Download full-text PDF

Cross-linguistic activation of implicit causality biases in Korean learners of English

Article (PDF Available) inBilingualism · March 2018with105 Reads
DOI: 10.1017/S1366728918000561
Hyunwoo Kim at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
  • 8.44
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Theres Grüter at University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
  • 17.39
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Abstract
This study investigates how the strength of referential biases associated with implicit vs explicit causality predicates in Korean affects Korean-speaking learners' reference choices in English. Sentence-completion experiments with Korean (Experiment 1a) and English (1b) native speakers showed that Korean speakers referred to the subject more following predicates with explicit vs implicit causality marking, whereas English speakers showed no difference in referential bias for the English translation correspondents of these predicates, which did not contain explicit causality marking. In Experiment 2, Korean learners of English completed an English sentence-completion task, either preceded or followed by a translation task, to test whether strength of referential bias in Korean would affect their referential choices in English. After factoring in individual differences in cross-linguistic associations, results provided evidence that cross-language activation at the word level affects reference processing at a discourse level, with the predicted effect somewhat enhanced by translation priming.
1
Running head: Cross-linguistic activation of implicit causality biases
Title: Cross-linguistic activation of implicit causality biases in Korean
learners of English
Authors: Hyunwoo Kim
Theres Grüter
Affiliation: University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
* Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Yangon Rah for helping with data collection and annotating translations,
Bonnie Fox and Ivana Matson for English annotations, Jihyun Kim and Gyu-ho Shin for Korean
annotations, and Laura Ahn, Jihyun Kim, Ann Im, and Heejung Seo for translation. We are also
grateful to William O’Grady, Amy J. Schafer, Bonnie D. Schwartz, Shinichiro Fukuda, as well
as three anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and comments on various aspects of
this work. This project was supported in part by a Fulbright Scholarship to the first author.
Address for correspondence:
Hyunwoo Kim
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Department of Second Language Studies
1890 East-West Road, Moore Hall, rm570
Honolulu, HI 96822
U.S.A.
hyunwoo2@hawaii.edu
This manuscript has been accepted for publication in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Acceptance date: 29-March-2018
2
Abstract
This study investigates how the strength of referential biases associated with implicit vs explicit
causality predicates in Korean affects Korean-speaking learners’ reference choices in English.
Sentence-completion experiments with Korean (Experiment 1a) and English (1b) native speakers
showed that Korean speakers referred to the subject more following predicates with explicit vs
implicit causality marking, whereas English speakers showed no difference in referential bias for
the English translation correspondents of these predicates, which did not contain explicit
causality marking. In Experiment 2, Korean learners of English completed an English sentence-
completion task, either preceded or followed by a translation task, to test whether strength of
referential bias in Korean would affect their referential choices in English. After factoring in
individual differences in cross-linguistic associations, results provided evidence that cross-
language activation at the word level affects reference processing at a discourse level, with the
predicted effect somewhat enhanced by translation priming.
Keywords: implicit causality, cross-language activation, lemmatic transfer, causative marking,
reference processing
3
Introduction
Comprehenders rely on various cues to interpret a referent in a discourse context. Some of
these cues come from explicit linguistic devices such as gender marking (e.g., he, she); others are
less explicit. The sentence fragments in (1), for example, provide no explicit information as to
which protagonist in the main clause the pronoun refers to. Nevertheless, some interpretations
seem more natural than others, based on probabilistic inferences about who is more likely to be
responsible for the event. In case of the surprise event in (1a), Tom appears more likely to be the
cause of the event than Bill, and thus a more suitable antecedent for he in the ensuing causal
dependent clause. In the hate event in (1b), on the other hand, Jane seems the more likely cause
of the event, and consequently the more suitable antecedent for she. This phenomenon has been
called IMPLICIT CAUSALITY (Brown & Fish 1983; Garvey & Caramazza 1974; Au, 1986) or
REMENTION BIAS (Hartshorne, 2014). Verbs with a bias toward the subject as the underlying
cause of the event (as determined by speakers’ referential preferences in sentences like (1)) are
referred to as ‘subject-biased’, and verbs with a bias toward object as ‘object-biased’ verbs.
(1a) Tom surprised Bill because he…
(1b) Mary hated Jane because she…
Verb-induced implicit causality (IC) bias is a well-attested factor in first language (L1) reference
resolution (e.g., Cozijn, Commandeur, Vonk & Noordman, 2011; Ferstl, Garnham &
Manouilidou, 2011; Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2013; Itzhak & Baum, 2014; Stewart, Pickering &
Sanford, 2000; Pyykkönen & Järvikivi, 2010). Relative to the extensive evidence for native
speakers’ use of IC bias in reference interpretation, less is known about how this information is
4
utilized by second language (L2) speakers. To the best of our knowledge, only two studies have
examined this issue (Cheng & Almor, 2017; Liu & Nicol, 2010). Liu and Nicol (2010) used a
self-paced reading task to investigate whether advanced Chinese learners of English show online
sensitivity to mismatch between a verb’s IC bias and the gender of the subject pronoun in a
subordinate causal clause. They observed significant reading slowdowns in the dependent clause
when the pronoun was inconsistent with verb-bias. This effect was present in both their L1 and
their L2 group, albeit in slightly different regions. Notably, the slowdown occurred earlier for
subject- than for object-biased verbs in the L2 group; this was not the case in the L1 group, and
may indicate that L2 speakers relied more heavily on other cues creating an expectation for
remention of the subject, such as the well-known subject-, first-mention, and/or parallel function
preferences (see Arnold, 2010, for review). At the same time, Liu and Nicol’s (2010) findings
provide evidence that (advanced) L2 learners are sensitive to verb-bias and use this information
in referential processing in an L2.
Similar conclusions emerged from a study by Cheng and Almor (2017), who investigated
advanced Chinese-speaking L2 learners’ use of IC bias during referential choices in a written
English sentence-completion task with items similar to those in (1). Both L2 learners and native
speakers showed clear preferences for bias-consistent continuations. For subject-biased verbs,
this bias was similar in both groups; for object-biased verbs, however, a significantly weaker
effect was found in the L2 compared to the L1 group. Cheng and Almor suggest that this
between-group difference may reflect L2 speakers’ limited ability to effectively integrate
multiple sources of information, in line with Grüter, Rohde and Schafer’s (2017) RAGE
hypothesis, which posits that non-native speakers have reduced ability to generate expectations
about upcoming referents during discourse processing. Cheng and Almor also point out that the
5
L2 speakers’ stronger reliance on a subject- and/or first-mention bias may have been induced by
the presence of an overt pronoun (e.g., Ariel, 1990; Gordon, Grosz & Gilliom, 1993).
Both Liu and Nicol’s (2010) and Cheng and Almor’s (2017) findings point to the conclusion
that L2 learners are sensitive to verb-related biases, but may rely more strongly on form-related
constraints associated with pronouns. This interpretation is consistent with findings by Grüter et
al. (2017), who observed that Japanese- and Korean-speaking learners of English were as
sensitive as native speakers to referential biases associated with referential form (pronoun vs
name) in a story-completion task, but were less sensitive to verbal aspect (perfective vs
imperfective), an event-level cue that influences native speakers’ referential expectations.
Potential L1-L2 differences in the relative weighting of cues at various levels of linguistic
representation is an interesting and relevant phenomenon worthy of further pursuit. The focus of
the present study, however, is more specifically on L2 speakers’ use of verb-related IC biases,
and on potential cross-linguistic influence in this regard—an issue that has not been investigated
to date. Thus in order to minimize the influence of form-related constraints, we use a sentence
completion task in which the subject of the subordinate clause is not provided, allowing
participants to freely choose a referential form consistent with any expectations they may have
created based on the previous discourse context.
Previous research of bilingual/L2 lexical processing has provided ample evidence for cross-
language influence in bilinguals and L2 learners (e.g., Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 2002). Jarvis
(2009) discusses cross-linguistic influence that occurs at syntactic/semantic levels, using the term
LEMMATIC TRANSFER. Jarvis’ notion of lemmatic transfer includes a variety of transfer
phenomena that relate to “the semantic and syntactic properties of words” (p. 102). Research on
lemmatic transfer revealed several characteristics of interference between words that are
6
semantically related or translation equivalents across languages, including that it can take place
regardless of typological distance (Ringbom, 2007). Lemmatic transfer is assumed to result from
shared syntactic and semantic representations at the lemma level in the bilingual mental lexicon
(Jarvis, 2009; Kroll & Stewart, 1994).
While studies on lemmatic transfer provide evidence for the activation of syntactic and
semantic properties of translation correspondents, potential repercussions of such lemma level
transfer on language processing at higher levels have not been explored. This is because previous
studies have focused largely on words in isolation. For example, most of the evidence for
lemmatic transfer comes from analyses of learners’ vocabulary use in production, which concern
how a learner’s knowledge of lemmas in L1 affects the way that lemmas are linked to concepts
in L2 (e.g., Meriläinen, 2006; Ringbom, 2007). However, considering that the proposed scope of
Jarvis’ notion of lemmatic transfer encompasses cross-language influence related to “the
semantic and syntactic properties of words”, and that these properties, especially in verbs, make
significant contributions to the structure and meaning of the whole sentence, it may be
hypothesized that we should see effects of lemmatic transfer that go beyond the lemma level
itself.
Here we investigate how Korean-English bilinguals are affected by parallel access to
English verbs and their Korean translation counterparts when they construe causality in English.
Specifically, this paper focuses on the effect of lemmatic transfer on referential choices in causal
dependent clauses, where the dependent clause provides an explanation for the event in the
matrix clause, as in (1). It is assumed that biases to remention an event participant from the
matrix clause in a causal dependent clause are related to the matrix verb’s syntactic/semantic
structure (Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2013). As discussed below, some English predicates have
7
different syntactic/semantic structures from their Korean translation correspondents. We
hypothesize that these differences give rise to cross-linguistic differences in the strength of
biases for rementioning one of the event participants in a causal dependent clause, and that
lemmatic transfer arising from such cross-linguistic differences will affect Korean-English
bilinguals in their referential choices in English. By looking at the effects of lemmatic transfer at
the level of the matrix-clause verb on biases to remention an event participant in a causal
dependent clause, this study extends the scope of research on bilingual lexical access by
exploring whether the effect of lemmatic transfer goes beyond the lemma level and extends to
influence bilinguals’ discourse construal as reflected in their referential choices in a separate
clause.
The few previous studies that have investigated IC bias cross-linguistically have
overwhelmingly observed cross-linguistic uniformity of IC biases for translational equivalents in
L1 continuation tasks (e.g., Bott & Solstad, 2014; Hartshorne, Sudo & Uruwashi, 2013).
However, relatively little attention has been paid to variations in syntactic and semantic
structures of the verbs investigated in these studies. Here we probe whether a more specific focus
on cross-linguistic differences at this level can reveal differences in IC bias between Korean and
English L1 speakers, and between L1 and L2 speakers of English.
Cross-linguistic differences in IC bias between English and Korean
A majority of the English predicates examined in the IC literature are interpersonal transitive
verbs (Ferstl et al., 2011) that convey information about causal relations between arguments in a
single lexical item, as in (1). In contrast, many interpersonal predicates in Korean are realized as
light verb constructions (e.g., Chae, 1997) composed of a noun of Chinese origin and the light
8
verb ha (‘do’; 2a, 2c), and a small number of verbs of Korean origin are, like in English, realized
as a single lexical verb (2d). In addition, Korean also has a (subject-biased) (morpho)syntactic
causative (SC) construction, best translated as ‘causing X to be Y’ (2b; Lee, H-S, 2017; Lee, K.,
1996).
(2a) Tom-i John-ul hyeppak-ha-yess-ta.
Tom-NOM John-ACC threat-do-PAST-DECL
‘Tom threatened John.’ (subject-biased light verb construction)
(2b) Tom-i John-ul nolla-key-ha-yess-ta.
Tom-NOM John-ACC be surprised-RESULT-do-PAST-DECL
‘Tom caused John to be surprised.’ (subject-biased SC construction)
(2c) Tom-i John-ul pinan-ha-yess-ta.
Tom-NOM John-ACC criticism-do-PAST-DECL
‘Tom criticized John.’ (object-biased light verb construction)
(2d) Tom-i John-ul mit-ess-ta.
Tom-NOM John-ACC believe-PAST-DECL
‘Tom believed John.’ (object-biased verb)
A Korean SC construction (2b) is created by adding the resultative suffix –key to the adjectival
predicate nolla- (‘be surprised’), and then attaching the causative verb ha- (literally ‘do’;
O’Grady, 1991; Park, 1994; Sohn, 2001). Thus, the embedded predicate nolla- (‘be surprised’)
describes the caused event resulting from the action denoted by the matrix verb ha-.
9
English also has an SC construction where the cause and effect events are denoted by the
matrix and embedded verbs respectively (e.g., “Tom caused John to be surprised”). However,
there is a noticeable cross-linguistic difference between experiencer-object verbs in English and
their Korean translation counterparts. Several experiencer-object verbs in English can only be
translated into Korean as an SC construction, containing –keyha. For example, the Korean SC
predicates, nolla-keyha- and cilwuha-keyha-, are the translation counterparts of the English verbs
surprise and bore. By contrast, other English IC verbs have Korean translation equivalents which
are also lexical verbs (or light verb constructions), for example, apwuha- (‘flatter’) and sakwaha-
(‘apologize to’).
It has been hypothesized that explicit marking of causality may give rise to stronger IC
biases than implicit causality in the lexical verbs typically examined in the literature. In
particular, Hartshorne, Sudo and Uruwashi (2013), noting that some experiencer-object verbs in
Japanese are realized by inserting the causative morpheme –(s)ase, conjectured that “for these
verbs, causality is not implicit but actually explicit, and one may expect clearer implicit causality
biases in Japanese” (p. 182). Causative markings in Korean and Japanese both change one-place
and two-place experiencer-subject verbs into experiencer-object verbs. For example, the
causative markers –keyha and –(s)ase can attach, respectively, to the two-place experiencer-
subject verb mwuseweha- in Korean and kowagar- in Japanese (‘to fear’) and form experiencer-
object verbs, mwusep-keyha- and kowagar-ase- (‘to frighten’). The same causative markers can
also attach to one-place experiencer-subject verbs, such as Korean nolla and Japanese odorok-u
(‘to be surprised’), to create two-place experiencer-object verbs, such as nolla-keyha- and
odorok-as- (‘to surprise [someone]’). Hartshorne and colleagues hypothesize that the Japanese
causative morpheme makes the causal relation between event participants more explicit,
10
potentially leading to clearer IC biases for these Japanese verbs relative to verbs in other
languages that do not involve this affixation. To the best of our knowledge, this hypothesis has
not yet been empirically tested. The Korean –keyha construction discussed above is closely
related to the Japanese –(s)ase construction, thus providing a good test case. In Experiment 1, we
asked Korean speakers to provide written continuations for Korean sentence fragments
containing SC (–keyha) and non-SC predicates (Experiment 1a), and compared their referential
choices to those from English speakers who completed the same task in English, where
predicates did not contain explicit marking of causality (Experiment 1b). To foreshadow, in line
with Hartshorne et al.’s hypothesis, the findings from Experiment 1 show stronger subject-bias
for Korean SC (–keyha) than non-SC predicates, while no difference emerged between their
(non-SC) translation counterparts in English. This allows us to investigate the consequences of
these cross-linguistic differences in bias strength for bilingual processing. In Experiment 2, we
employed an English continuation task with Korean learners of English to test whether the cross-
linguistic difference in IC bias strength between English predicates and their Korean counterparts
would affect their referential choices in English.
Experiment 1: Referential biases in L1 Korean and L1 English
Experiment 1 consists of two parallel sentence-completion experiments in Korean
(Experiment 1a) and English (Experiment 1b) with the aim of testing cross-linguistic differences
between predicates in the two languages in terms of IC bias. More specifically, Experiment 1a
tests whether Korean SC predicates give rise to stronger subject-biases than (subject-biased) non-
SC predicates among native Korean speakers. No differences in bias-strength are expected for
the English translations of Korean SC vs. non-SC predicates among native English speakers
11
(Experiment 1b), as (almost) all translations consist of lexical verbs with no explicit encoding of
causality. In Experiment 1a, native speakers of Korean completed written sentence fragments
containing SC and non-SC predicates in Korean. In Experiment 1b, these fragments were
translated into English and completed by native speakers of English.
Experiment 1a: Method
Participants. Thirty-six adult native speakers of Korean (age 20–22 years; 10 female)
participated in this experiment. All participants were recruited from a college in Korea, and
received the Korean equivalent of $5 for their participation.
Materials. Eighty Korean predicates were selected based on the following steps. First, a pool of
verbs was collected from previous IC studies (Garnham, Traxler, Oakhill & Gernsbacher, 1996;
Kasof & Lee, 1993; Long & De Ley, 2000; Rohde & Ettlinger, 2011; Rohde, Levy & Kehler,
2011; Stewart, Pickering & Sanford, 1998). From this pool, we selected 40 verbs reported as
subject-biased and 40 reported as object-biased. In the selection of subject-biased verbs, our goal
was to include 20 items best translated into Korean with a lexical verb or a light verb
construction (non-SC construction, e.g., hyeppakha- ‘threaten’), and 20 for which there is no
direct lexical translation equivalent and which are best translated with an explicit causative
construction (SC construction, e.g., culkep-keyha- ‘amuse’). We used the NAVER English-
Korean dictionary (http://dic.naver.com) as our criterion for this purpose: If the first Korean
entry for a given subject-biased verb in English was a lexical verb or a light verb construction, it
was included as a non-SC item, if the first entry contained an explicit causative marker, it was
included as an SC item. (See Supplementary Materials for the list of all 80 predicates – 20
12
subject-biased non-SC, 20 subject-bias SC, and 40 object-biased.) The subject-biased predicates
constitute the experimental items in this study; the object-biased verbs act as distractors.
