Reading and Writing

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1053–1078 | Cite as

Eye movements and parafoveal processing during reading in Korean

  • Young-Suk Kim
  • Ralph Radach
  • Christian Vorstius


Parafoveal word processing was examined during Korean reading. Twenty-four native speakers of Korean read sentences in two conditions while their eye movements were being monitored. The boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) was used to create a mismatch between characters displayed before and after an eye movement contingent display change. In the first condition, the critical previews were correct case markers in terms of syntactic category (e.g., object marker for an object noun) but with a phonologically incorrect form (e.g., using 를 instead of 을 when the preceding noun ends with a consonant). In the second condition, incorrect case markers in terms of syntactic category were used, creating a semantic mismatch between preview and target. Results include a small but significant parafovea-on-fovea effect on the preceding fixation, combined with a large effect on late measures of target word reading when a syntactically incorrect preview was presented. These results indicate that skilled Korean readers are quite sensitive to high-level linguistic information available in the parafovea.


Korean reading Eye movements Parafoveal preview Syntactic processing Semantic processing 


  1. Altarriba, J., Kambe, G., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (2001). Semantic codes are not used in integrating information across eye fixations in reading: Evidence from fluent Spanish–English bilinguals. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 875–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balota, D. A., Pollatsek, A., & Rayner, K. (1985). The interaction of contextual constraints and parafoveal visual information in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 364–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carlson, G. N., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 21). Thematic relations (pp. 263–300). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Drieghe, D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2008). Mislocated fixations can account for parafoveal-on-foveal effects in eye movements during reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1239–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engbert, R., & Nuthmann, A. (2008). Self-consistent estimation of mislocated fixations during reading. PLoS ONE, 3(2), e1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Engbert, R., Nuthmann, A., Richter, E., & Kliegl, R. (2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. Psychological Review, 112, 777–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagstrom, P., & Rhee, J. (1997). Differences between Korean and Japanese processing overload. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hohenstein, S., Laubrock, J., & Kliegl, R. (2010). Semantic preview benefit during eye movements in reading: A parafoveal fast-priming study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1150–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Inhoff, A. W. (1990). Integrating information across eye fixations in reading: The role of letter and word units. Acta Psychologica, 73, 281–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29–54). Oxford: Else.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Inhoff, A. W., & Weger, U. (2003). Advancing the methodological middle ground. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements (pp. 335–344). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  12. Kim, Y. (1999). The effects of case marking information on Korean sentence processing. Language and cognitive processes, 14, 687–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kim, Y.-S. (2007). Phonological awareness and literacy skills in Korean: An examination of the unique role of body–coda units. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28, 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kim, Y.-S. (2011). Considering linguistic and orthographic features in early literacy acquisition: Evidence from Korean. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koh, S. (1997). The resolution of the dative NP ambiguity in Korean. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 265–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee, I., & Ramsey, R. (2000). The Korean language. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, S. S., Lee, K.-D., Nam, K.-S., Chung, C.-S., Lee, I.-K., & Choi, Y.-C. (1991). Development of a corpus of contemporary Korean for compiling a lexicographical database. Seoul, Korea: Korean Dictionary Compilation Board of Yonsei University.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, H.-W., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1999). The time course of phonological, semantic, and orthographic coding in reading: Evidence from the fast-priming technique. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 624–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu, W., Inhoff, A. W., Ye, Y., & Wu, C. (2002). Use of parafoveal visible characters during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1213–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MacDonald, M. C., Perlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1990). On parameter-setting and parsing: Predictions for acquisition. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and acquisition (pp. 163–206). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McConkie, G. W. (1981). Evaluating and reporting data quality in eye movement research. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 13, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identification and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Radach, R., & Kennedy, A. (2004). Theoretical perspectives on eye movements in reading: Past controversies, current deficits and an agenda for future research. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Radach, R., Reilly, R., & Inhoff, A. W. (2007). Models of oculomotor control in reading: Towards a theoretical foundation of current debates. In R. van Gompel, M. Fischer, W. Murray, & R. Hill (Eds.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain. Elsevier: Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rayner, K., Well, A. D., Pollatsek, A., & Bertera, J. H. (1982). The availability of useful information to the right of fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rayner, K., Balota, D. A., & Pollatsek, A. (1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 473–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rayner, K., White, S. J., Kambe, G., Miller, B., & Liversedge, S. P. (2003). On the processing of meaning from parafoveal vision during eye fixations in reading. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213–234). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  31. Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.Google Scholar
  32. Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E–Z reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 446–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reilly, R., & Radach, R. (2006). Some empirical tests of an interactive activation model of eye movement control in reading. Cognitive Systems Research, 7, 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sohn, H.-M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Suh, S. (1994). The syntax of Korean and its implications for parsing theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  36. Uehara, K. (1997). Judgments of processing load in Japanese: The effect of NP-ga sequences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yan, M., Richter, E., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 561–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yan, M., Risse, S., Zhou, X., & Kliegl, R. (in press). Preview fixation duration modulates identical and semantic preview benefit in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Google Scholar
  39. Yan, M., Zhou, W., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. (in press). Lexical and sub-lexical semantic preview benefits in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Google Scholar
  40. Yang, J., Wang, S., Tong, X., & Rayner, K. (in press). Semantic and plausibility effects on preview benefit during eye fixations in Chinese reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Google Scholar
  41. Yen, M.-H., Tzeng, O. J.-L., Radach, R., & Tsai, J.-L. (2011). Usage of statistical cues for word boundary in reading Chinese sentences. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal (in press). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Young-Suk Kim
    • 1
  • Ralph Radach
    • 2
  • Christian Vorstius
    • 1
  1. 1.Florida State University and Florida Center for Reading ResearchFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.General and Biological PsychologyUniversity of WuppertalWuppertalGermany

Personalised recommendations