Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (12): 1494-1503    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01494
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 不同认知方式个体句法成分整合歧义消解的眼动研究
 何文广; 赵晓静; 沈兰玉
 (曲阜师范大学教育科学学院, 273165 山东 曲阜)
 Cognitive style has strong influence on ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidences from eye-movement tracking
 HE Wenguang; ZHAO Xiaojing; SHEN Lanyu
 (School of Education, Qufu Normal University, 273165 Qufu, China)
全文: PDF(387 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  句法成分依附歧义是人类语言领域内较为常见的语言现象, 对于依附歧义消解机制的研究有利于揭示语言的深层加工机制。实验以汉语母语大学生为被试, 采用固定步速主观评定和眼动追踪技术考查了汉语句法成分依附歧义消解机制的影响因素。离线结果显示, 汉语领域内句法成分依附倾向于高依附偏好, 而且该偏好不受修饰成分句法属性的影响, 结果支持“谓词邻近句法整合理论”。眼动实验结果显示, 认知方式对句法成分依附歧义消解机制有显著性影响, 在句法成分依附歧义消解区域(NP2), 两类被试在首次阅读时间、第一遍阅读时间、回视路径时间和总阅读时间上差异显著, 具体表现为场依存型被试加工较为困难。实验在多项眼动指标上还发现了显著的句子类型主效应, 多重比较发现, 依附歧义句加工最为困难, 其次是高依附句式, 低依附句式加工最为容易。总之, 汉语句法成分依附倾向于高依附偏好, 但该倾向到受认知方式和依附成分语义信息的调节。
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
何文广
赵晓静
沈兰玉
关键词 认知方式 句法整合 歧义消解 眼动    
Abstract: Sentences such as “Someone shot the servant of the actress who is on the balcony” were ambiguous, because the internal clause “who is on the balcony” was either attached to the non-local noun phrase “the servant”, which is called high attachment preference, or attached to the local noun phrase “the actress”, which is called low attachment preference. Currently available evidences in the literature demonstrated considerable cross-linguistic differences in relative clause attachment preferences in on-line and off-line processing. Different models of ambiguity resolution have been suggested to explain the cross-linguistic relative clause attachment preference. One of the most widely accepted accounts of attachment preference were the Parameter Variation Model developed by Gibson (1996), which held that ambiguity resolution in sentence processing was guided by two principles: Recency and Predicate proximity. Investigating the mechanism of ambiguity resolution in sentence processing is more helpful for exploring the inner processing mechanism of human language. 170 participants were sampled for our experiment. Using off-line subjective ratings and eye-movement tracking, this paper investigated the influence of cognitive style on the preference of syntactic ingredients attachment by comparing two groups of participants’ performances of ambiguity resolution in sentences processing. One group was identified with the field dependence in cognitive style, while the second group was the field independence. They were all native speakers with normal or corrected to normal insight, right handed. Materials used in the study were classified into three categories: sentence with ambiguity in attachment, sentence with high attachment preference, and sentence with low attachment preference. The results from off-line study showed that, in Chinese, readers preferred to attach the segments to the final noun phrase in sentence. In particular, this preference was not varied with the variation of the experimental materials. Results from the eye-movement tracking study showed that, cognitive style has significant impacts on the methods used to resolve the ambiguity in attachment. Specifically, readers with dependent cognitive style have more difficulties in resolving the ambiguity at regions of NP2, which was reflected in eye-movement indexes, such as the first fixation, the first run duration, the regression duration, and the total time. Additionally, we found significant differences in the three types of sentence processing. In general, sentences with ambiguity in attachment were most difficult to comprehend, and sentences with low attachment preference were easiest to process. In sum, participants with independent cognitive styles have more difficulties in resolving the ambiguities in syntactic ingredients attachment. Two opinions regarding the difficulties in ambiguity resolution for participants with independent cognitive styles were suggested. One argued that individuals with independent cognitive styles were inferior in inhibiting interference from other syntactic fragments in sentence processing. The other taught that the limited capacity in working memory was the key factor to impede individuals with independent cognitive styles to address syntactic ambiguity resolution with success.
Key wordscognitive style    syntactic integration    ambiguity resolution    eye-movement tracking.
收稿日期: 2016-06-17      出版日期: 2017-10-25
ZTFLH:     
  B842  
基金资助: 国家社科基金青年项目资助(项目号:13CYY026)。
通讯作者: 何文广, E-mail: hewenguang1022@163.com   
引用本文:   
何文广, 赵晓静, 沈兰玉.  不同认知方式个体句法成分整合歧义消解的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1494-1503.
HE Wenguang, ZHAO Xiaojing, SHEN Lanyu.  Cognitive style has strong influence on ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidences from eye-movement tracking. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1494-1503.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01494      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I12/1494
[1] 李宝珠, 魏少木.  广告诉求形式对产品反馈的影响作用: 基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(1): 69-81.
[2] 刘志方, 张智君, 潘运, 仝文, 苏衡.  中文阅读中预视阶段和注视阶段内词汇视觉编码 的过程特点:来自消失文本的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 853-865.
[3] 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
[8] 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.
[9] 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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, 2015, 47(2): 167-175.
[12] 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.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] 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.
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