心理科学进展 ›› 2024, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (9): 1488-1501.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2024.01488 cstr: 32111.14.2024.01488
收稿日期:
2023-10-19
出版日期:
2024-09-15
发布日期:
2024-06-26
基金资助:
Received:
2023-10-19
Online:
2024-09-15
Published:
2024-06-26
摘要:
在众多语言中, 都存在一系列词汇, 经过语音位置转置后仍能有效成词, 典型如中文中的“牛黄”与“黄牛”。阐明这类可转置词汇在语言理解过程中的编码方式, 是一项至关重要的研究课题。在阅读领域, 学者们已就词汇的位置编码机制展开了讨论, 然而针对口语加工中语音位置编码的认知机制, 至今仍存在序列−灵活编码之争: 早期口语识别理论认为语音位置编码主要以序列编码方式为主, 而近年来的研究则发现, 音位、音节和句子等层面上存在以灵活编码为主的语音位置编码方式。未来研究应深入探索与口语识别中语音编码相关的认知机理、神经机制、语言获得以及人工智能等重要问题, 由于汉字词在形音对应关系和语音加工单元等方面独具特殊性, 后续研究应对汉字词的语音位置编码予以特别关注。
中图分类号:
韩海宾, 李兴珊. (2024). 听到“牛黄”能想到“黄牛”吗?——口语识别中的语音位置编码机制. 心理科学进展 , 32(9), 1488-1501.
HAN Haibin, LI Xingshan. (2024). The mechanism of phonetic position encoding in spoken word recognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 32(9), 1488-1501.
图1 Cohort模型识别听觉词汇“Beaker/bi:kər/烧杯”的心理过程。第一行为听到音位/b/后激活的起始音相同的词汇组; 第二行为听到音节/bi:/后激活的一系列词汇, 此时与/bi:/不匹配的词汇已经被移除; 最后当整词语音结束后, 除Beaker以外的词汇全部被移除; 但后期修正的模型发现, 韵脚所在位置的音节也会激活韵脚相同的词汇。
代表模型 | 识别方式 | 识别过程 | 识别要素 | 自上而下信息起作用阶段 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort模型 | 自下而上 | 严格序列性 | 词首信息 | 后期整合阶段 |
TRACE模型 | 自下而上与自上而下 | 交互激活 | 词汇与心理词典匹配的整体效应 | 自始至终 |
Shortlist模型 | 自下而上与自上而下 | 交互激活 | 词汇与心理词典匹配的整体效应 | 单词候选列表阶段之后的选择阶段 |
NAM模型 | 自下而上与自上而下 | 交互激活 | 词汇的“邻居”的整体相似性 | 词汇“邻居”激活后的词汇决策阶段 |
表1 早期词汇识别的代表性序列模型对比
代表模型 | 识别方式 | 识别过程 | 识别要素 | 自上而下信息起作用阶段 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cohort模型 | 自下而上 | 严格序列性 | 词首信息 | 后期整合阶段 |
TRACE模型 | 自下而上与自上而下 | 交互激活 | 词汇与心理词典匹配的整体效应 | 自始至终 |
Shortlist模型 | 自下而上与自上而下 | 交互激活 | 词汇与心理词典匹配的整体效应 | 单词候选列表阶段之后的选择阶段 |
NAM模型 | 自下而上与自上而下 | 交互激活 | 词汇的“邻居”的整体相似性 | 词汇“邻居”激活后的词汇决策阶段 |
[1] |
韩海宾, 许萍萍, 屈青青, 程茜, 李兴珊. (2019). 语言加工过程中的视听跨通道整合. 心理科学进展, 27(3), 475-489.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00475 |
[2] | 黄伯荣, 廖序东. (2011). 现代汉语 (上册, 增订五版). 北京: 高等教育出版社. |
[3] | 彭聃龄, 丁国盛, 王春茂, Taft, 朱晓平. (1999). 汉语逆序词的加工——词素在词加工中的作用. 心理学报, 1, 36-46. |
[4] | Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(38), 419-439. |
[5] |
Andersson, R., Ferreira, F., & Henderson, J. M. (2011). I see what you’re saying: The integration of complex speech and scenes during language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 137(2), 208-216.
doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.007 pmid: 21303711 |
[6] | Chambers, S. M. (1979). Letter and order information in lexical access. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(2), 225-241. |
[7] | Chen, J. Y., Chen, T. M., & Dell, G. S. (2002). Word-form encoding in Mandarin Chinese as assessed by the implicit priming task. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 751-781. |
[8] |
Chen, Q., & Mirman, D. (2012). Competition and cooperation among similar representations: Toward a unified account of facilitative and inhibitory effects of lexical neighbors. Psychological Review, 119, 417-430.
doi: 10.1037/a0027175 pmid: 22352357 |
[9] | Connine, C. M., Blasko, D. G., & Titone, D. (1993). Do the beginnings of spoken words have a special status in auditory word recognition? Journal of Memory and Language, 32(2), 193-210. |
[10] |
Connolly, J. F., & Phillips, N. A. (1994). Event-related potential components reflect phonological and semantic processing of the terminal word of spoken sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(3), 256-266.
doi: 10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.256 pmid: 23964975 |
[11] | Cooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language. Cognitive Psychology, 107(1), 84-107. |
[12] | Dahan, D., & Magnuson, J. S. (2006). Spoken Word Recognition. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 249-283). Academic Press. |
[13] |
Davis, C. J. (2010). The spatial coding model of visual word identification. Psychological Review, 117, 713-758.
doi: 10.1037/a0019738 pmid: 20658851 |
[14] | Dufour, S., & Frauenfelder, U. H. (2010). Phonological neighbourhood effects in French spoken-word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(2), 226-238. |
[15] | Dufour, S., & Grainger, J. (2019). Phoneme‐order encoding during spoken word recognition: A priming investigation. Cognitive Science, 43(10), e12785. |
[16] | Dufour, S., & Grainger, J. (2020). The influence of word frequency on the transposed-phoneme priming effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(6), 2785-2792. |
[17] | Dufour, S., & Grainger, J. (2022). When you hear /baksɛt/ do you think /baskɛt/? Evidence for transposed-phoneme effect with multisyllabic words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 48(1), 98-107. |
[18] | Dufour, S., Mirault, J., & Grainger, J. (2021). Do you want /ʃoloka/ on a /bistɔk/? On the scope of transposed- phoneme effects with non-adjacent phonemes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(5), 1668-1678. |
[19] | Dufour, S., Mirault, J., & Grainger, J. (2022). Transposed- word effects in speeded grammatical decisions to sequences of spoken words. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 22035. |
[20] | Dufour, S., Mirault, J., & Grainger, J. (2023). When facilitation becomes inhibition: Effects of modality and lexicality on transposed-phoneme priming. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 38(2), 147-156. |
[21] | Dufour, S., & Peereman, R. (2003). Inhibitory priming effects in auditory word recognition: When the target's competitors conflict with the prime word. Cognition, 88(3), B33-B44. |
[22] | Frankish, C., & Turner, E. (2007). SIHGT and SUNOD: The role of orthography and phonology in the perception of transposed letter anagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(2), 189-211. |
[23] | Gaskell, M. G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1997). Integrating form and meaning: A distributed model of speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 613-656. |
[24] |
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E., & Saxe, R. (2013). A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1079-1088.
doi: 10.1177/0956797612463705 pmid: 23649563 |
[25] |
Gomez, P., Ratcliff, R., & Perea, M. (2008). The overlap model: A model of letter position coding. Psychological Review, 115(3), 577-600.
doi: 10.1037/a0012667 pmid: 18729592 |
[26] | Grainger, J., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (2004). Modeling letter position coding in printed word perception. In P. Bonin (Ed.), Mental lexicon: "Some words to talk about words" (pp. 1-23). Nova Science Publishers. |
[27] |
Grainger, J., & Whitney, C. (2004). Does the huamn mnid raed wrods as a wlohe? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 58-59.
pmid: 15588808 |
[28] | Gregg, J., Inhoff, A. W., & Connine, C. M. (2019). Re-reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(11), 2574-2583. |
[29] | Guerrara, C., & Forster, K. (2008). Masked form priming with extreme transposition. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23, 117-142. |
[30] | Gwilliams, L., King, J. R., Marantz, A., & Poeppel, D. (2022). Neural dynamics of phoneme sequences reveal position-invariant code for content and order. Nature Communications, 13(1), 6606. |
[31] | Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of NAACL-2001 (pp. 159-166). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. |
[32] | Han, H., & Li, X. (2020). Degree of conceptual overlap affects eye movements in visual world paradigm. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(10), 1456-1464. |
[33] |
Hannagan, T., Dupoux, E., & Christophe, A. (2011). Holographic string encoding. Cognitive Science, 35, 79-118.
doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01149.x pmid: 21428993 |
[34] |
Hannagan, T., Magnuson, J. S., & Grainger, J. (2013). Spoken word recognition without a TRACE. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 563.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00563 pmid: 24058349 |
[35] | Hofmann, T., Schölkopf, B., & Smola, A. J. (2008). Kernel methods in aachine learning. The Annals of Statistics, 36(3), 1171-1220. |
[36] |
Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2005). Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: Semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm. Cognition, 96(1), 23-32.
pmid: 15833303 |
[37] | Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive science, 20(2), 137-194. |
[38] |
Lahiri, A., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: A phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition, 38(3), 245-294.
pmid: 2060271 |
[39] | Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106(3), 1126-1177. |
[40] | Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 21086-21090. |
[41] | Liu, Z., Li, Y., Cutter, M. G., Paterson, K. B., & Wang, J. (2022). A transposed-word effect across space and time: Evidence from Chinese. Cognition, 218, 104922. |
[42] | Liu, Z., Li, Y., Paterson, K. B., & Wang, J. (2020). A transposed-word effect in Chinese reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(8), 3788-3794. |
[43] | Liu, Z., Li, Y., & Wang, J. (2021). Context but not reading speed modulates transposed-word effects in Chinese reading. Acta Psychologica, 215, 103272. |
[44] | Luce, P. A., Goldinger, S. D., Auer, E. T., Jr., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and PARSYN. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 615-625. |
[45] |
Luce, P. A., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing, 19, 1-36.
doi: 10.1097/00003446-199802000-00001 pmid: 9504270 |
[46] | Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives (pp. 148-172). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. |
[47] | Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Moss, H. E., & van Halen, S. (1996). Perceptual distance and competition in lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(6), 1376-1392. |
[48] |
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Warren, P. (1994). Levels of perceptual representation and process in lexical access: Words, phonemes, and features. Psychological Review, 101(4), 653-675.
pmid: 7984710 |
[49] | Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Tyler, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 37-62). Cambridge: The MIT Press. |
[50] | Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10(1), 29-63. |
[51] | Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & Zwitserlood, P. (1989). Accessing spoken words: The importance of word onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 576-585. |
[52] | Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1993). Issues of process and representation in lexical access. In G. T. M. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp.187-210). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. |
[53] | Marslen-Wilson, W. (1973). Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature, 244, 522-523. |
[54] | Marslen-Wilson, W. (1985). Speech shadowing and speech comprehension. Speech Communication, 4, 55-73. |
[55] |
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-86.
pmid: 3753912 |
[56] | McMurray, B., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Aslin, R. N. (2002). Gradient effects of within-category phonetic variation on lexical access. Cognition, 86, B33-B42 |
[57] |
Mirault, J., Snell, J., & Grainger, J. (2018). You that read wrong again! A transposed-word effect in grammaticality judgments. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1922-1929.
doi: 10.1177/0956797618806296 pmid: 30355054 |
[58] | Norris, D. (1994). SHORTLIST: A connectionist model of continuous speech recognition. Cognition, 52, 189-234. |
[59] |
Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115, 357-395.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.357 pmid: 18426294 |
[60] | O’Connor, R. E., & Forster, K. I. (1981). Criterion bias and search sequence bias in word recognition. Memory & Cognition, 9, 78-92. |
[61] |
O’Seaghdha, P. G., Chen, J. Y., & Chen, T. M. (2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115(2), 282-302.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.001 pmid: 20149354 |
[62] | Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2003). Does jugde activate COURT? Transposed-letter similarity effects in masked associative priming. Memory & Cognition, 31, 829-841. |
[63] | Perea, M., & Lupker, S. J. (2004). Can CANISO activate CASINO? Transposed-letter similarity effects with nonadjacent letter positions. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 231-246. |
[64] |
Prabhakaran, R., Blumstein, S. E., Myers, E. B., Hutchison, E., & Britton, B. (2006). An event-related fMRI investigation of phonological-lexical competition. Neuropsychologia, 44, 2209-2221.
pmid: 16842827 |
[65] | Qu, Q. Q., Damian, M. F., & Kazanina, N. (2012). Sound- size segments are significant for Mandarin speakers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), 109, 14265-14270. |
[66] | Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive psychology, 7(1), 65-81. |
[67] |
Reichle, E. D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105(1), 125-157.
pmid: 9450374 |
[68] |
Righi, G., Blumstein, S. E., Mertus, J., & Worden, M. S. (2010). Neural systems underlying lexical competition: An eye tracking and fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(2), 213-224.
doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21200 pmid: 19301991 |
[69] |
Scott, S. K. (2019). From speech and talkers to the social world: The neural processing of human spoken language. Science, 366(6461), 58-62.
doi: 10.1126/science.aax0288 pmid: 31604302 |
[70] |
Sereno, S. C., Brewer, C. C., & O'Donnell, P. J. (2003). Context effects in word recognition: Evidence for early interactive processing. Psychological Science, 14(4), 328-333.
pmid: 12807405 |
[71] | Toscano, J. C., Anderson, N. D., & McMurray, B. (2013). Reconsidering the role of temporal order in spoken word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(5), 981-987. |
[72] | Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 394-417. |
[73] | Whitney, C. (2001). How the brain encodes the order of letters in a printed word: The SERIOL model and selective literature review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 221-243. |
[74] | Yee, E., Blumstein, S., & Sedivy, J. C. (2008). Lexical- semantic activation in Brocaʼs and Wernickeʼs aphasia: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(4), 592-612. |
[75] |
Yi, H. G., Leonard, M. K., & Chang, E. F. (2019). The encoding of speech sounds in the superior temporal gyrus. Neuron, 102(6), 1096-1110.
doi: S0896-6273(19)30380-0 pmid: 31220442 |
[76] | You, H., & Magnuson, J. S. (2018). TISK 1.0: An easy-to- use Python implementation of the time-invariant string kernel model of spoken word recognition. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 871-889. |
[77] | You, W., Zhang, Q., & Verdonschot, R. G. (2012). Masked syllable priming effects in word and picture naming in Chinese. PloS one, 7(10), e46595. |
[78] |
Zwitserlood, P. (1989). The locus of the effects of sentential-semantic context in spoken-word processing. Cognition, 32(1), 25-64.
doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(89)90013-9 pmid: 2752705 |
[1] | 陈松林, 陈新炜, 李璜夏, 药盼盼. 阅读研究中常用眼动控制模型的对比分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2024, 32(1): 100-117. |
[2] | 齐星亮, 蔡厚德. 镜像等效或守恒及其打破:从行为到认知神经机制的研究证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(10): 1855-1865. |
[3] | 白晓宇, TawandaS.Mutusva, 祝卓宏. PEAK关系训练系统:孤独症语言障碍康复的新方法[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(11): 1896-1905. |
[4] | 王分分, 祝卓宏. 言语行为的关系框架理论视角: 孤独症谱系障碍的新探索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2017, 25(8): 1321-1326. |
[5] | 刘丽虹;张积家;崔占玲. 语词遮蔽效应的研究及其理论[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(2): 308-313. |
[6] | 白丽茹. 阅读障碍检测的“差异模型”与“成分模型”比较分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(2): 299-307. |
[7] | 曾红玲;刘思耘. 语篇语境对句子理解的影响:来自N400的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(2): 314-320. |
[8] | 陈永香;朱莉琪;Twila Tardif;孟祥芝;Rachel Pulverman. 词汇学习中“快速映射”现象的机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(1): 71-77. |
[9] | 李爱梅;谭清方. 情绪代理变量对投资者决策的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(1): 44-50. |
[10] | 王雁;姚梅林. 专家医生的知识结构及诊断推理方式[J]. 心理科学进展, 2009, 17(1): 64-70. |
[11] | 李锐;李爱梅;凌文辁. 承诺续扩现象及其心理机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(5): 767-778. |
[12] | 古若雷;罗跃嘉. 焦虑情绪对决策的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(4): 518-523. |
[13] | 杜秀敏; 张庆林;向虹;张海微. 热手谬误和赌徒谬误心理机制研究述评[J]. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(4): 524-531. |
[14] | 徐晓东;刘昌. 句子理解的关键——对句法和语义关系的再探讨[J]. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(4): 532-540. |
[15] | 晏赛君;何先友;吴建红. 年老化与文本理解[J]. 心理科学进展, 2008, 16(4): 541-547. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||