< Previous430∙Lee, Shinsook ․ Cho, Mi-HuiThe Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018the ordering of the vowels was randomized for identification.Five native speakers of North American English identified the target words produced by the Korean participants. Two native speaker raters were from the US: one male rater from California (41 years old) and one female rater from Philadelphia (24 years old). The remaining three native speaker raters were from Canada: one male rater from Vancouver (35 years old) and two female raters from Toronto (29 and 35 years old). The native speaker raters were teaching English at a private university in the Seoul-Metropolitan area or graduate students majoring in English language education at a university in Seoul. The native speaker raters were asked to listen to the stimulus words and to check the word they thought they heard on an answer sheet. There were 12 alternatives and also a blank for writing down was provided if the native speaker raters could not find the words they heard among the alternatives. The native speaker raters also provided confidence ratings for the target words on a 7-point scale in which “1” indicates “not confident at all” and “7” “very confident”. There were 1224 token stimuli (34 participants2) × 12 vowels × 3 repetitions).The Korean participants also completed a perception (i.e., vowel identification) test using Praat in a sound-attenuated room. The participants wore headphones and listened to the target words recorded by the female native English speaker from Ohio. The words were repeated 4 times at random and thus there were 48 trials for each participant (12 vowels × 4 repetitions). The participants were asked to mouse-click the word they thought they heard among the stimulus words displayed on the computer monitor. They could replay the stimuli up to two times and finished practice items recorded by a male native speaker of American English before the test.3.4 AnalysisThe accuracy of the native English speakers’ identification of the Korean participants’ productions was calculated by the participants and by the words (i.e., vowels). The error patterns were also coded. Similarly, the Korean participants’ identification accuracy in the perception test was calculated, along with the coding of the perceptual error patterns.4. Results4.1 Overall ResultsThe overall results of the perception and production tests were shown in Figure 1. The percentage correct of perception was slightly higher than that of production and the paired samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the perception and production accuracy (t(33)=2.204, p<.05). The overall results thus supported the previous findings that perception generally precedes production.3)2) Among the 5 native English raters, two raters, one from the US and the other from Canada, said that they distinguished between the vowels /ɑ/ and /ɔ/. The remaining 3 native English raters said that they did not consciously distinguish between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ but that they were able to differentiate between the two vowels when hearing the vowels. Additionally, the native speaker raters’ confidence ratings were overall very high (mean: 5.5).3) The participants’ perception results were analyzed from a different perspective in Lee and Shin (2015) with other data. Also, part of the participants’ production data was acoustically analyzed in Lee et al. (2017).The Interface between Perception and Production in L2 English Vowels∙431The Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018Fig. 1. Mean percentage correct of perception and productionEach of the individual vowels was also analyzed in terms of perception and production. As can be seen in Figure 2, the correct percentage of perception was higher than that of production for several vowels such as /i/ (beat), /ɪ/ (bit), /ɛ/ (bet), /æ/ (bat), /ʌ/ (but), and /ɔ/ (bought). On the contrary, vowels such as /ɑr/ (bart), /ɑ/ (bot), and /oʊ/ (boat) showed the reverse pattern. There was not much difference in correct percentages between perception and production of vowels such as /eɪ/ (bait), /ɝ/ (burt), and /u/ (boot). Statistical analyses of the vowel pairs revealed that the differences between perception and production of the following vowels were significant, as shown in Table 1.Fig. 2. Mean percentage correct of perception and production by individual vowels432∙Lee, Shinsook ․ Cho, Mi-HuiThe Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018Table 1. Paired samples t-test for perception and production of individual vowelsVowel pairsMean differenceStandard deviationtdp value/i/-/i/.099.2832.03833.049/ɪ/-/ɪ/.271.2167.29333.000/ʌ/-/ʌ/.428.23310.68933.000/ɑr/-/ɑr/-.170.323-3.06733.004/ɑ/-/ɑ/-.214.323-3.75333.001/oʊ/-/oʊ/-.110.257-2.50533.017Accordingly, the results of the individual vowels revealed that the precedence relationship between perception and production could vary depending on vowels, even though the overall results showed that perception preceded production.4.2 Error Patterns in Perception and ProductionThe results of the perception and production were further analyzed in term of the error patterns of words, as shown in Table 2.Table 2. Error patterns in perception and production by words Stimulus wordsPerceptionProductionbeatbit 13.2% (18/136)bit 22.5% (115/510)bitbeat 11.0% (15/136)beat 38,2% (195/510)baitbetbat 47.8% (65/136)bat 49.0% (250/510)batbet 33.8% (46/136)bet 38.6% (197/510)butbought 4.4% (6/136)bought 23.3% (119/510)bot 20.8% (106/510)boat 4.9% (25/510)burtboat 8.1% (11/136)bart 9.2% (47/510)bartburt 17.6% (24/136)burt 3.5% (18/510)botbought 27.2% (37/136)but 25.0% (34/136)bart 9.6% (13/136)boat 8.8% (12/136)bought 36.1% (184/510)but 14.1% (72/510)boughtboat 14.0% (19/136)but 12.5% (17/136)bot 8.8% (12/136)boat 34.5% (176/510)bot 9.0% (46/510)but 5.7% (29/510)boatbought 15.4% (21/136)bought 5.1% (26/510)bootNote: Error rates less than 3% are not shown.The Interface between Perception and Production in L2 English Vowels∙433The Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018As shown in Table 2, error patterns of perception and production were similar. More specifically, the English vowel pair /i/-/ɪ/ in the words beat and bit showed a reciprocal error pattern in both perception and production, but the error rate was higher in production than in perception. The English vowel pair /ɛ/-/æ/ (bet and bat) also demonstrated a bidirectional error pattern but smaller differences in error rates between perception and production. English /ʌ/ was misidentified as English /ɔ/ in a small proportion while it was mainly misproduced as /ɔ/ and /ɑ/. The English rhotic vowel /ɝ/ (burt) was unexpectedly misperceived as /oʊ/ in boat, but it was misproduced as /ɑr/ (bart) with not much difference in error rates between perception and production. Another English rhotic vowel /ɑr/ in bart was mainly confused with the rhotic vowel /ɝ/ in burt with a higher error rate in perception than in production. The English vowel /ɑ/ in bot was mostly confused with /ɔ/ (bought) both in perception (27.2%) and production (36.1%). This is understandable given that English /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ are merged into /ɑ/ in many parts of the United Sates (Boberg, 2015). In addition, English /ɑ/ was misidentified as /ʌ/ (25%), followed by /ɑr/ and /oʊ/, whereas it was mispronounced as /ʌ/ in production (14.1%). On the contrary, English /ɔ/ was not mainly confused with English /ɑ/ but with English /oʊ/ in perception (14%) and the same error pattern was also observed in production (34.5%). English /ɔ/ was further confused with English /ɑ/ and /ʌ/ in both perception and production. The English vowel /oʊ/ in boat was mostly confused with English /ɔ/ in bought but the error rate of /oʊ/ was much higher in perception than in production. As for the vowels /eɪ/ (bait) and /u/ (boot), no salient error patterns emerged.4.3 Correlation between Perception and ProductionOne of the research questions addressed in the present study was to investigate whether the participants’ perception and production abilities develop closely or independently. In order to answer the question, the correlation between perception and production was analyzed by the participants. Fig. 3. Correlation between perception and production by participants (Each empty circle represents individual participants.)434∙Lee, Shinsook ․ Cho, Mi-HuiThe Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018The results revealed that there was no significant correlation between perception and production (R2=0.063, p>,05), suggesting that the participants’ production ability does not necessarily go hand in hand with their perceptual ability. For instance, the participants above the diagonal line (y=x) in Figure 3 demonstrate that their perceptual ability is better than their production ability. By contrast, the participants below the diagonal line indicate that their production accuracy was higher than their perception accuracy. When a correlational analysis was conducted by individual word pairs, no significant correlations were found across all the words pairs (all p>.05).5. Discussion and ImplicationThe current study investigated the interface between perception and production in L2 American English vowels focusing on the precedence relationship and the correlation between perception and production. To that end, 34 Korean EFL learners completed English vowel identification and production tasks with English vowel stimuli. The results revealed that the Korean learners overall perceived the target vowels more accurately than producing them, thus showing the precedence relationship of perception over production.However, the precedence relationship was not observed across all the target vowels. Specifically, only the vowels /i/ (beat), /ɪ/ (bit), and /ʌ/ (but) demonstrated a significant predominance of perception over production. The Korean learners in the current study identified the vowels /i/ and /ɪ/ at a high accuracy rate (over 85%) but their production of the vowels tended not to be target-appropriate. The learners’ production of /i/ was identified as /ɪ/ while that of /ɪ/ as /i/ by the native English raters, thus showing bidirectional error patterns. This suggests that the learners were less likely to differentiate between /i/ and /ɪ/ in production than in perception. As for the low accuracy rate in production, it may partly be due to a negative transfer effect from Korean. Korean /i/ has been considered to be more similar to English /i/ than English /ɪ/ (Yang, 1996). Thus, the Korean participants seemed to have more difficulty producing English /ɪ/ (accuracy rate: 61.2%) than English /i/ (accuracy rate: 76.9%). The perception accuracy of /ʌ/ was also high (91.2%) but its production accuracy was very low (48.4%). This was because the learners’ production of /ʌ/ was mostly identified as /ɔ/ and /ɑ/ by the native English raters. The result seems to suggest that many Korean learners in the current study had not attained the production skills of English /ʌ/ unlike the perception skills of the vowel (de Jong et al., 2009a, b). The result may also be ascribable to the fact that the acoustic/auditory space between English /ʌ/ and /ɑ/ tends to be close (Johnson, 2003), causing the native English raters to misidentify /ʌ/ as /ɑ/. Further, North American English shows low-back vowel merger between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ (Boberg, 2015), making the distinction between /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ a little bit difficult.By contrast, the vowels /ɑr/ (bart), /ɑ/ (bot), and /oʊ/ (boat) showed a significant predominance of production over perception. The rhotic vowel /ɑr/ was confused with another rhotic vowel /ɝ/ at the rate of 17.6% in perception. However, the native English raters identified the Korean learners’ production of /ɑr/ at a high accuracy rate possibly due to the salient acoustic r-coloring of the vowel. As mentioned above, the confusion among English /ɑ/, /ʌ/, and /ɔ/ affected the low accuracy rates of /ɑ/ both in perception and production. The low accuracy of English /ɑ/ may partly stem from an L1 negative transfer in that Korean /a/ is a low central vowel whereas English /ɑ/ is a low back vowel. The Korean learners also misidentified the target /ɑ/ with other vowels such as /ɑr/ and /oʊ/, which resulted in lower accuracy of the vowel in perception than in production. English /oʊ/ was confused with /ɔ/ mostly in perception, but not The Interface between Perception and Production in L2 English Vowels∙435The Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018in production, showing high accuracy in production. The confusion of /oʊ/ with /ɔ/ in perception (15.4%) could be attributable to the fact that the duration of English /ɔ/ is somewhat long, thus causing the Korean learners to misidentify /oʊ/ as /ɔ/. Other vowels did not exhibit any significant precedence relationship between perception and production. However, it is worth noting that the low accuracy of English /ɛ/ and /æ/ in both perception and production may result from the ongoing merger of Korean /ɛ/ and /æ/ into /ɛ/ to some extent (Kang, 2003; Yang, 1996). The findings of the current study seem to imply that it is not prerequisite to perceive an L2 sound in order to produce it target-appropriately, which does not support the postulate of the Speech Learning Model (SLM) that L2 speech perception guides L2 speech production (Flege, 1995). The current study also showed that the precedence relationship between perception and production varied depending on the target English vowels, indicating that L2 vowels are not acquired in an across-the-board fashion. The study also examined the correlation between perception and production. As reported in Section 4.3, there was no significant correlation by the participants or by the individual vowels, implying that the Korean learners’ perceptual abilities do not develop in tandem with their production abilities or vice versa. Similar findings were also reported by de Jong et al. (2009b), Peperkamp and Bouchon (2011), and Fabra and Romero (2012). Notice, however, that there were some studies that reported a moderate correlation between L2 speech perception and production, as mentioned earlier (Flege et al., 1997; Flege et al., 1999; Schmidt and Flege, 1995). As for the different results among several studies, Peperkamp and Bouchon (2011) contended that different experimental methodologies could account for different outcomes. Specifically, Peperkamp and Bouchon (2011) maintained that the lack of correlation in French-English bilinguals’ perception and production of the English /i/-/ɪ/ contrast was due to the fact that the French bilinguals participated in an ABX discrimination test with a short interstimulus interval (ISI, 500ms) and thus they were not able to use the phonological loop during the discrimination test. Peperkamp and Bouchon (2011) further contended that several studies which showed a moderate correlation between perception and production mainly used identification and goodness ratings rather than an ABX discrimination test with a short ISI. On the other hand, concerning the divergent results between the perception and production tasks, de Jong et al. (2009b) contended that the acquisition of L2 perception is different from that of L2 production. More specifically, the acquisition of perceptual skills “operate at the level of features, which cross-cut segments.” (p, 370). However, the acquisition of production skills involves “the acquisition of a set of gestures, affecting all segments that share the gesture.” (p. 370). de Jong et al. (2009b) further maintained that featural generalization exhibits early perceptual development whereas featural generalization in production develops later since the motor system is less pliable compared to the auditory perceptual system (p. 372). Given that the current study used an identification task and found no correlation between speech perception and production, it seems to indicate that L2 learners’ perceptual skills and their production skills do not develop in tandem, thus supporting the findings of de Jong et al. (2009a, b). That is, certain aspects of L2 learners’ perceptual ability may develop ahead of or lag behind those of the learners’ production ability. Also, some changes in the L2 learners’ perceptual ability may occur without corresponding changes in the learners’ production ability or vice versa (Flege et al., 1997). In sum, the findings of the current study imply that the changes in L2 speech perception may not necessarily transfer to changes in L2 speech production unlike the prediction of the SLM which assumes a common auditory-acoustic/phonetic space for both perception and production (Bradlow et al., 1997). Accordingly, the current 436∙Lee, Shinsook ․ Cho, Mi-HuiThe Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018study adds a fragment to L2 acquisition literature concerning the precedence relationship and the correlation between speech perception and production. However, more research should be warranted to enlighten this issue in that the interface between perception and production has not been fully investigated for all L2 sound contrasts.ReferencesBest, T. C. 1994. Learning to Perceive the Sound Pattern of English. In C. Rovee-Collier and L. Lipsett (eds.), Advances in Infancy Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex Publishers, Vol. 8. 217-304.Boberg, C. 2015. North American English. In M. Reed and J. M. Levis (eds.), The Handbook of English Pronunciation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 229-250Bohn, O.-S. and J. E. Flege. 1997. Perception and Production of a New Vowel Category by Adult Second Language Learners. In A. James and J. Leather (eds.), Second Language Speech: Structure and Process. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 53-74.Bradlow, A., D. Pisoni, R. Akahane-Yamada, and Y. Tohkura. 1997. Training Japanese Listeners to Identify English /r/ and /l/: Some Effects of Perceptual Learning on Speech Production. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 101.4, 2299-2310.Cho, M.-H. and S. Jeong. 2013. Perception and Production of English Vowels by Korean Learners. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 19.1, 155-177. de Jong, K., N. Silbert, and H. Park. 2009a. Segmental Generalization in Second Language Segment Identification. Language Learning, 59.1, 1-31. de Jong, K., Y.-C. Hao, and H. Park. 2009b. Evidence for Featural Units in the Acquisition of Speech Production Skills: Linguistic Structure in Foreign Accent. Journal of Phonetics 37.4, 357-373.Evans, B. G. and P. Iverson. 2007. Plasticity in Vowel Perception and Production: A Study of Accent in Young Adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121.6, 3814-3826.Fabra, L. R. and J. Romeo. 2012. Native Catalan Learners’ Perception and Production of English Vowels. Journal of Phonetics 40.3, 491-508.Flege, J. E. 1995. Second Language Speech Learning: Theory, Findings and Problems. In W. Strange (ed.), Speech Perception and Linguistic Experience: Issues in Cross-language Research. Timonium, MD: York, 233-277.Flege, J. E., O.-S. Bohn, and S. Jang. 1997. Effects of Experience on Non-native Speakers’ Production and Perception of English Vowels. Journal of Phonetics 25.4, 437-470.Flege, J., I. MacKay, and D. Meador. 1999. Native Italian Speakers’ Perception and Production of English Vowel. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 106.5, 2973-2987.Fowler, C. A. 1986. An Event Approach to the Study of Speech Perception from a Direct-realist Perspective. Journal of Phonetics 14.1, 3-28.Gnanadesikan, A. 2004. Markedness and Faithfulness Constraints in Child Phonology. In R. Kager, J. Pater, and W. Zonneveld (eds.). Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 73-108.Hillenbrand, J., L. Getty, M. Clark, and K. Wheeler. 1995. Acoustic Characteristics of American English Vowels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 97.5, 3099-3111.Hong, S. 2014. Training Effects after Training Korean Listeners for the Contrast of /ɑ, ɔ, ʌ/. Language and Linguistics 65, 299-329.The Interface between Perception and Production in L2 English Vowels∙437The Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018Hong, S. 2015. Pattern Recognition Modeling of Korean Listeners’ Perception of American English Monophthongs. Language and Linguistics 68, 209-239.Hong, S. 2016a. Pattern Recognition Modeling of American English Vowel Identification by Four Different Identification-proficiency Levels of Korean Listeners. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 22.1, 147-175.Hong, S. 2016b. Vowel Inherent Spectral Properties Characterized in Korean and American English Talker’s English Vowel Signals: A Production-based Pattern Recognition Modeling Study. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 22.3, 583-609.Joh, J. and S. Lee. 2001. Relationship Between Sound Perception and Production in L2 Phonology Acquisition. Journal of the Applied Linguistics 17.2, 127-145.Johnson, K. 2003. Acoustic and Auditory Phonetics. Blackwell Publishing. Jusczyk, P. 1997. The Discovery of Spoken Language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Kang, O. 2003. Korean Phonology. Taehaksa. Lee, S. 2011. Perception and Production of English Fricative Sounds by Advanced Korean EFL Learners. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 17.2, 259-281.Lee, S. and M.-H. Cho. 2005. Perception and Production of English Anterior Obstruents. English Language and Literature 50.5, 1101-1132.Lee, S. and D.-J. Shin. 2015. Estimating Korean EFL Listeners’ Perception of English Vowels with Reference to Cross-language Labelling. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 21.2, 297-321. Lee, S., H. Nam, J. Kang, D.-J. Shin, and Y. S. Kim. 2017. The Impact of Language-learning Environments on Korean Learners’ English Vowel Production. Phonetics and Speech Sciences 9.2, 69-76.Liberman, A. M. and I. G. Mattingly. 1985. The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revised. Cognition 21.1, 1-36.Liberman, A. M. and I. G. Mattingly. 1989. A Specialization for Speech Perception. Science 245, 489-494.Pater, J. 2004. Bridging the Gap Between Receptive and Productive Development with Minimally Violable Constraints. In R. Kager, J. Pater, and W. Zonneveld (eds.), Constraints in Phonological Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 219-244.Peperkamp, S. and C. Bouchon. 2011. Conference: INTERSPEECH 2011, 12th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association, Florence, Italy, August 27-31.Schiller, N. O. and A. S. Meyer. 2003. Introduction to the Relation Between Speech Comprehension and Production. In Schiller, N. O and A. S. Meyer (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology in Language Comprehension and Production. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1-8.Schmidt, A. and J. E. Flege. 1995. Effects of Speaking Rate Changes on Native and Non-native Production. Phonetica 52.1, 41-54.Sheldon, A. and W. Strange. 1982. The Acquisition of /r/ and /l/ by Japanese Learners of English: Evidence that Speech Production can Precede Speech Perception. Applied Psycholinguistics 3.3, 243-261.Stevens, K. N. and S. E. Blumstein. 1981. The Search for Invariant Acoustic Correlates of Phonetic Features. In P. D. Eimas and J. L. Miller (eds.), Perspectives on the Study of Speech. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1-38.Strange, W. 1995. Phonetics of Second-language Acquisition: Past, Present, Future. In K. Elenius and P. Branderud (eds.), Proceedings of the XII International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Stockholm: Arne Stombergs, 76-83.Sung, E. 2006. L2 Sound Perception and Production by Korean Adults and Children. Studies in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology 12.3, 577-596.Yang, B. 1996. A Comparative Study of American English and Korean Vowels Produced by Male and Female Speakers. 438∙Lee, Shinsook ․ Cho, Mi-HuiThe Journal of Studies in Language Vol. 34, No. 3, 2018Journal of Phonetics 24, 245-261. Yang, B. and D. H. Whalen. 2015. Perception and Production of English Vowels by American Males and Females. Australian Journal of Linguistics 35.2, 121-141, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2015.1004998.Shinsook Lee, Professor145, Anam-ro, Seongbuk-GuSeoul, Korea, 02841Department of English Language EducationKorea UniversityEmail: leesseng@korea.ac.krMi-Hui Cho, Professor154-42, Gwanggyosan-ro, Yeongtong-GuSuwon-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea, 16227Department of English Language and LiteratureKyonggi UniversityEmail: mcho@kyonggi.ac.krThe Journal of Studies in LanguageThe Journal of Studies in Language 34(3), 439-455 (2018)English Island Constraints by Natives and Korean Non-nativesYong-hun Lee* and Yeonkyung Park**Chungnam National UniversityHannam University*First Author / **Corresponding AuthorABSTRACTThe Journal of Studies in Language 34.3, 439-455. This paper examined how native English speakers (NS) and non-native Korean speakers (NNS) processed English island sentences differently, by taking an experimental design and its statistical analysis. Sprouse et al. (2012) demonstrated that NS identified four types of island sentences (Whether, Complex NP, Subject, and Adjunct) in their language. Kim (2015), on the other hand, adopted the similar method and observed that Korean NNS did not identify two island constraints (Complex NP and Adjunct islands). This study performed similar experiments in previous studies but it adopted the magnitude estimation (ME) method, rather than the Likert scale. The target sentences came from Sprouse et al. (2012), and the same set of sentences were used for both American NS and Korean NNS. A total of 100 students participated in the experiment respectively, and the acceptability scores were gauged with the ME method. Then, the collected data were analyzed with a generalized linear model (GLM). Through the experiments, the followings were found: (i) Korean NNS identified all of the four types of island constraints in English and (ii) DD-scores of Korean NNS were smaller than those of American NS. (Chungnam National University · Hannam University)Keywords: island constraints, American native speakers, Korean non-native speakers, magnitude estimation, generalized linear modelOPEN ACCESShttps://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.34.3.201811.439pISSN : 1225-47701. IntroductionAn island means a syntactic domain from which a movement operation is not permissible. Since Ross’s identification of island constraints in English (1967), there have been lots of debates on the status of the island constraints in many natural languages, including English. If all the natural languages contain island phenomena, they must be included in the Universal Grammar (UG). If not, the island constraints are language-specific phenomena. Some languages have been said that they have the island constraints, whereas other languages (e.g. Chinese, Korean, or Japanese) do not demonstrate island phenomena.In addition to the continuous interest in theoretical syntax, the island constraints have also been discussed in the literature of Second Language Acquisition (SLA).Received: October 01, 2018Revised: October 25, 2018Accepted: November 14, 2018This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attri-bution NonCommercial License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Copyrightⓒ2018 the Modern LinguisticSociety of Korea본인이 투고한 논문은 다른 학술지에 게재된 적이 없으며 타인의 논문을 표절하지 않았음을 서약합니다. 추후 중복게재 혹은 표절된 것으로 밝혀질 시에는 논문게재 취소와 일정 기간 논문 제출의 제한 조치를 받게 됨을 인지하고 있습니다.Next >