For each predicate, a sentence fragment of the type illustrated in (3) was created, starting
with an adverbial phrase, followed by a main clause containing two human referents of the same
gender with nominative and accusative case marking, respectively, and the main verb in
canonical SOV order (half of the items with male-male and the other half with female-female
referents).
1
The relational connective nuntey, which marks the first clause as background
information for the second (Lee, 1993; Park, 1999), was attached to the verb for denoting the
discourse coherence relation between the two clauses. Following the main predicate, the sentence
fragment ended with the causal conjunction waynyahamyen (‘because’).
(3) Eceyspamey Hyesoo-ka Younghee-lul
last night Hyesoo-NOM Younghee-ACC
mwusewup-key-hay-ess-nuntey waynyahamyen
be frightened-RESULT-do-PAST-connective because
“Last night, HyesooFEMALE frightened YoungheeFEMALE
because .”
No pronoun was included in the subordinate clause because Korean is a null subject
language, and the use of overt pronouns is relatively restricted and infrequent (Han, 2006; Lee,
Lee & Chae, 1997). An overt pronoun in a context like (3) would not only be somewhat
unnatural, but it would disallow continuations starting with a null pronoun, which is typically the
preferred option in contexts of topic continuity (Kim, 1999; Roh & Lee, 2003). The absence of
13
an overt subject prompt allowed participants to freely choose the referential form of the subject
in addition to its antecedent.
Procedure. Participants completed a language background questionnaire followed by the
sentence-completion task in pen-and-paper format. Participants were instructed to provide a
natural continuation for each sentence in writing, avoiding humor. The entire experiment took
approximately 30-40 minutes.
Coding. Continuations were coded by two native speakers of Korean blind to the purpose of the
study. Coders annotated participants’ responses for referential form and intended reference of the
subordinate subject. Responses that were incomplete or incoherent (e.g., reflecting
misunderstanding of the main clause) were eliminated from further coding and analysis (4% of
all data).
Referential form
was coded as falling into one of five categories: overt pronoun, null subject,
(repeated) name, full NP (an NP other than a name or pronoun), or other. Intended reference of
the subordinate clause subject included the three options ‘subject’ (of the main clause), ‘object’
(of the main clause), and ‘other’, which included joint reference to both subject and object, as
well as referents not mentioned in the main clause. Since intended reference could not always be
determined with certainty, especially in continuations with null subjects, coders were also given
the options ‘totally ambiguous’, ‘ambiguous, but more likely subject’ (ambig-subj), and
‘ambiguous, but more likely object’ (ambig-obj). For analysis purposes, ‘subject’ and ambig-subj
responses, and ‘object’ and ambig-obj responses, were collapsed, respectively. Responses were
excluded from further analysis if both coders annotated them as ‘totally ambiguous’ (0.03% of
14
data), or if coders disagreed on reference (0.10%). Inter-coder reliability was high (κ = .998).
Experiment 1a: Results
We analyzed participants’ responses in the two experimental conditions (SC, non-SC) for
referential form and intended reference. For referential form, the vast majority of responses
(86%) consisted of a name. This is somewhat surprising given that the antecedent was highly
accessible, a context where a less marked form might be expected (Gundel, Hedberg &
Zacharski, 1993). Previous work on Korean has shown, however, that null pronouns are not
always the form of choice when a referent is highly accessible (Oh, 2007).
2
The remaining
responses contained full NPs (6%) and null subjects (8%). No overt pronouns were produced in
this task, confirming their unnaturalness in this context in Korean. For intended reference, the
vast majority of responses (93%) referred to either the previous subject (76%) or object (17%).
Only these responses are included in the following analyses, in which the proportion of subject
reference out of all responses with either subject or object reference constitutes the measure of
interest. Figure 1 illustrates subject bias thus calculated for SC and non-SC predicates.
15
Figure 1. Mean percentage of subject bias in Experiment 1a; error bars indicate 95% CIs
Proportion of subject bias was modeled using mixed-effects logistic regression (Baayen,
2008; Jaeger, 2008). Unless otherwise indicated, all models include the maximal random effects
structure allowed by the design (Barr, Levy, Scheepers & Tily, 2013). This model, which
included predicate type (SC, non-SC) as a fixed effect (contrast-coded and centered) and
participants and items as random effects, revealed a significant main effect of predicate type (b =
16
2.50, SE = 0.51, p < .001), with more subject reference following SC (M = 93%, SD = 6%) than
non-SC predicates (M = 71%, SD = 6%).
Experiment 1a: Discussion
Experiment 1a tested whether SC predicates in Korean, which contain an explicit causality
marker, induce a stronger IC bias toward a subject antecedent than non-SC predicates, where
information pertaining to causality is only implicit. The results of the Korean sentence-
completion task demonstrated that native Korean speakers did indeed refer back to the previous
subject more frequently in a causal subordinate clause following SC compared to non-SC
predicates. However, it remains possible that other semantic properties of the SC predicates
selected for this study, rather than the explicit encoding of causality in the keyha construction,
might have led to a stronger subject bias in this group of verbs. We return to this important
caveat in the discussion of Experiment 1b. As a first step towards probing whether it is the
explicit versus implicit encoding of causality information that drives this difference, we
conducted a parallel experiment in English, with materials translated from Korean to English as
closely as possible. Critically, the English translations of both SC and non-SC predicates consist
almost entirely of non-SC predicates. If explicit vs. implicit marking of causality is a driving
factor in the difference we observed in Experiment 1, we expect no differences in IC bias
between the English translation correspondents of SC and non-SC predicates in Experiment 1b.
Moreover, we predict an interaction between predicate type (SC, non-SC) and
experiment/language (Korean, English). Experiment 1b was conducted to address these
predictions.
17
Experiment 1b: Method
Participants. Thirty-five native speakers of English (age 18–29 years; 21 female) from the
University of Hawai‘i student community participated in the English sentence-completion task in
return for partial course credit.
Materials. To create English materials that were semantically as close as possible to the Korean
materials in Experiment 1a, we asked four speakers fluent in both languages to individually
translate all 80 Korean sentence fragments from Experiment 1a into English. Based on these four
sets of translations, we selected items as follows. First, if the same translation was provided by at
least 3 of the 4 translators, it was selected (47/80 items). When two translators agreed and the
other two each provided different translations, the translation that two agreed on was selected
(20/80). In the case of a two-two tie (6/80) or disagreement among all four translators (7/80), the
first author used his own judgment to select among the translations provided.
3
This procedure allowed for the possibility that two different Korean verbs were translated to
the same form in English, or that a verb was translated into a multi-word predicate. To keep the
English translations semantically close to the Korean counterparts, we did not remove or modify
any of these items. Thus 9 items were used twice (1 in SC, 2 in non-SC, 6 in object-biased
predicates), and 8 were presented as multi-word predicates (3 in SC, 1 in non-SC, 4 in object-
biased predicates).
As in Experiment 1a, the subject-biased predicates constitute the experimental items, while
the object-biased verbs act as distractors. Note that the subject-biased predicates in English are
called ‘SC’ and ‘non-SC’ based on the status of their Korean translation counterparts. The
assignment of items into the two conditions was done to allow for comparisons between the
18
Korean predicates in Experiment 1a and their English counterparts in Experiment 1b, for the
purpose of testing whether the difference in IC bias strength between Korean SC and non-SC
predicates found in Experiment 1a may have been due to lexico-semantic properties unrelated to
implicit vs explicit expressions of causality.
Procedure. Eighty English sentence fragments were constructed analogous to the Korean stimuli
in Experiment 1a. All Korean names were replaced with corresponding male/female English
names. The procedure was identical to that of Experiment 1a, except that it was delivered
through a web-based interface.
Coding. Two coders annotated participants’ responses for referential form and intended reference
of the syntactic subject in the subordinate clause, using the same criteria as in Experiment 1a.
Incomplete or incoherent responses (2% of all data), responses coded as ‘totally ambiguous’
(0.79%), and those where coders disagreed on intended reference (6%) were excluded from
further analysis. Inter-coder reliability was high (κ = .902).
Experiment 1b: Results
Participants’ responses in the two experimental conditions (SC, non-SC) were analyzed as in
Experiment 1a. For referential form, 61% involved a pronominal subject, 33% involved a name,
4% involved a full NP, and 2% involved other types that corresponded to none of these forms.
This is in sharp contrast to Experiment 1a where there were no responses with overt pronouns
and only 8% null subjects.
19
Turning to intended reference, a majority of referents (92%) were coded either as subject
(75%) or object (17%). As in Experiment 1a, only these responses are included in the following
analyses. Figure 2 illustrates subject bias for ‘SC’ and ‘non-SC’ predicates.
Figure 2. Mean percentage of subject bias in Experiment 1b; error bars indicate 95% CIs
A mixed-effects logistic regression model with predicate type (SC, non-SC) as a fixed effect,
and participants and items as random effects, was fitted to these data. The results showed no
20
main effect of predicate type (b = 0.23, SE = 0.39, p = .558), in contrast with the results of
Experiment 1a, which exhibited a significant difference in subject bias between SC and non-SC
predicates.
In order to further investigate the differences between Experiments 1a and 1b, we conducted
an additional mixed-effects logistic regression analysis with predicate type (SC, non-SC) and
experiment/language (1a/Korean, 1b/English) as fixed factors. This model revealed a main effect
of predicate type (b = 1.24, SE = 0.31, p < .001), indicating more subject reference following SC
than non-SC predicates across the experiments, no main effect of experiment (b = 0.23, SE =
0.21, p = .281), indicating that the total subject bias did not differ significantly between
experiments, and critically an interaction between these two factors (b = 1.66, SE = 0.28, p
< .001). This interaction between predicate type and experiment provides further support for our
interpretation of the findings from Experiments 1a and 1b, namely that SC and non-SC
predicates in Korean differ in the strength of their subject bias whereas their English translation
equivalents do not.
Experiment 1b: Discussion
In this experiment, English speakers provided written continuations for the English sentence
fragments that were translated from the Korean stimuli in Experiment 1a. No difference in bias
strength was found between the English translations of SC compared to non-SC predicates.
These findings are consistent with Hartshorne et al.’s (2013) conjecture that morphosyntactic
causative marking, as in Japanese –(s)ase or Korean –keyha, would create stronger IC biases.
However, these findings are not sufficient to conclude that explicit causative marking was the
only driving force for the observed differences. In particular, it remains possible that verbs
21
classified as SC and non-SC based on the explicitness of causality marking in Korean also differ
along other dimensions that were not considered in the design of these experiments. One such
dimension is the degree of intentionality associated with the events denoted by the predicates in
each language and condition.
4
Verbs typically classified as subject-biased IC predicates include
both Stimulus-Experiencer (SE) and Agent-Patient (AP) verbs, which critically differ in that only
an Agent, but not a Stimulus, can intentionally cause an event. In a study of IC in German and
Norwegian, Bott and Solstad (2014) found a significantly stronger subject bias for SE than for
AP verbs, indicating that greater intentionality of the subject is associated with a weaker subject
bias, a relation that was also reflected in different types of causal explanations following SE vs.
AP predicates (see Bott & Solstad, 2014, and Solstad & Bott, 2017, for further discussion).
These findings have important implications for the interpretation of our results. In the
selection of predicates for Experiments 1a and 1b, we had not taken into consideration these
subclasses of verbs, and the differential degree of intentionality associated with them. It is thus
possible that SE and AP verbs were distributed unequally between (i) our SC and non-SC
categories, and (ii) between our Korean and English verbs. Note that Bott and Solstad (2014)
found that even cognates in typologically closely related languages like German and Norwegian
can differ in terms of their status as SE or AP predicates. Such differences are thus a distinct
possibility here, and present a potential confound for the interpretation of the observed effects as
due to the explicitness of causative marking. In order to examine this possibility, we applied Bott
and Solstad’s (2014) diagnostic tests for determining whether a verb classifies as SE, AP, or
both, to our experimental stimuli. Verbs were classified as allowing an AP interpretation when
the insertion of the adverbial deliberately/ilpwule in the frame X Verbed Y appeared felicitous.
To test whether the verb allows a Stimulus argument in the first position, we applied Bott and
22
Solstad’s ‘that clause replacement test’, where the proper name in the relevant position is
replaced with a proposition that could otherwise be expressed in a subordinate because-clause
(e.g., Peter annoyed Mary because he sang loudly
à
It annoyed Mary that Peter sang loudly).
Verbs that allowed this replacement were classified as allowing an SE interpretation. Verbs that
passed both tests were categorized as ambiguous (following Bott & Solstad, 2014).
5
A limitation
of this method is that it cannot capture preferences for Agent versus Stimulus interpretations in
the case of predicates categorized as ambiguous, nor differences in the degree to which AP verbs
are interpreted to be intentional, given that they allow both intentional and unintentional
interpretations. Using these criteria can thus provide only a coarse approximation to the issue of
intentionality in our materials. Independent rating studies (in both languages), in which speakers
rate the felicity of sentences with these predicates combined with the adverb “un/intentionally”,
would be needed for a more fine-grained evaluation of potential gradient differences between the
predicates in each language and condition with regard to intentionality.
Table 1 summarizes the results of our analysis using Bott and Solstad’s broad classification
criteria (see Supplementary Materials for classification of individual items). This revealed two
general patterns: (i) SE and AP verbs are indeed distributed unequally between our SC and non-
SC categories, and (ii) this imbalance appears very similar in both languages. More specifically,
we found that all items in the SC condition, in both languages, allow an SE interpretation (SE or
AP/SE), while the majority of items in the non-SC condition, again in both languages, allow only
an AP interpretation. Given Bott and Solstad’s observation that SE verbs have stronger subject-
bias than AP verbs, the results from Experiment 1a (Korean) could thus be explained by
differences in thematic verb classes, broadly associated with different degrees of intentionality,
rather than explicitness of causative marking. On this explanation, however, the results from
23
Experiment 1b (English) remain unexplained: Despite a very similar and imbalanced distribution
of AP and SE predicates, we saw no significant differences in bias strength between the two
predicate types in Experiment 1b. This remains unexplained under an explanation relying on
differences in intentionality, at least to the extent that we were able to capture such differences
here. We therefore conclude that differences at the level of intentionality are a likely contributor
to the differences observed in Experiment 1a, the pattern of results across both experiments is not
fully explained by this factor alone, and that explicitness of causality marking is an additional
factor, and the one responsible for the cross-linguistic difference observed here. Future work
controlling more rigorously for more fine-grained differences at the level of verb semantics will
be needed to further tease apart the respective roles of these factors on referential biases.
Table 1. Distribution of thematic verb types by Language/Experiment (Korean, English) and
Predicate Type (SC, non-SC) following Bott and Solstad’s (2014) diagnostics.
SC (k=20)
non-SC (k=20)
Experiment 1a
(Korean)
AP:
AP/SE:
SE:
0
13
7
16
4
0
Experiment 1b
(English)
AP:
AP/SE:
SE:
0
12
8
14
6
0
While the precise reason(s) for the cross-linguistic differences in bias strength we observed
in Experiment 1 cannot be fully resolved here, what is critical for our investigation of cross-
24
linguistic activation in bilingual processing is that these cross-linguistic differences exist.
Previous cross-linguistic work on IC biases has found that differences in the direction of bias
(subject- vs object-bias) align with thematic verb classes fairly consistently across languages
(Hartshorne et al., 2013). More subtle differences, however, have been observed even between
cognates in closely related languages (Bott & Solstad, 2014). The findings from Experiment 1
present a further instance of subtle cross-linguistic differences in this domain, thereby providing
an ideal scenario for investigating the effects of lemmatic transfer beyond individual words.
More specifically, the observed cross-linguistic differences allow us to test whether the stronger
subject-bias associated with SC predicates in Korean is activated and affects referential choices
when Korean-English bilinguals read sentences in English. If this is the case, the prediction is
that bilinguals, but not native English speakers, will show a stronger bias to remention the
subject with English translation correspondents of Korean SC predicates than with English
counterparts of Korean non-SC predicates. We test this prediction in Experiment 2.
Experiment 2: Korean learners’ referential biases in L2 English
Experiment 2 explores the effects of lemmatic transfer on L2 learners’ referential choices in
English by addressing the following research questions:
RQ1) Do Korean learners of English carry over IC bias from Korean predicates while
making referential choices in English causal dependent clauses? (Effects of lemmatic
transfer)
25
RQ2) Does completing an explicit translation task preceding the sentence-completion task
enhance the extent to which these learners carry over IC bias from Korean predicates?
(Effects of translation priming)
A written sentence-completion task in English was conducted with two groups of Korean-
speaking learners of English, and a control group of native English speakers. The L2 learners
additionally completed a translation task in which they translated the English sentence fragments
from the sentence-completion task into Korean. The purpose of the translation task is three-fold.
First, learners’ translations provide a measure of their understanding of the stimuli (e.g.,
Brysbaert, van Dyck & van de Poel, 1999; Midgley, Holcomb & Grainger, 2009); for each
participant, items not correctly translated in this task were eliminated from the analysis of
responses in the sentence-completion task. The second purpose of the translation task was to
check whether participants’ translations aligned with our expectations with regard to whether an
English predicate would be translated into a –keyha construction or not. Finally, the translation
task allows us to explore the role of translation priming (see Altarriba & Basnight-Brown, 2007,
for a review of translation-priming), that is, whether completing the translation task immediately
before the sentence-completion task leads to stronger activation of Korean translation
correspondents during the sentence-completion task, potentially inducing a stronger effect of
lemmatic transfer in learners’ referential choices. To address this second research question, half
of the learners completed the translation task before the sentence-completion task (‘translation-
first’ group, T1), while the other half completed it after (T2).
We address the first research question by comparing referential choices in the sentence-
completion task between the native English-speaking control group and the T2 group. Since the
26
T2 group completed the sentence-completion task before the translation task, this allows for a
direct comparison of referential choices between native English and Korean speakers in the
absence of translation priming. The second research question and the role of translation priming
is addressed by comparing the T2 with the T1 group.
Experiment 2: Method
Participants. Seventy-two adult Korean-speaking learners of English were recruited from
colleges in Korea and randomly assigned to the T1 (16 female) or the T2 group (18 female).
Thirty-four adult native speakers of English from the University of Hawai‘i student community
(15 female) constitute the native-speaker control group (NS). The three groups did not differ in
age, and the two learner groups did not differ in their English proficiency, as measured by their
length of studying English, self-reported TOEIC® (Test of English for International
Communication™) scores, and self-ratings of English proficiency (Table 2).
Table 2. Experiment 2: Participant information
Group
Mean age
Mean years of
studying English
TOEIC score
(max= 990)
Self-ratings of
overall English
proficiency
(1-10)
NS (n = 34)
21.1 (3.0)
-
-
9.7 (0.4)
T1 (n = 36)
22.3 (1.1)
9.3 (1.8)
837.2 (90.6)
6.1 (1.1)
T2 (n = 36)
21.8 (1.1)
9.0 (1.8)
807.2 (87.1)
6.1 (1.2)
Note. Number in parenthesis = standard deviation
27
Materials for sentence-completion task. Thirty-six verbs – 12 subject-biased SC, 12 subject-
biased non-SC, and 12 object-biased – were selected from the 80 items in Experiment 1b
according to the following criteria. No multi-word predicates, and only verbs found in the
vocabulary lists in English textbooks used in Korean middle and high schools and in the
vocabulary lists for the Korean SAT tests were included. An additional 12 predicates with no
known IC biases were included as distractors (see Supplementary Materials).
To ensure that the subset of SC and non-SC predicates selected for Experiment 2 was
representative of the items in Experiments 1a and 1b, analyses of the results from Experiments
1a and 1b limited to this subset of items were conducted. These analyses replicated the effects
observed above: The Korean data showed a main effect of predicate type (b = 1.35, SE = 0.57, p
= .018), with significantly stronger subject bias for SC than non-SC predicates, whereas the
English counterparts of these predicate types showed no such effect (b = –0.10, SE = 0.41, p
= .818).
The 48 English predicates were presented in contexts as in (4).
(4) Jacob amused Bill because .
Materials for translation task. The items for the translation task consisted of the main clause
portion of the 36 experimental items from the sentence-completion task. Participants were asked
to provide the most natural Korean translation for each English sentence.
28
Procedure. Both tasks were completed via a web-based interface. Native speakers completed
only the sentence-completion task. There was a 5-minute break between the two tasks for the L2
speakers. Including the language background questionnaire, the entire sessions took
approximately 20-30 minutes for the NS and 60-80 minutes for the L2 groups.
Coding for sentence-completion task. Two coders annotated participants’ responses in the
sentence-completion task following the same protocol used for Experiments 1a and 1b.
Incoherent or incomplete continuations (1% of all data), responses annotated as ‘totally
ambiguous’ (0.1%), and items with inter-coder disagreement (1%) were excluded from further
analysis. Inter-coder reliability was high (κ = .980).
Coding for translation task. Two Korean-English bilingual coders annotated L2 participants’
translations for accuracy. Responses were removed if translations were judged as semantically
inaccurate by both coders (10.2% in SC, 10.4% in non-SC) or if the coders disagreed on
accuracy (1% of L2 data). In addition, all responses were annotated for the presence or absence
of the explicit causality marker –keyha in the Korean translation.
Experiment 2: Results
We analyzed participants’ responses in the two experimental conditions (SC, non-SC) in
terms of referential form and intended reference. For referential form, the NS group showed a
pattern distinct from the L2 groups in the use of pronouns and names. While the NS group
produced 61% pronouns and 33% names, the L2 groups produced proportionally many more
names (T1: 83%, T2: 82%) and fewer pronouns (T1: 11%, T2: 12%), a pattern reminiscent of the
29
results from Experiment 1a, in which the Korean speakers produced 86% names. The
overwhelming use of names in the L2 data indicates that the learners transfer the preferred
reference form from their L1.
For intended reference, all three groups demonstrated similar patterns overall. A majority of
referents were coded as either subject or object in all groups (NS: 86%, T1: 90%, T2: 90%). As
in Experiments 1a and 1b, only these responses are included in the following analyses.
Analyses of the strength of subject bias by predicate type (SC, non-SC) and group were
conducted in three steps: (1) analysis of total data, (2) analysis of translation-consistent data, and
(3) analysis of data by participant-driven category. The first analysis is parallel to the analyses in
Experiments 1a and 1b, and does not take into consideration the individual translations provided
by the L2 participants in the translation task beyond excluding items that were not translated
correctly. For the second analysis, we included only those items for which the participant
provided a translation consistent with expected predicate type (i.e., a keyha construction for the
12 items designated as SC, and a lexical verb or light verb construction for the 12 items
designated as non-SC). Finally, in the third analysis, items were redesignated as SC and non-SC
solely based on the participant’s translation, ignoring the category we had originally expected the
item to be in. While the first analysis is most consistent with the analyses in Experiments 1a and
1b, it ignores individual differences between learners with regard to translation equivalents,
likely introducing noise in the results. The second analysis reduces this noise, but at the cost of
excluding meaningful data points. The third analysis salvages these data points, but leads to
greater imbalance in terms of items per condition.
To address our research questions about effects of lemmatic transfer (RQ1) and translation
priming (RQ2), comparisons were made between the NS and the T2 groups (RQ1) on the one
30
hand, and between the T2 and the T1 groups (RQ2) on the other. For each comparison and
analysis, we report the output of a mixed-effects logistic regression model with group, predicate
type (SC, non-SC), and their interaction as fixed effects (contrast-coded and centered), and
participants and items as random effects. Since we conduct three different analyses for each
comparison, the alpha level was adjusted to .017 (.05/3).
Analysis 1: Total data (Figure 3). For the comparison between NS and T2, no effects reached
significance at the adjusted alpha level (group: b = –0.69, SE = 0.31, p = .028; predicate type: b =
–0.06, SE = 0.36, p = .856; interaction: b = 0.23, SE = 0.48, p = .636), although a marginal main
effect of group indicates somewhat more subject reference in the NS than in the T2 group
overall. Thus no evidence for lemmatic transfer emerged when all data points were included
regardless of participants’ individual translation preferences.
For the comparison between T2 and T1, despite a numerical trend visible in Figure 3
towards a stronger subject bias for SC vs. non-SC type predicates in the T1 group, again no
effects reached significance (group: b = 0.04, SE = 0.23, p = .847; predicate type: b = 0.31, SE =
0.28, p = .259; interaction: b = 0.56, SE = 0.34, p = .105).
31
Figure 3. Mean percentage of subject bias in Experiment 2 (Analysis 1: Total data); error bars
indicate 95% CIs
Analysis 2: Translation-consistent data (Figure 4). For this analysis, L2 participants’ translations
were coded according to consistency with the predetermined predicate type. For SC predicates,
translations were coded as “consistent” when they included –keyha (T1: 93%; T2: 91%). For
non-SC predicates, “consistent” translations were those that did not contain –keyha (T1: 98%;
T2: 97%). After exclusion of data from inconsistent items (5.4% of the data in analysis 1; 8.6%
32
in SC, 2.4% in non-SC), we conducted the same between-group analyses as outlined above in
this reduced dataset.
Figure 4. Mean percentage of subject bias in Experiment 2 (Analysis 2: translation-consistent
data); error bars indicate 95% Cis
33
In the first model, including the data from the NS and T2 groups, despite a numerical trend
towards more subject reference for SC than for non-SC predicates in the T2 but not in the NS
group apparent in Figure 4, no effects reached significance at the adjusted alpha level (group: b =
–0.24, SE = 0.25, p = .344; predicate type: b = 0.27, SE = 0.37, p = .468; interaction: b = 0.73, SE
= 0.36, p = .042).
Turning to the comparison between T2 and T1, the model revealed a significant effect of
predicate type (b = 1.14, SE = 0.36, p = .002), and no effect of group (b = 0.18, SE = 0.22, p
= .414).
6
The interaction did not reach significance at the adjusted alpha level (b = 0.70, SE =
0.35, p = .044). In light of the marginal interaction and in order to fully explore our second
research question regarding translation priming, we created separate models for each group to
examine potential effects of predicate type (with alpha further adjusted to .008; .017/2). A
significant effect of predicate type was found for the T1 (b = 1.50, SE = 0.02, p < .001) but not
the T2 (b = 0.65, SE = 0.45, p = .153) group.
Taken together, the second analysis, which included translation-consistent items only,
indicated some differences between SC and non-SC predicates for the T1, but not for the T2 and
the NS groups. These findings provide some indication of cross-language influence, but only
when cross-language associations were primed through an immediately preceding translation
task.
Analysis 3: Participant-driven analysis (Figure 5). In this last analysis, L2 data were re-
categorized into SC and non-SC depending on whether participants’ translations included an SC
or non-SC construction, ignoring our original SC/non-SC categories. This process resulted in
44% of all items categorized as SC and 56% as non-SC in T1, and 45% as SC and 55% as non-
34
SC in T2.
Figure 5. Mean percentage of subject reference in Experiment 2 (Analysis of reorganized data);
error bars indicate 95% Cis
In the comparison between NS and T2, there was a main effect of predicate type (b = 0.80,
SE = 0.23, p < .001), qualified by a significant interaction between group and predicate type (b =
35
0.79, SE = 0.32, p = .015). The main effect of group did not reach significance at the adjusted
alpha level (b = –0.50, SE = 0.25, p = .043). Follow-up models for each group showed a main
effect of predicate type for the T2 (b = 1.23, SE = 0.29, p < .001), but not for the NS group (b =
0.20, SE = 0.53, p = .700), indicating effects of lemmatic transfer even in the absence of
translation priming.
In the comparison between T1 and T2, there was a main effect of predicate type (b = 1.42,
SE = 0.20, p < .001) due to greater subject bias for SC than for non-SC predicates. There was no
effect of group (b = 0.10, SE = 0.21, p = .664) or interaction (b = 0.32, SE = 0.29, p = .256). For
comparison with Analysis 2, we created separate models for each group. These models revealed
significant effects of predicate type in both the T1 (b = 1.43, SE = 0.26, p < .001) and the T2
group (b = 1.23, SE = 0.29, p < .001).
In summary, when the data was reorganized based on participant-driven categories, effects
of lemmatic transfer as indicated by higher subject bias for SC than for non-SC predicates
emerged in both learner groups, regardless of translation priming.
Experiment 2: Discussion
In Experiment 2, effects of lemmatic transfer and translation priming were inspected in
Korean-English bilinguals’ referential choices in English causal dependent clauses. The data
were analyzed in three ways. In the first analysis, no significant effects of lemmatic transfer were
observed. This analysis was analogous to those in Experiments 1a and 1b, but did not take into
account participants’ actual cross-linguistic associations. The second analysis, which included
only those items for which participants’ cross-linguistic associations aligned with those expected
by the experimental design, there was some indication of the predicted effect, but only for
36
learners who were primed through a preceding translation task. In the third analysis, which
included all data points, with items assigned to SC/non-SC categories based on participants’
individual translations in the independent translation task, the effect of lemmatic transfer
emerged clearly in both L2 groups, regardless of task order, but not in the native speaker control
group.
These findings suggest that properties of Korean predicates related to IC bias are activated
when Korean learners of English process English translation correspondents of these predicates,
leading to stronger subject bias for SC-type predicates than for non-SC-type predicates even in
English. These findings indicate that cross-linguistic activation at the word level can affect
learners’ processing at the discourse level, presumably through the mental models they create as
a result of shared representations at a lexical level.
As in all investigations of cross-linguistic influence, it is important to ask to what extent
differences observed between the performance of L2 learners and native speakers can
confidently be attributed to properties of the learners’ L1, and to what extent they may be a
reflection of non-native language use more generally. This question is typically addressed by
including two separate L2 groups whose L1s differ with regard to the property under
investigation, such that one group’s L1 is similar to the L2 while the other is different (see e.g.,
White, 1986; Grüter & Crago, 2012). For the linguistic phenomenon investigated here, the
scenario is somewhat different, and presents an instance of what Jarvis (2010) termed
intralingual contrasts, where a certain feature in one language is stratified into more than one
feature in the other. In this case, IC verbs in English are stratified into two types in Korean,
namely those that have translation correspondents in Korean that are also IC verbs (non-SC) and
those that are best translated into constructions with explicit causality marking (SC). As a
37
consequence, the critical comparison between our L2 and L1 groups with regard to transfer does
not lie in a simple main effect of group, but in the interaction between predicate type and group.
The nature and significance of this interaction shows that the L2 group is making a distinction
that the L1 group is not, where the only difference between the items in the two predicate-type
conditions is whether or not a lexical translation correspondent is available in Korean. It is thus
difficult to see how this distinction could be attributed to ‘learner-general’ factors. Further
empirical support for this conclusion could come from the inclusion of an additional L2 group
whose L1 has translation correspondents for items in both predicate-type conditions that are all
IC verbs, as in English. Our key predictions would be a null effect for the interaction between
predicate type and group when comparing that additional group to the native English group, and
the same interaction effect reported here when comparing that additional group to the L2 Korean
group in this study. We must leave such further exploration for future research.
General discussion and conclusion
The primary goal of this study was to investigate the effect of lemma-level transfer on
Korean-English bilinguals’ referential choices in English at a discourse level. To this end, we
first conducted written continuation tasks with Korean (Experiment 1a) and with English native
speakers (Experiment 1b) respectively, in order to test the hypothesized cross-linguistic
difference in bias strength between Korean and English IC predicates. Building on the results
from these experiments, we conducted an English continuation task with Korean learners of
English to test whether the established cross-linguistic difference between Korean and English
predicates would influence learners’ referential choices in English (Experiment 2).
38
The results from Experiments 1a and 1b provided evidence for a cross-linguistic difference
between (morpho)syntactic causative (SC) predicates in Korean and their English translation
counterparts: Korean speakers provided more continuations with subject reference following SC
than non-SC predicates, while English speakers showed little difference in the subject bias
strength across the two predicate types. This finding is consistent with Hartshorne et al.’s (2013)
conjecture that explicit causative marking, as in Japanese –(s)ase, will increase bias strength. Yet
future work will be needed to better tease apart the roles of explicitness of causality marking and
intentionality associated with the predicates involved, given that the SC predicates used here
differed from the non-SC predicates along both of these dimensions. Importantly, however, we
observed a difference in bias strength between the two predicate types only in Korean, not in
English. Since the distribution of (broadly defined) verb classes was highly similar in the
materials in both languages, we thus cautiously conclude that explicitness of causative marking
is likely a contributing factor in the referential biases observed with these predicates, and a factor
that should be considered alongside other known factors, such as verb semantics and thematic
roles (e.g., Brown & Fish, 1983; Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2013) and world knowledge (e.g.,
Pickering & Majid, 2007) in the IC literature.
With regard to bilingual processing, the primary object of investigation here, the results
from Experiment 2 demonstrate that the difference between Korean and English in terms of bias
strength affected Korean-English bilinguals’ referential choices in English causal dependent
clauses. The effect appeared somewhat more robust when learners completed the translation task
before the continuation task. This is consistent with previous research on translation priming
which has shown that prior exposure to a word in one language enhances the activation of that
word during the processing of the translation equivalent in another language (e.g., De Groot &
39
Nas, 1991; Gollan, Forster & Frost, 1997; Kroll & Stewart, 1994). These earlier findings indicate
that translation equivalents in bilinguals’ mental lexicons are accessed in parallel and translation
priming can modulate bilingual word activation. Our results confirm the effect of translation
priming at the word level, and indicate furthermore that translation priming can also affect
bilinguals’ referential choices at a discourse level.
Importantly, however, the predicted effect of cross-linguistic activation of IC bias strength
emerged even without translation priming when the data were analyzed respecting participants’
individual cross-linguistic associations. Although this analysis led to an imbalance in the number
of items per condition, we believe that it affords the most accurate picture of bilingual processing
by taking into account inevitable individual differences among bilinguals with regard to the
specific cross-linguistic associations in their mental lexicons. Taking such individual differences
into account is particularly important when the languages involved are typologically and
culturally distant, making it more difficult, and in some cases impossible, to establish uniform
translation equivalents across languages. The findings from Experiment 2 thus provide evidence
that lemmatic transfer at a word level can have repercussions for processing at the sentence and
discourse level. We presume that these effects arise through the mental models that are created
under the influence of cross-linguistic activation at the lexical level during bilingual discourse
processing. We hope that future work can identify other cross-linguistic differences of this type
to further investigate the scope of cross-linguistic influence and lemmatic transfer in L2
discourse processing.
40
References
Altarriba, J., & Basnight-Brown, D. M. (2007). Methodological considerations in performing
semantic-and translation-priming experiments across languages. Behavior Research
Methods, 39, 1–18.
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing NP antecedents. London: Routledge.
Arnold, J. E. (2010). How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics
Compass, 4, 187–203.
Au, T. (1986). A verb is worth a thousand words: The causes and consequences of interpersonal
events implicit in language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 104–122.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for
confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68,
255–278.
Bott, O., & Solstad, T. (2014). From verb to discourse: A novel account of implicit causality. In
B. Hemforth, B. Schmiedtová & C. Fabricius-Hansen (eds.), Psycholinguistic approaches
to meaning and understanding across languages, pp. 213–251. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Brown, R., & Fish, D. (1983). The psychological causality implicit in language. Cognition, 14,
237–273.
Brysbaert, M., van Dyck, G., & van de Poel, M. (1999). Visual word recognition in bilinguals:
Evidence from masked phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 25, 137–148.
41
Chae, H-R. (1997). Verbal nouns and light verbs in Korean. Language Research, 32, 581–600.
Cheng, W., & Almor, A. (2017). The effect of implicit causality and consequentiality on
nonnative pronoun resolution. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 1–26.
Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W., & Noordman, L. G. (2011). The time course of the use
of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A visual world paradigm
study. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 381–403.
De Groot, A. M. B., & Nas, G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates
in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123.
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2002). The architecture of the bilingual word recognition
system: From identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5, 175–
197.
Ferstl, E. C., Garnham, A., & Manouilidou, C. (2011). Implicit causality bias in English: A
corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 124–135.
Garnham, A., Traxler, M., Oakhill, J., & Gernsabacher, M. A. (1996). The locus of implicit
causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 517–543.
Garvey, C., & Caramazza, A. (1974). Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 459–464.
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., & Frost, R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts:
Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew–English bilinguals. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.
Gordon, P. C., Grosz, B. J., & Gilliom, L. A. (1993). Pronouns, names, and the centering of
attention in discourse. Cognitive Science, 17, 311–347.
42
Grüter, T., & Crago, M. (2012). Object clitics and their omission in child L2 French: The
contributions of processing limitations and L1 transfer. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 15, 531–549.
Grüter. T, Rohde, H., & Schafer. A. J. (2017). Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The
roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism,
7, 199–229.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N., & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring
expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.
Han, N. R. (2006). Korean zero pronouns: analysis and resolution. Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Hartshorne, J. K. (2014). What is implicit causality? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29,
804–824.
Hartshorne, J. K., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality:
The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28,
1474–1508.
Hartshorne, J. K., Sudo, Y., & Uruwashi, M. (2013). Are implicit causality pronoun resolution
biases consistent across languages and cultures? Experimental Psychology, 60, 179–196.
Itzhak, I., & Baum, S. R. (2014). Misleading bias-driven expectations in referential processing
and the facilitative role of contrastive accent. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 44,
623–650.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and
towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.
43
Jarvis, S. (2009). Lexical transfer. In A. Pavlenko (ed.), The bilingual mental lexicon:
Interdisciplinary approaches, pp. 99–124. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Jarvis, S. (2010). Comparison-based and detection-based approaches to transfer research. In L.
Roberts, M. Howard, M. Ó. Laoire & D. Singleton (eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook 10, pp.
169–192. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasof, J., & Lee, J. Y. (1993). Implicit causality as implicit salience. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 877–891.
Kim, M. K. (1999). Conditions on deletion in Korean based on information packaging,
Discourse and Cognition, 1, 61–88.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:
Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal
of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.
Lee, H-S. (2017). A study on a causative construction of ‘X-key ha-ta’ from the viewpoint of
construction grammar. Studies in Linguistics, 42, 71–92.
Lee, K. (1993). A Korean grammar on semantic pragmatic principles. Seoul: Hankwuk
Munwhasa.
Lee, K. (1996). Syntactic causatives in Korean: Clause union or not? In B.-S. Park & J.-B. Kim
(eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and
Computation, pp. 83–92. Seoul: Kyung Hee University.
Lee, I., Lee, S., & Chae, W. (1997). Korean language. Seoul: Shingu Publishing.
Liu, R., & Nicol. J. (2010). Online processing of anaphora by advanced English learners. In M.
T. Prior, Y. Watanabe & S.-K. Lee. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Second Language
Research Forum, pp. 150–165. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
44
Long, D.L., & De Ley, L. (2000). Implicit causality and discourse focus: The interaction of text
and reader characteristics in pronoun resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 42,
545–570.
Meriläinen, L. (2006). Lexical transfer errors in the written English of Finnish upper secondary
school students. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Joensuu, Finland.
Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Grainger, J. (2009). Masked repetition and translation priming
in second language learners: A window on the time-course of form and meaning
activation using ERPs. Psychophysiology, 46, 551–565.
Oh, S. Y. (2007). Overt reference to speaker and recipient in Korean. Discourse Studies, 9, 462–
492.
O’Grady, W. (1991). Categories and case: The sentence structure of Korean. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Park, J. W. (1994). Morphological causatives in Korean: problems in grammatical polysemy and
constructional relations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.
Park, Y. (1999). The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. Journal of
Pragmatics, 31, 191–218.
Pickering, M. J., & Majid, A. (2007). What are implicit causality and consequentiality?
Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 780–788.
Pyykkönen, P., & Järvikivi, J. (2010). Activation and persistence of implicit causality
information in spoken language comprehension. Experimental Psychology, 57, 5–16.
Ringbom, H. (2007). Cross-linguistic similarity in foreign language learning. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
45
Roh, J. E., & Lee, J. H. (2003). An empirical study for generating zero pronoun in Korean based
on cost-based centering model. In C. Bow & B. Hughes (eds.), Proceedings of
Australasian Language Technology Association, pp. 90–97. Melbourne: University of
Melbourne.
Rohde, H., & Ettlinger, M. (2011). Integration of pragmatic and phonetic cues in spoken word
recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38,
967–983.
Rohde, H., Levy, R., & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause
processing. Cognition, 118, 339–358.
Sohn, H. M. (2001). The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Solstad, T., & Bott, O. (2017). Causality and causal reasoning in natural language. In M. R.
Waldmann (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning, pp. 619–644. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (1998). Implicit consequentiality. In M. A.
Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1031–1036. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Inc.
Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). The time course of the influence of
implicit causality information: Focusing versus integration accounts. Journal of Memory
and Language, 42, 423–443.
White, L. (1986). Implications of parametric variation for adult second language acquisition: an
investigation of the pro-drop parameter. In V.J. Cook (ed.), Experimental approaches to
second language acquisition, pp.55–72. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
46
Footnote
1
The gender of the two referents was maintained identical within each clause because gender-
contrasting referents may influence referential choices (Long & De Ley, 2000; Stewart,
Pickering & Sanford, 2000). Two native speakers of Korean, who did not participate in the
sentence-completion task, confirmed that all names sounded natural and their gender was easily
detectable.
2
To the best of our knowledge, there are no published reports of a repeated-name penalty in
Korean. Given our findings here, further investigation of this issue seems an important topic for
future research.
3
A reviewer asked why we did not simply use the English items we originally entered into the
NAVER dictionary when creating materials for Experiment 1a. We chose to use independent
translators because we wanted to obtain translations for the verb in the particular sentence frame
used in the experimental materials.
4
We are very grateful to two anonymous reviewers for drawing our attention to this.
5
As in Bott and Solstad (2014), these tests were applied by the authors following their own and
informal consultants’ intuitions. We note that it did not always appear obvious whether a verb
passed each test or not. An empirical study with a group of independent raters would be desirable
to further investigate the reliability of these tests for verb classification.
6
This model, as well as both models in Analysis 3, did not converge with the full random
effects structure justified by the design. In all cases, dropping the slope for group from the by-
item random effects allowed the models to converge. We report the results from these reduced
models.
47
Appendix
Predicates used for each experiment and their subject bias score in that experiment (=the percentage of subject reference out of all
responses with either subject or object reference).
Predicate
type
Korean predicate in Experiment 1a
English
translation from
the NAVER
dictionary
English predicate in Experiment
1b
English
predicate in
Experiment 2
Non-SC
type
사과하다 (sakwahata) – AP – 91.7%
apologize to
apologize to – AP – 96.7%
apologize to
접근하다 (cepkunhata) – AP – 62.1%
approach to
approach – AP – 70.0%
approach
간청하다 (kanchenghata) – AP – 75.0%
plead
beg – AP – 87.5%
--
애원하다 (aywenhata) – AP – 51.5%
beg
beg – AP – 89.7%
beg
전화하다 (cenhwahata) – AP – 82.9%
telephone
call AP – 93.3%
--
부르다 (pwuluta) – AP – 71.0%
call
call AP – 93.5%
call
사기치다 (sakichita) – AP – 94.1%
swindle
cheat – AP – 75.9%
cheat
자백하다 (capaykhata) – AP – 70.0%
confess to
confess to – AP – 89.3%
confess to
거역하다 (keyekhata) – AP – 36.7%
disobey
disobey – AP – 96.9%
--
방해하다 (panghayhata) –AP/SE – 85.7%
interfere
distract – AP/SE – 97.0%
distract
이기다 (ikita) – AP – 72.2%
win
do better than – AP – 95.8%
--
아부하다 (apwuhata) – AP – 21.9%
flatter
flatter AP/SE – 58.1%
--
굴욕주다 (kwulyokcwuta) – AP/SE – 84.8%
humiliate
humiliate – AP/SE – 65.5%
--
상처주다 (sangchecwuta) – AP/SE – 94.3%
hurt
hurt – AP/SE – 86.2%
hurt
48
훼방놓다 (hweypangnohta) – AP – 62.5%
interrupt
interrupt – AP – 56.0%
--
초대하다 (chotayhata) – AP – 81.0%
invite
invite – AP – 65.2%
invite
거짓말하다 (kecismalhata) – AP – 96.8%
lie to
lie to AP – 97.0%
lie to
지다 (cita) AP – 68.8
lose to
lose to – AP – 61.8%
lose to
협박하다 (hyeppakhata) – AP – 37.1%
threaten
threaten – AP/SE – 40.0%
threaten
위협하다 (wihyephata) – AP/SE – 70.6%
intimidate
threaten – AP/SE – 62.1%
--
SC type
신경질나게하다 (sinkyengcilnakeyhata) –
AP/SE – 100%
aggravate
aggravate – AP/SE – 90.6%
--
즐겁게하다 (culkepkeyhata) – SE – 63.3%
amuse
amuse – SE – 69.6%
amuse
분노하게하다 (pwunnohakeyhata) – AP/SE
100%
infuriate
anger – AP/SE – 81.8%
anger
짜증나게하다 (ccacungnakeyhata) – AP/SE
96.7%
annoy
annoy – AP/SE – 84.4%
annoy
지루하게하다 (cilwuhakeyhata) – AP/SE
100%
bore
bore – SE – 88.5%
bore
실망하게하다 (silmanghakeyhata) – SE – 100%
disappoint
disappoint – SE – 80.0%
disappoint
낙담하게하다 (naktamhakeyhata) – SE – 96.7%
discourage
discourage – AP/SE – 40.7%
--
당황하게하다 (tanghwanghakeyhata) – AP/SE
100%
bewilder
embarrass – AP/SE – 72.7%
--
곤란하게하다 (konlanhakeyhata) – AP/SE
93.3%
trouble
embarrass – AP/SE – 80.6%
embarrass
매혹시키다 (mayhoksikhita)* – AP/SE – 100%
fascinate
enchant – SE – 87.5%
enchant
무섭게하다 (mwusepkeyhata) – AP/SE – 70.6%
scare
frighten – AP/SE – 90.3%
frighten
화나게하다 (hwanakeyhata) – AP/SE – 97.1%
anger
make angry – AP/SE – 87.1%
--
49
불안하게하다 (pwulanhakeyhata) – SE – 100%
disturb
make uneasy – SE – 83.3%
--
불쾌하게하다 (pwulkhwayhakeyhata) – AP/SE
– 90.9%
offend
offend – AP/SE – 93.5%
offend
기쁘게하다 (kippukeyhata) – SE –90.3%
please
please – SE – 90.3%
please
기분나쁘게하다 (kipwunnappukeyhata) –
AP/SE –96.9%
irritate
put in a bad mood – AP/SE
100%
--
겁먹게하다 (kepmekkeyhata) – AP/SE – 82.4%
frighten
scare AP/SE – 71.4%
scare
놀라게하다 (nollakeyhata) – AP/SE – 93.3%
surprise
surprise – AP/SE – 80.0%
surprise
근심하게하다 (kunsimhakeyhata) – SE – 95.2%
concern
worry – SE – 87.9%
--
걱정하게하다 (kekcenghakeyhata) – SE
96.4%
worry
worry – SE – 97.0%
--
Object-
biased
predicate
고발하다 (kopalhata) – 17.1%
sue
accuse – 44.4%
sue
부끄러워하다 (pwukkulewehata) –5.9%
be ashamed of
be ashamed of – 3.0%
--
무서워하다 (mwusewehata) – 9.7%
fear
be scared of – 10.7%
--
의심하다 (uysimhata) – 9.4%
doubt
be suspicious of – 10.7%
--
수상히여기다 (swusanghiyekita) – 12.9%
suspect
be suspicious of – 13.3%
--
믿다 (mitta) – 4.3%
believe in
believe – 3.7%
--
얕보다 (yathpota) – 14.3%
look down on
belittle – 80.0%
--
불평하다 (pwulphyenghata) – 11.8%
grumble
complain – 60.0%
--
비난하다 (pinanhata) – 12.5%
criticize
criticize – 14.3%
criticize
싫어하다 (silhehata) – 5.9%
dislike
dislike – 3.3%
--
탈락시키다 (thallaksikhita) – 10.7%
disqualify
eliminate – 7.7%
--
시기하다 (sikihata) – 14.8%
be jealous of
envy – 0%
--
50
질투하다 (cilthwuhata) – 3.4%
envy
envy – 10.7%
--
부러워하다 (pwulewehata) – 5.0%
envy
envy – 3.6%
envy
두려워하다 (twulyewehata) – 20.6%
fear
fear – 6.3%
--
해고하다 (haykohata) – 0%
fire
fire – 6.3%
fire
증오하다 (cungohata) – 11.1%
detest
hate – 12.9%
--
혐오하다 (hyemohata) – 5.6%
loathe
hate – 19.4%
hate
도와주다 (towacwuta) – 16.1%
assist
help – 45.5%
--
때리다 (ttaylita) – 8.3%
beat
hit – 28.6%
hit
죽이다 (cwukita) – 44.1%
kill
kill – 53.3%
--
경멸하다 (kyengmyelhata) – 0%
despise
look down on – 6.9%
--
불신하다 (pwulsinhata) – 0%
distrust
mistrust – 10.0%
--
과대평가하다 (kwatayphyengkahata) – 9.7%
overestimate
overestimate – 33.3%
--
가여워하다 (kayewehata) – 15.6%
pity
pity – 12.5%
--
벌주다 (pelcwuta) – 0%
punish
punish – 0%
punish
교체하다 (kyocheyhata) – 14.3%
substitute
replace – 6.1%
replace
책망하다 (chaykmanghata) – 8.8%
condemn
reproach – 35.5%
--
존경하다 (conkyenghata) – 3.2%
respect
respect – 10.3%
--
비웃다 (piwusta) – 0%
laugh at
ridicule – 24.1%
ridicule
야단치다 (yatanchita) – 8.3%
scold
scold – 3.0%
scold
꾸중하다 (kkwucwunghata) – 2.8%
rebuke
scold – 6.1%
--
꾸짖다 (kkwucicta) – 3.1%
reproach
scold – 6.5%
--
말리다 (mallita) 0%
prevent
stop – 13.8%
--
51
중단하다 (cwungtanhata) – 13.8%
stop
stop – 50.0%
stop
고소하다 (kosohata) – 5.7%
accuse
sue – 16.7%
--
신뢰하다 (sinloyhata) – 16.0%
trust
trust – 10.7%
trust
주의주다 (cwuuycwuta) – 0%
note
warn – 35.0%
--
경고하다 (kyengkohata) – 6.1%
warn
warn – 45.8%
--
걱정하다 (kekcenghata) – 10.0%
worry about
worry about – 11.8%
--
Note 1. Distractor items used in Experiment 2 (k = 12): smile at, see, know, talk to, resemble, work with, listen to, watch, interview,
study with, live next to, chat with
†AP = Agent-Patient verb; SE = Stimulus-Experiencer verb
* 매혹시키다 (mayhoksikhita) is the only SC item not including –keyha. It instead contains a lexical causative verb –shiki which
means ‘to cause/force
Poster
March 2016
    The bilingual mental lexicon contains representations that are at least partially shared at multiple levels (semantic, form) between languages, as seen in non-selective activation, cross- language interaction, and translation priming effects (Dijkstra&vanHeuven2002; DuñabeitiaEtAl 2010; GollanEtAl1997). These effects have been demonstrated abundantly at the word level, yet less is known about... [Show full abstract]
    Poster
    March 2015
      Verb-based implicit causality information is used to resolve reference (e.g., Garvey & Caramazza, 1974). Implicit causality verbs allow for inferences about the causality of an event, thus making some referents more likely for subsequent mention. For example, the verbs frighten and annoy imply the subject as the underlying cause of the ‘frighten/annoy’ event, thus they are subject-biased... [Show full abstract]
      Article
      May 2018 · Bilingualism
        This study investigated Chinese-speaking English learners’ use of implicit causality and consequentiality biases in establishing coreference under a Bayesian view of reference interpretation, which distinguishes between context-based priors about which entity will be re-mentioned and new evidence provided by the referential expression form. In two sentence-completion experiments, participants... [Show full abstract]
        Article
          Given a sentence such as Mary fascinated/admired Sue because she did great, the verb fascinated leads people to interpret she as referring to Mary, whereas admired leads people to interpret she as referring to Sue. This phenomenon is known as implicit causality (IC). Recent studies have shown that verbs’ causality biases closely correspond to the verbs’ semantic classes, as classified in... [Show full abstract]
          Chapter
          June 2014
            We present a semantic theory of causal discourse that allows us to derive expectations about upcoming discourse, specifically when to expect various types of explanations.We apply our theory to the phenomenon of implicit causality and show how the semantics of implicit causality verbs interacts with discourse structure. In particular, we show why certain verbs trigger explanations per default,... [Show full abstract]
            Discover more