University-SeoulDepartment of English language and literature30 Pildong-ro 1-gil, Jung-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 02) 2260-3166E-mail: