Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
语篇背景在语义整合中的作用
陈双1;陈黎静2;杨晓虹1;杨玉芳1
(1中国科学院心理研究所, 北京 100101) (2福建师范大学心理学系, 福州 350117)
The Role of Discourse Context on Semantic Integration
CHEN Shuang1; CHEN Lijing2; YANG Xiaohong1; YANG Yufang1
(1 Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing 100101, China) (2 Department of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China)
全文: PDF(283 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

通过眼动实验考察了语篇背景对不同类型句子语义整合过程的影响。句子类型有3个水平:(1)宾语违反了动词的选择性限制; (2)宾语符合选择性限制, 但是违反了世界知识; (3)无违反。语篇背景有2个水平:(1)中性背景; (2)校正背景。在中性语篇背景下, 句子(1) (2)是不合适的; 而在校正背景下, 三种句子都是合理的。24名大学生被试自然阅读的眼动数据表明, 违反动词选择性限制的目标词上的首次注视时间、回视路径时间和总注视时间, 在中性背景下比在校正背景下长, 注视点个数也更多; 而在非选择性限制违反条件下, 语篇背景的效应只在总注视时间和注视点个数两个指标上显著。这些结果表明, 当句子中的宾语违反了动词的选择性限制时, 语篇背景影响了宾语的早期和晚期加工。而当宾语只违反世界知识时, 语篇背景的作用体现在晚期阶段。语篇背景对当前信息的整合是动态的过程, 并不是只能在固定某个阶段起作用。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
陈双
陈黎静
杨晓虹
杨玉芳
关键词 语篇背景语义整合选择性限制世界知识眼动    
Abstract

How do readers integrate incoming words into the local and global discourse context is a central issue in discourse comprehension. Some researchers have suggested that the integration of incoming information with local, proximal context is an automatic and default process. However, the integration of incoming information with the global discourse context employs more attention and may be delayed. On the other hand, some researchers have suggested that incoming information is immediately integrated into the global discourse context. Previous studies also obtained discrepant results concerning the time course of contextual modulation, which might be due to the fact that different types of knowledge violations were used in different studies. Two kinds of knowledge violations were used in previous studies: selectional restriction violations and world knowledge violations. Selectional restriction refers to the semantic constraints on verb’s arguments, which are considered as lexical information. Previous studies have shown that the processing of selectional restriction takes precedence over that of world knowledge. However, it is still unclear whether the precedence of selectional restriction would affect the modulation of global context. Therefore, the current study set out to explore how different kinds of knowledge violations affect global integration in discourse context in an eye-tracking experiment. We constructed discourses consisting of three sentences. The first and second sentences made up a non-fictional or a fictional discourse context. The third sentence was either in (1) selectional restriction violation, (2) world knowledge violation or (3) congruent conditions. In the non-fictional context, sentences in both the selectional restriction and world knowledge violation conditions were incongruent while only the congruent sentences were sensible. However, in the fictional context, all the three kinds of sentences were congruent. 26 university students participated in the experiment. Two were removed due to excessive track losses. Data from 24 (12 males, Mean age = 22.92) participants were used in the statistical analysis. Results showed that for selectional restriction violations, the effect of context was significant in first fixation time, go-past time, total time and number of fixations on the target word as well as first fixation time, total time, number of fixations and regression out count on the post-target region. However, for world knowledge violations, the effect of context was only found in total time and number of fixations on the target region as well as on the post-target region. Participants read the target words and post-target words longer, more frequently in fictional context than in non-fictional context. These results revealed that when object nouns violated selectional restriction, discourse context affected both the early and later stages of word processing. When object nouns violated world knowledge, contextual modulation was only observed on the later time measures. The present study demonstrated that discourse context could override local anomalies, irrespective of the kinds of knowledge that are violated. However, the time course of the integration process was modulated by the kinds of knowledge that are violated. These results establish kinds of knowledge as an important factor for semantic integration in discourse context.

Key wordsdiscourse context    semantic integration    selectional restriction    world knowledge    eye movement.
收稿日期: 2013-11-15      出版日期: 2015-02-25
基金资助:

国家自然科学基金项目(31070989)。

通讯作者: 杨玉芳, E-mail: yangyf@psych.ac.cn    
引用本文:   
陈双;陈黎静;杨晓虹;杨玉芳. 语篇背景在语义整合中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00167.
CHEN Shuang; CHEN Lijing; YANG Xiaohong; YANG Yufang. The Role of Discourse Context on Semantic Integration. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(2): 167-175.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00167      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2015/V47/I2/167
[1] 白学军;高晓雷;高蕾;王永胜. 藏语阅读知觉广度的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 569-576.
[2] 梁菲菲;王永胜;杨文;白学军. 阅读水平调节儿童阅读眼动注视模式的发展:基于9~11岁儿童的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(4): 450-459.
[3] 孙俊才; 石荣. 哭泣表情面孔的注意偏向:眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 155-163.
[4] 刘志方;张智君;杨桂芳. 中文阅读中的字词激活模式:来自提示词边界延时效应的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1082-1092.
[5] 苏衡;刘志方;曹立人. 中文阅读预视加工中的词频和预测性效应及其对词切分的启示:基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 625-636.
[6] 王福兴;侯秀娟;段朝辉;刘华山;李卉. 中国象棋经验棋手与新手的知觉差异:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(5): 457-471.
[7] 王福兴;李文静;颜志强;段朝辉;李卉. 幼儿对威胁性刺激蛇的注意觉察:来自眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 774-786.
[8] 闫国利;刘妮娜;梁菲菲;刘志方;白学军. 中文读者词汇视觉信息获取速度的发展 ——来自消失文本的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(3): 300-318.
[9] 王福兴;段朝辉;周宗奎;陈珺. 邻近效应对多媒体学习中图文整合的影响:线索的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 224-233.
[10] 陈洁彬;鲁忠义. 路径转弯对语篇空间情境模型建构的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 176-189.
[11] 白学军;王永胜;郭志英;高晓雷;闫国利. 汉语阅读中词N+2的预视对高频词N+1 加工影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 143-156.
[12] 徐建平;陈基越;张伟;李文雅;盛毓. 应聘者在人格测验中作假的反应过程:基于工作赞许性的眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(11): 1395-1404.
[13] 寇慧;苏艳华;罗小春;陈红. 相貌负面身体自我女性对相貌词的注意偏向眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(10): 1213-1222.
[14] 汪海彬;卢家楣;姚本先;桑青松;陈宁;唐晓晨. 职前教师情绪复杂性对情绪面孔加工的影响 ——来自行为、ERP和眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(1): 50-65.
[15] 迟慧;闫国利;许晓露;夏萤;崔磊;白学军. 声旁语音信息对形声字加工的影响——来自眼动研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 1242-1260.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn