中文词间词和词内词预视加工的差异：词间阴影的作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00969

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为了考察词语的属性特征对预视加工的影响, 实验操纵注视字与预视字是否属于一个语言单元, 利用眼动轨迹记录法并结合边界范式以探讨其对预视效应的影响。此外, 考察了词边界信息对词间词和词内词预视加工的影响。结果显示, 词内词的预视效应大于词间词, 词间阴影、非词阴影条件下的预视效应和正常条件之间没有差异。说明阴影提供的词边界对词间词和词内词的预视加工无影响, 支持词切分和词汇识别模型, 即词切分和词汇识别是同时进行的。

关键词: 词边界, 词间词, 词内词, 预视加工, 词切分

Abstract:

In the present study, readers’ eye movements were recorded to investigate the influence of word highlighting information on the preview processing of between-words and within-words.

Most studies on preview effects have found that the size of the preview effects is 30~50 ms. Hy?n? et al. (2004) examined parafoveal processing of the end lexeme of a long Finnish compound while the beginning lexeme of the compound was fixated. And the results found 80ms preview effect which was more pronounced than previous literatures. The larger preview benefit may have been due to the fact that the preview word is part of one larger linguistic unit (within-words); however, in previous experiments, the preview word and the current fixated word belong to different words (between-words). Consequently, researchers speculated that within-words might induce larger preview effect than that of between-words. Some researchers used compound words (within-words) and phrases (between-words) to further explore this issue and they found that there were no differences between within-words and between-words in preview effects. The results cannot exclude the possible explanation that larger preview effect for within-words is caused by the higher syntactic expectations of nouns comes from adjectives in phrases inducing larger preview effect and then counterbalances the possible differences between the two kinds of words. The present study adopted the boundary paradigm to probe the preview processing differences between within-words and between-words. In the present study, the first character of a two-character compounds (between-words) and the second character of a two-character compounds (within-words) was manipulated to be presented normally or replaced by a pseudo-character for previews. Moreover, word highlighting sentence and non-word highlighting sentence were introduced to examine whether the word boundary information could exert different influences on the preview processing of between-words and within-words. Marking word boundary by word highlighting has its unique advantages. Most of all, compared with word spaces, word highlighting can not only keep the same sentence length meanwhile providing the word boundary information but also control the same word lateral masking on different conditions.

Firstly, the results indicated that the preview effect for between-word was smaller than that of within-word. The results were consistent with the results of Hy?n? et al. (2004), which showed that the morphological information of target word could impact on preview processing. Secondly, we found that there were no differences among normal condition, highlighting condition and non-word highlighting condition. Even so, we did not found the significant influences of word boundary demarcation for preview processing, the possible benefit effect of word boundary still could not be ruled out thoroughly. As Bai et al. (2008) pointed out that readers are familiar with the text without any word boundary signals in normal reading; consequently, the null effect between normal and word boundary text may show a priming effect on word boundary condition, which is the one readers are not familiar with. Thirdly, the results showed that word boundary information had similar effects on within-words and between-words.

Results of the present study indicated that word morphological information could affect its preview processing; however, word boundary information do not necessarily facilitate preview processing for both between-words and within-words. The possible explanation may be that word segmentation and word recognition occur simultaneously. These results are consistent with the model of word segmentation and word recognition.

Key words: word boundary, between words, within words, preview processing, word segmentation

中图分类号:

B482

关宜韫, 宋悉妮, 郑玉玮, 张颖靓, 崔磊. (2019). 中文词间词和词内词预视加工的差异：词间阴影的作用. 心理学报, 51(9), 969-981.

GUAN Yiyun, SONG Xini, ZHENG Yuwei, ZHANG yingliang, CUI Lei. (2019). Preview processing of between words and within words in Chinese reading: No word highlighting effect. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(9), 969-981.

