Home Does isomorphism boost heritage speakers’ sentence processing? A case of Korean active transitive and suffixal passive constructions
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Does isomorphism boost heritage speakers’ sentence processing? A case of Korean active transitive and suffixal passive constructions

  • Gyu-Ho Shin ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Jayoung Song ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: March 25, 2025
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Applied Linguistics Review
From the journal Applied Linguistics Review Volume 16 Issue 5

Abstract

This study investigates the role of isomorphism in sentence processing by Korean heritage speakers in the United States. Employing acceptability judgement and self-paced reading tasks, we examine how Korean heritage speakers comprehend two Korean clausal constructions expressing transitivity: active transitive and suffixal passive. Results reveal a nuanced interplay between isomorphism, construction-specific cues, and task demands in sentence processing. While Korean heritage speakers’ acceptability ratings are largely comparable to those of monolingual Korean speakers, they spend more time reading critical regions and less time reading spill-over region than monolingual Korean speakers. Notably, there are no significant reading-time differences (i) across all critical and spill-over regions within identical grammaticality conditions and (ii) in the verb and post-verb regions across grammaticality pairs within the same construction and canonicity conditions. General proficiency in Korean does not substantially affect heritage speakers’ performance across the tasks. These findings advance our understanding of heritage language (processing) and sentence-processing architectures, also highlighting the unique linguistic experiences and challenges encountered by heritage language speakers.

Keywords: isomorphism; heritage language; suffixal passive; sentence processing; Korean
Corresponding author: Gyu-Ho Shin, Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois Chicago, 601 S Morgan St, Chicago, IL 60607, USA, E-mail:

  1. Conflict of interest: The authors declare none.

  2. Data availability: The data/code used in this study are available in OSF at https://osf.io/5q79a/?view_only=0f019a27c34c4a0db94e632fe3757cef.

Appendix A: Self-paced reading: By-region reading time (raw; trimmed)

NSK

Mean (SD)
Condition R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
(a) 308.35 (191.08) 310.77 (165.79) 317.18 (140.87) 348.72 (180.57) 339.69 (141.41) 337.02 (120.42)
(b) 305.55 (144.64) 327.89 (192.35) 340.79 (208.67) 334.02 (222.65) 365.77 (190.28) 359.21 (123.81)
(c) 285.44 (107.79) 284.9 (117.98) 303.98 (134.96) 313.68 (140.49) 344.68 (223.51) 340.21 (137.91)
(d) 309.25 (120.49) 313.77 (155.26) 340.75 (224.73) 320.80 (204.91) 320.62 (155.28) 344.08 (172.22)
(e) 291.32 (126.49) 304.41 (157.99) 314.27 (155.01) 322.66 (160.85) 341.08 (133.29) 352.82 (141.13)
(f) 308.85 (133.40) 318.34 (155.18) 325.18 (183.00) 340.67 (180.02) 391.38 (270.91) 366.16 (176.68)
(g) 320.98 (147.89) 343.87 (210.15) 334.29 (186.25) 343.11 (170.50) 338.31 (153.13) 372.95 (140.33)
(h) 307.62 (173.03) 326.18 (208.86) 340.61 (162.23) 340.26 (206.78) 342.72 (156.81) 327.68 (115.28)

KHS

Mean (SD)
Condition R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
(a) 669.49 (318.41) 687.09 (294.44) 700.52 (315.90) 744.23 (373.21) 581.40 (263.01) 459.18 (248.49)
(b) 676.87 (324.56) 664.54 (308.02) 718.93 (324.29) 798.56 (407.99) 525.77 (262.57) 462.68 (220.27)
(c) 642.34 (303.05) 704.32 (353.19) 755.57 (356.41) 772.46 (346.47) 575.22 (312.88) 453.20 (191.99)
(d) 592.04 (286.21) 716.07 (346.47) 725.23 (363.07) 790.57 (416.80) 535.89 (283.73) 424.37 (188.05)
(e) 621.06 (300.01) 611.09 (254.76) 698.68 (331.59) 776.89 (352.48) 520.01 (212.32) 430.28 (177.63)
(f) 645.85 (321.58) 656.08 (331.74) 728.96 (341.96) 763.47 (388.79) 557.64 (270.62) 439.95 (184.17)
(g) 615.21 (264.18) 701.22 (326.60) 649.37 (277.86) 748.23 (347.53) 547.39 (307.99) 431.78 (188.54)
(h) 594.35 (277.31) 639.68 (287.50) 615.44 (258.15) 731.70 (352.55) 511.42 (218.62) 415.59 (182.49)

Appendix B: Self-paced reading: Statistical model (KHS-internal) by grammaticality (α = 0.025)

R2

Grammatical ([a], [c], [e], [g]; R 2 = 0.104) Ungrammatical ([b], [d], [f], [h]; R 2 = 0.134)
β SE t p β SE t p
(Intercept) 0.105 0.023 4.560 < 0.0005*** 0.104 0.025 4.094 < 0.0005***
Construction –0.048 0.036 –1.339 0.191 –0.025 0.037 –0.674 0.504
Canonicity 0.068 0.036 1.904 0.070 0.047 0.037 1.255 0.218
Construction × canonicity 0.113 0.071 1.579 0.125 –0.031 0.074 –0.413 0.681

R3

Grammatical(L)

([a], [c], [e], [g]; R 2 = 0.015)		 Ungrammatical(1)

([b], [d], [f], [h]; R 2 = 0.033)
(Intercept) 0.135 0.019 7.155 < 0.0005*** 0.135 0.019 7.159 < 0.0005***
Construction –0.076 0.038 –2.005 0.046 –0.046 0.037 –1.260 0.209
Canonicity 0.027 0.038 0.707 0.480 –0.060 0.037 –1.646 0.101
Construction × canonicity –0.135 0.075 –1.782 0.076 –0.132 0.073 –1.804 0.072

  1. Note. (L) lm instead of lmer. (1) F1 analysis.

R4

Grammatical ([a], [c], [e], [g]; R 2 = 0.146) Ungrammatical ([b], [d], [f], [h]; R 2 = 0.183)
(Intercept) 0.221 0.030 7.473 < 0.0005*** 0.230 0.033 6.953 < 0.0005***
Construction 0.006 0.050 0.129 0.899 –0.013 0.046 –0.278 0.785
Canonicity 0.009 0.036 0.252 0.801 –0.015 0.040 –0.381 0.703
Construction × canonicity –0.110 0.072 –1.518 0.130 –0.004 0.080 –0.055 0.956

R5

Grammatical ([a], [c], [e], [g]; R 2 = 0.059) Ungrammatical ([b], [d], [f], [h]; R 2 = 0.077)
(Intercept) –0.098 0.028 –3.498 0.002** –0.133 0.026 –5.090 < 0.0005***
Construction –0.065 0.046 –1.411 0.160 0.025 0.041 0.603 0.547
Canonicity 0.005 0.050 0.101 0.920 –0.020 0.041 –0.489 0.625
Construction × canonicity 0.065 0.099 0.654 0.516 –0.084 0.083 –1.009 0.314

References

Adams, Anne-Marie & Susan E. Gathercole. 2000. Limitations in working memory: Implications for language development. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 35(1). 95–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/136828200247278.Search in Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald & Petar Milin. 2010. Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research 3(2). 12–28. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.807.Search in Google Scholar

Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth & Brian MacWhinney. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In Brian MacWhinney & Elizabeth Bates (eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing, 73–112. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bice, Kristen & Judith F. Kroll. 2021. Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics 58. 100963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100963.Search in Google Scholar

Bornkessel‐Schlesewsky, Ina & Matthias Schlesewsky. 2009. The role of prominence information in the real‐time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross‐linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 19–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x.Search in Google Scholar

Chrabaszcz, Anna, Elena Onischik & Olga Dragoy. 2022. Sentence comprehension in heritage language: Isomorphism, word order, and language transfer. Second Language Research 38(4). 839–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321997900.Search in Google Scholar

Christianson, Kiel. 2016. When language comprehension goes wrong for the right reasons: Good-enough, underspecified, or shallow language processing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5). 817–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1134603.Search in Google Scholar

Clahsen, Harald & Claudia Felser. 2006. Continuity and shallow structures in language processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 27(1). 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716406060206.Search in Google Scholar

Cunnings, Ian. 2017. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20(4). 659–678. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000675.Search in Google Scholar

Diamond, Adele. 1985. Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on AB. Child Development 56(4). 868–883. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130099.Search in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of functional grammar: The structure of the clause. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Eckes, Thomas & Rüdiger Grotjahn. 2006. A closer look at the construct validity of C-tests. Language Testing 23(3). 290–325. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532206lt330oa.Search in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47. 164–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7.Search in Google Scholar

Friedman, William J. 2000. The development of children’s knowledge of the times of future events. Child Development 71(4). 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00199.Search in Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.10.21236/ADA221854Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1.Search in Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1991. Isomorphism in the grammatical code: Cognitive and biological considerations. Studies in Language 15. 85–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.15.1.04giv.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar

Grüter, Theres & Hannah Rohde. 2021. Limits on expectation-based processing: Use of grammatical aspect for co-reference in L2. Applied Psycholinguistics 42. 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716420000582.Search in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14(1). 25–72. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.1.03has.Search in Google Scholar

Hopp, Holger. 2014. Working memory effects in the L2 processing of ambiguous relative clauses. Language Acquisition 21(3). 250–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489223.2014.892943.Search in Google Scholar

Hopp, Holger. 2017. The processing of English which-questions in adult L2 learners: Effects of L1 transfer and proficiency. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36(1). 107–134. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0006.Search in Google Scholar

Hwang, Heeju & Elsi Kaiser. 2014. The role of the verb in grammatical function assignment in English and Korean. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 40(5). 1363–1376. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036797.Search in Google Scholar

Hwang, Sun Hee & Donna Lardiere. 2013. Plural-marking in L2 Korean: A feature-based approach. Second Language Research 29(1). 57–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461496.Search in Google Scholar

Ito, Atsushi. 2007. The interpretation of Japanese word order patterns by adult English-speaking learners of Japanese as a second language. Applied Linguistics 28(3). 466–473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm025.Search in Google Scholar

Jackson, Carrie. 2008. Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning 58(4). 875–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00481.x.Search in Google Scholar

Jacob, Gunnar & Claudia Felser. 2016. Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5). 907–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.984231.Search in Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian & Harry Tily. 2011. On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 2(3). 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.126.Search in Google Scholar

Jegerski, Jill, Gregory D. Keating & Bill VanPatten. 2016. On-line relative clause attachment strategy in heritage speakers of Spanish. International Journal of Bilingualism 20(3). 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006914552288.Search in Google Scholar

Jia, Ruiting & Johanne Paradis. 2015. The use of referring expressions in narratives by Mandarin heritage language children and the role of language environment factors in predicting individual differences. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 18(4). 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000728.Search in Google Scholar

Just, Marcel A., Patricia A. Carpenter & Jacqueline D. Woolley. 1982. Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology 111(2). 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.111.2.228.Search in Google Scholar

Kaan, Edith. 2014. Predictive sentence processing in L2 and L1: What is different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 4(2). 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.2.05kaa.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Youngjin. 1999. The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and cognitive processes 14(5–6). 687–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909699386239.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Jong-Bok & Iksoo Choi. 2004. The Korean case system: A unified, constraint-based approach. Language Research 40. 885–921.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Juhyung, Silvina Montru & James Yoon. 2009. Binding interpretations of anaphors by Korean heritage speakers. Language Acquisition 16(1). 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10489220802575293.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, Sun-Young, Jin-Hwa Sung & Dongsun Yim. 2017. Sentence comprehension ability and working memory capacity as a function of syntactic structure and canonicity in 5-and 6-year-old children. Communication Sciences & Disorders 22(4). 643–656. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.17420.Search in Google Scholar

Kondo-Brown, Kimi. 2005. Differences in language skills: Heritage language learner subgroups and foreign language learners. The Modern Language Journal 89(4). 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00330.x.Search in Google Scholar

Koornneef, Arjen W. & Jos J. Van Berkum. 2006. On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4). 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.003.Search in Google Scholar

Kwon, Nayoung & Patrick Sturt. 2019. Proximity and same case marking do not increase attraction effect in comprehension: Evidence from eye-tracking experiments in Korean. Frontiers in Psychology 10. 1320. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01320.Search in Google Scholar

Laleko, Olga & Maria Polinsky. 2016. Between syntax and discourse: Topic and case marking in heritage speakers and L2 learners of Japanese and Korean. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 6(4). 396–439. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.14018.lal.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Chanyoung, Gyu-Ho Shin & Boo Kyung Jung. 2024. How ‘good-enough’ is second language comprehension? Morphological causative and suffixal passive constructions in Korean. Applied Linguistics Review 15(6). 2685–2712. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2022-0152.Search in Google Scholar

Lee-Ellis, Sunyoung. 2009. The development and validation of a Korean C-test using Rasch analysis. Language Testing 26(2). 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101007.Search in Google Scholar

Lim, Jin-Hwa & Kiel Christianson. 2015. Second language sensitivity to agreement errors: Evidence from eye movements during comprehension and translation. Applied Psycholinguistics 36(6). 1283–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000290.Search in Google Scholar

López Otero, Juan C., Eun Hee Hu & Malena Goldin. 2024. Syntactic optionality in heritage Spanish: How patterns of exposure and use affect clitic climbing. International Journal of Bilingualism 28(3). 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/13670069231170691.Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, Janet L. 2006. Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor grammaticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and Language 55(3). 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.006.Search in Google Scholar

McElree, Brian. 2000. Sentence comprehension is mediated by content-addressable memory structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29. 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005184709695.10.1023/A:1005184709695Search in Google Scholar

McKay, Todd. 2019. More on the validity and reliability of C-test scores: A meta-analysis of C-test studies. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University.Search in Google Scholar

McRae, Ken & Kyoko Matsuki. 2009. People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(6). 1417–1429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00174.x.Search in Google Scholar

Montrul, Silvina. 2010. How similar are adult second language learners and Spanish heritage speakers? Spanish clitics and word order. Applied Psycholinguistics 31(1). 167–207. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640999021X.Search in Google Scholar

Montrul, Silvina, Ashwini Bhatia, Rajesh Bhatt & Vikram Puri. 2019. Case marking in Hindi as the weaker language. Frontiers in Psychology 10. 461. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00461.Search in Google Scholar

Mikhaylova, Anna. 2018. Morphological bottleneck: The case of Russian heritage speakers. Journal of Language Contact 11(2). 268–303. https://doi.org/10.1163/19552629-01102005.Search in Google Scholar

Nakagawa, Shinichi & Holger Schielzeth. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2). 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x.Search in Google Scholar

O’Grady, William. 2015. Processing determinism. Language Learning 65(1). 6–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12091.Search in Google Scholar

O’Grady, William & Mi-Suk Lee. 2005. A mapping theory of agrammatic comprehension deficits. Brain and Language 92(1). 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2004.05.009.Search in Google Scholar

O’Grady, William, Yasuko Yamashita & Sung-Yun Lee. 2005. A note on canonical word order. Applied Linguistics 26(3). 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami019.Search in Google Scholar

Omaki, Akira & Barbara Schulz. 2011. Filler-gap dependencies and island constraints in second-language sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(4). 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000313.Search in Google Scholar

Park, Taesik. 2021. Study on the frequency and causes of the passive in English and Korean in the Gospel of John. The Journal of Linguistics Science 98. 195–213. https://doi.org/10.21296/jls.2021.9.98.195.Search in Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria & Gregory Scontras. 2020. Understanding heritage languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 23(1). 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000245.Search in Google Scholar

Pozzan, Lucia & John C. Trueswell. 2016. Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: A visual word study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19(3). 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728915000838.Search in Google Scholar

R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Search in Google Scholar

Rah, Adam & Dany Adone. 2010. Processing of the reduced relative clause versus main verb ambiguity in L2 learners at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(1). 79–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310999026X.Search in Google Scholar

Rapp, David N. & Panayiota Kendeou. 2007. Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition 35(8). 2019–2032. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192934.Search in Google Scholar

Robenalt, Clarice & Adele E. Goldberg. 2016. Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning 661(1). 60–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12149.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Leah. 2012. Individual differences in second language sentence processing. Language Learning 62. 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00711.x.Search in Google Scholar

Rothman, Jason. 2009. Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism 13(2). 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006909339814.Search in Google Scholar

Sohn, Ho-Min. 1999. The Korean language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Shin, Gyu-Ho. 2021. Limits on the Agent-First strategy: Evidence from children’s comprehension of a transitive construction in Korean. Cognitive Science 45(9). e13038. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13038.Search in Google Scholar

Shin, Gyu-Ho. 2022. Awareness is one thing and mastery is another: Korean-speaking children’s comprehension of a suffixal passive construction in Korean. Cognitive Development 62. 101184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101184.Search in Google Scholar

Shin, Gyu-Ho & Seongmin Mun. 2023. Korean-speaking children’s constructional knowledge about a transitive event: Corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling. Journal of Child Language 50(2). 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500092100088X.Search in Google Scholar

Shin, Gyu-Ho & Sun Hee Park. 2023. Isomorphism and language-specific devices in comprehension of Korean suffixal passive construction by Mandarin-speaking learners of Korean. Applied Linguistics Review 14(3). 503–531. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0036.Search in Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2013. Passive constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available at: http://wals.info/chapter/107 (accessed 15 February 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Tan, Mary & Amanda Foltz. 2020. Task sensitivity in L2 English speakers’ syntactic processing: Evidence for good-enough processing in self-paced reading. Frontiers in Psychology 11. 575847. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.575847.Search in Google Scholar

Townsend, David J. & Thomas G. Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6184.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Traxler, Matthew J. 2014. Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(11). 605–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001.Search in Google Scholar

Trueswell, John C., Irina A. Sekerina, Nicole M. Hill & Marian L. Logrip. 1999. The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73(2). 89–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00032-3.Search in Google Scholar

Trueswell, John C., Michael K. Tanenhaus & Susan M. Garnsey. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33(3). 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1016.Search in Google Scholar

Unsworth, Sharon. 2013. Assessing the role of current and cumulative exposure in simultaneous bilingual acquisition: The case of Dutch gender. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(1). 86–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000284.Search in Google Scholar

U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Asian American and Pacific Islander heritage month: May 2021. Available at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2021/asian-american-pacific-islander.html (accessed 17 April 2024).Search in Google Scholar

Wells, Jonathan B., Morten H. Christiansen, Darren S. Race, Daniel J. Acheson & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2009. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58(2). 250–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.002.Search in Google Scholar

Wittek, Angelika & Michael Tomasello. 2005. German-speaking children’s productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: Local cues act locally. First language 25(1). 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723705049120.Search in Google Scholar

Woo, In-Hwan. 1997. wulimal phitong yenkwu [Study on a passive voice in Korean]. Seoul: Hankwukmwunhwasa.Search in Google Scholar

Yeon, Jaehoon. 2015. Passives. In Lucien Brown & Jaehoon Yeon (eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics, 116–136. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118371008.ch7Search in Google Scholar

Zehr, Jeremy & Florian Schwarz. 2018. PennController for internet based experiments (IBEX). Available at: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MD832.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-09-05
Accepted: 2025-02-12
Published Online: 2025-03-25
Published in Print: 2025-09-25