图/表 6

参考文献 42

1	Bai X., Yan G., Liversedge S. P., Zang C., & Rayner K . ( 2008). Reading spaced and unspaced Chinese text: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.34( 5), 1277-1287.
2	Cui L., Drieghe D., Bai X., Yan G., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2014). Parafoveal preview benefit in unspaced and spaced Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(11),2172-2188.
3	Cui L., Drieghe D., Yan G., Bai X ., Chi, H. & Liversedge, S. P. ( 2013). Parafoveal processing across different lexical constituents in Chinese reading.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66,403-416.
4	Drieghe D., Brysbaert M., & Desmet T . ( 2005). Parafoveal-on-foveal effects on eye movements in text reading: Does an extra space make a difference. Vision Research, 45(13),1693-1706.
5	Drieghe D., Cui L., Yan G., Bai X., Chi H., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2017). The morphosyntactic structure of compound words influences parafoveal processing in Chinese reading.. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),1-28.
6	Drieghe D., Fitzsimmons G., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2017). Parafoveal preview effects in reading unspaced text. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance.43( 10), 1701-1716.
7	Dimigen O., Kliegl R., & Sommer W . ( 2012). Trans-saccadic parafoveal preview benefits in fluent reading: A study with fixation-related brain potentials. Neuroimage.62( 1), 381-393. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.006
8	Engbert R., Nuthmann A., Richter E. M., & Kliegl R . ( 2005). SWIFT: A dynamical model of saccade generation during reading.Psychological Review, 112,777-813.
9	Hoosain R. ( 1992). Psychological reality of the word in Chinese. In H.-C. Chen & O.J.L. Tzeng (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 111-130). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
10	Hyönä J., ( 1995). Do irregular letter combinations attract readers' attention? Evidence from fixation locations in words.[J] ournal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance.21( 1), 68-81.
11	Hyönä J., Bertram R., & Pollatsek A . ( 2004). Are long compound words identified serially via their constituents? Evidence from an eye movement-contingent display change study. Memory & Cognition, 32(4),523-532.
12	Juhasz B. J., Pollatsek A., Hyönä J., Drieghe D., & Rayner K . ( 2009). Parafoveal processing within and between words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7),1356-1376.
13	Li X., Rayner K., & Cave K. R . ( 2009). On the segmentation of Chinese words during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 58(4),525-552.
14	Li N., Wang S., Mo L., & Kliegl R . ( 2017). Contextual constraint and preview time modulate the semantic preview effect: Evidence from chinese sentence reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(1),1-32.
15	Liu Y., Reichle E. D., & Li X . ( 2015). Parafoveal processing affects outgoing saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning.Memory, and Cognition, 41(4),1229-1236.
16	Liu Y., Reichle E. D., & Li X . ( 2016). The effect of word frequency and parafoveal preview on saccade length during the reading of Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(7),1008-1025.
17	Morris R. K., Rayner K., & Pollatsek A . ( 1990). Eye movement guidance in reading: The role of parafoveal letter and space information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(2),268-281.
18	Perea M., &Acha J. , ( 2009). Space information is important for reading. Vision Research, 49(15),1994-2000.
19	Perea M., Tejero P., & Winskel H . ( 2015). Can colours be used to segment words when reading?. Acta Psychologica, 159,8-13.
20	Pollatsek A. & Rayner K. , ( 1982). Eye movement control in reading: The role of word boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(6),817-833.
21	Rayner K. ( 1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7(1),65-81.
22	Rayner K. ( 1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3),372-422.
23	Rayner K. ( 2009). The thirty fifth Sir Frederick Bartlett lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading,scene perception, and visual search.. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62,1457-1506.
24	Rayner K., Ashby J., Pollatsek A., & Reichle E. D . ( 2004). The effects of frequency and predictability on eye fixations in reading: Lmplications for the E-Z Reader model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4),720-732.
25	Rayner K., Balota D. A., & Pollatsek A . ( 1986). Against parafoveal semantic preprocessing during eye fixations in reading. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40(4),473-483.
26	Rayner K., Schotter E. R., & Drieghe D . ( 2014). Lack of semantic parafoveal preview benefit in reading revisited. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(4),1067-1072.
27	Rayner K., & Schotter E.R, . ( 2014). Semantic preview benefit in reading English: The effect of initial letter capitalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4),1617-1628.
28	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.), Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 213-234). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
29	Schotter E.R . ( 2013). Synonyms provide semantic preview benefit in English. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4),619-633.
30	Schotter E. R., Lee M., Reiderman M., & Rayner K . ( 2015). The effect of contextual constraint on parafoveal processing in reading.Journal of Memory and Language, 83,118-139.
31	Sheridan H., Reichle E. D., & Reingold E. M . ( 2016). Why does removing inter-word spaces produce reading deficits? The role of parafoveal processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review.23( 5), 1543-1552.
32	Vasilev M.R., &Angele B. , ( 2017). Parafoveal preview effects from word N + 1 and word N + 2 during reading: A critical review and Bayesian meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.24( 3), 666-689.
33	Wang S., Tong X., Yang J., & Leng Y . ( 2009). Semantic codes are obtained before word fixation in Chinese sentence reading: Evidence from eye-movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(3),220-232.
34	[ 王穗苹, 佟秀红, 杨锦绵, 冷英 . ( 2009). 中文句子阅读中语义信息对眼动预视效应的影响. 心理学报.41( 3), 220-232.]
35	Wei W., Li X., & Pollatsek A . ( 2013). Word properties of a fixated region affect outgoing saccade length in Chinese reading.Vision Research, 80,1-6.
36	Yan M., Kliegl R., Richter E ., Nuthmann, A. & Shu, H. ( 2010). Flexible saccade-target selection in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(4),705-725.
37	Yan M., Richter E. M., Shu H., & Kliegl R . ( 2009). Readers of Chinese extract semantic information from parafoveal words. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3),561-566.
38	Yan G. L., Xiong J. P., Zang C. L., Yu L. L., Cui L., & Bai X. J . ( 2013). Review of Eye-movement Measures in Reading Research. Advances in Psychological Science.21( 4), 589-605. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589
39	[ 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军 . ( 2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展.21( 4), 589-605.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589
40	Yang J., Wang S., Xu Y., & Rayner K . ( 2009). Do Chinese readers obtain preview benefit from word n+2? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(4),1192-1204.
41	Yen M-H., Radach R., Tzeng O. J-L., Hung D. L., & Tsai J-L . ( 2009). Early parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences. Acta Psychologica, 131(1),24-33.
42	Zang C., Wang Y., Bai X., Yan G., Drieghe D., & Liversedge S. P . ( 2016). The use of probabilistic lexicality cues for word segmentation in Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3),548-560.

词汇属性	词间词	词内词
词频(次/百万)*	8.45	8.80
笔画数(笔)	16.25	16.68
目标字的位置频率	39%	42%

词汇属性	词间词	词内词
词频(次/百万)*	8.45	8.80
笔画数(笔)	16.25	16.68
目标字的位置频率	39%	42%

眼动指标	词语类型	正常呈现			词间阴影			非词阴影
眼动指标	词语类型	I	D	PB	I	D	PB	I	D	PB
首次注视时间*	词内词	231	273	42	235	270	35	221	269	49
首次注视时间*	词间词	225	251	25	218	238	21	229	254	26
凝视时间*	词内词	243	303	60	250	305	55	236	301	65
凝视时间*	词间词	234	272	38	232	258	27	238	281	44
回视路径时间*	词内词	291	406	115	302	381	78	289	419	130
回视路径时间*	词间词	286	344	58	283	322	39	285	341	57
跳读率	词内词	0.17	0.15	-0.02	0.21	0.15	-0.06	0.17	0.16	-0.02
跳读率	词间词	0.19	0.19	-0.001	0.24	0.24	-0.001	0.22	0.22	-0.003

眼动指标	词语类型	正常呈现			词间阴影			非词阴影
眼动指标	词语类型	I	D	PB	I	D	PB	I	D	PB
首次注视时间*	词内词	231	273	42	235	270	35	221	269	49
首次注视时间*	词间词	225	251	25	218	238	21	229	254	26
凝视时间*	词内词	243	303	60	250	305	55	236	301	65
凝视时间*	词间词	234	272	38	232	258	27	238	281	44
回视路径时间*	词内词	291	406	115	302	381	78	289	419	130
回视路径时间*	词间词	286	344	58	283	322	39	285	341	57
跳读率	词内词	0.17	0.15	-0.02	0.21	0.15	-0.06	0.17	0.16	-0.02
跳读率	词间词	0.19	0.19	-0.001	0.24	0.24	-0.001	0.22	0.22	-0.003

眼动指标	词语类型	正常呈现			词间阴影			非词阴影
眼动指标	词语类型	I	D	PB	I	D	PB	I	D	PB
首次注视时间*	词内词	231	273	42	235	270	35	221	269	49
首次注视时间*	词间词	227	249	22	226	242	16	230	247	16
凝视时间*	词内词	243	303	60	250	305	55	236	301	65
凝视时间*	词间词	324	381	57	322	370	47	355	420	64
回视路径时间*	词内词	291	406	115	302	381	78	289	419	130
回视路径时间*	词间词	393	497	103	394	469	73	441	517	76
跳读率	词内词	0.17	0.15	-0.2	0.21	0.15	-0.06	0.17	0.16	-0.02
跳读率	词间词	0.05	0.04	-0.01	0.05	0.05	-0.002	0.06	0.04	-0.02