© 2025 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring undergraduate EFL students’ growth in knowledge of elements in argumentation and their writing performance
  4. Sustainability as a business opportunity: a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of sustainable finance discourse
  5. Follow-up contributions for collaboratively accomplishing peer feedback in video-mediated L2 interactions
  6. Leveraging mutually shared knowledge through translanguaging in EMI classrooms: combining multimodal conversation analysis with interpretative phenomenological analysis
  7. Thinking through “in-betweenness”: a conversation with Suresh Canagarajah on decolonizing language education and research in South Asia
  8. Using the L1 to disambiguate L2 vocabulary: examining the effects on learning burden and decay with Chinese learners of English
  9. I can do it: a positive psychology perspective on the development of self-efficacy in the EFL context
  10. Integrating antiracist pedagogy in a Korean EFL classroom: a participatory approach to racial awareness and critical education
  11. Scholarly discourse: the growth of English for Research Publication Purposes
  12. Enhancing second language motivation and facilitating vocabulary acquisition in an EFL classroom through translanguaging practices
  13. Expandability and temporality in translanguaging spaces: a space-centred systematic observation of Kongish Daily
  14. “Working out” the longitudinal development and factors that influence phrasal verb knowledge for study-abroad learners in the UK
  15. Does isomorphism boost heritage speakers’ sentence processing? A case of Korean active transitive and suffixal passive constructions
  16. Refusing gifts in Chinese: a linguistic analysis integrating interaction ritual, expressions and speech acts
  17. Translanguaging as an emotional assessment practice: unveiling Chinese EFL students’ perceptions and experiences
  18. The relationship between oral expression, gesture and sign language in objectification of mathematical concepts; hard of hearing student example
  19. Review Article
  20. Boredom and achievement in L2 learning: a meta-analysis
  21. Research Article
  22. Unraveling the local tapestry: exploring English language learning motivations in Taiwan’s unique cultural landscape
https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2024-0284
Keywords for this article
isomorphism; heritage language; suffixal passive; sentence processing; Korean

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Exploring undergraduate EFL students’ growth in knowledge of elements in argumentation and their writing performance
  4. Sustainability as a business opportunity: a corpus-assisted discourse analysis of sustainable finance discourse
  5. Follow-up contributions for collaboratively accomplishing peer feedback in video-mediated L2 interactions
  6. Leveraging mutually shared knowledge through translanguaging in EMI classrooms: combining multimodal conversation analysis with interpretative phenomenological analysis
  7. Thinking through “in-betweenness”: a conversation with Suresh Canagarajah on decolonizing language education and research in South Asia
  8. Using the L1 to disambiguate L2 vocabulary: examining the effects on learning burden and decay with Chinese learners of English
  9. I can do it: a positive psychology perspective on the development of self-efficacy in the EFL context
  10. Integrating antiracist pedagogy in a Korean EFL classroom: a participatory approach to racial awareness and critical education
  11. Scholarly discourse: the growth of English for Research Publication Purposes
  12. Enhancing second language motivation and facilitating vocabulary acquisition in an EFL classroom through translanguaging practices
  13. Expandability and temporality in translanguaging spaces: a space-centred systematic observation of Kongish Daily
  14. “Working out” the longitudinal development and factors that influence phrasal verb knowledge for study-abroad learners in the UK
  15. Does isomorphism boost heritage speakers’ sentence processing? A case of Korean active transitive and suffixal passive constructions
  16. Refusing gifts in Chinese: a linguistic analysis integrating interaction ritual, expressions and speech acts
  17. Translanguaging as an emotional assessment practice: unveiling Chinese EFL students’ perceptions and experiences
  18. The relationship between oral expression, gesture and sign language in objectification of mathematical concepts; hard of hearing student example
  19. Review Article
  20. Boredom and achievement in L2 learning: a meta-analysis
  21. Research Article
  22. Unraveling the local tapestry: exploring English language learning motivations in Taiwan’s unique cultural landscape
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/applirev-2024-0284/html
Scroll to top button