Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian

Brian MacWhinney, Elizabeth Bates, Reinhold Kliegl
{"title":"Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian","authors":"Brian MacWhinney,&nbsp;Elizabeth Bates,&nbsp;Reinhold Kliegl","doi":"10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Linguistic and psycholinguistic accounts based on the study of English may prove unreliable as guides to sentence processing in even closely related languages. The present study illustrates this claim in a test of sentence interpretation by German-, Italian-, and English-speaking adults. Subjects were presented with simple transitive sentences in which contrasts of (1) word order, (2) agreement, (3) animacy, and (4) stress were systematically varied. For each sentence, subjects were asked to state which of the two nouns was the actor. The results indicated that Americans relied overwhelming on word order, using a first-noun strategy in NVN and a second-noun strategy in VNN and NNV sentences. Germans relied on both agreement and animacy. Italians showed extreme reliance on agreement cues. In both German and Italian, stress played a role in terms of complex interactions with word order and agreement. The findings were interpreted in terms of the “competition model” of Bates and MacWhinney (in H. Winitz (Ed.), <em>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Native and Foreign Language Acquisition</em>. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1982) in which cue validity is considered to be the primary determinant of cue strength. According to this model, cues are said to be high in validity when they are also high in applicability and reliability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":89821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior","volume":"23 2","pages":"Pages 127-150"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1984-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8","citationCount":"483","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537184900938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2004/10/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 483

Abstract

Linguistic and psycholinguistic accounts based on the study of English may prove unreliable as guides to sentence processing in even closely related languages. The present study illustrates this claim in a test of sentence interpretation by German-, Italian-, and English-speaking adults. Subjects were presented with simple transitive sentences in which contrasts of (1) word order, (2) agreement, (3) animacy, and (4) stress were systematically varied. For each sentence, subjects were asked to state which of the two nouns was the actor. The results indicated that Americans relied overwhelming on word order, using a first-noun strategy in NVN and a second-noun strategy in VNN and NNV sentences. Germans relied on both agreement and animacy. Italians showed extreme reliance on agreement cues. In both German and Italian, stress played a role in terms of complex interactions with word order and agreement. The findings were interpreted in terms of the “competition model” of Bates and MacWhinney (in H. Winitz (Ed.), Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Conference on Native and Foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1982) in which cue validity is considered to be the primary determinant of cue strength. According to this model, cues are said to be high in validity when they are also high in applicability and reliability.

提示有效性和句子解释在英语,德语和意大利语
建立在英语研究基础上的语言学和心理语言学的解释,即使在密切相关的语言中,也可能被证明是不可靠的。本研究通过对说德语、意大利语和英语的成年人的句子解释测试来说明这一观点。给被试看简单及物句,其中(1)词序、(2)一致性、(3)活力和(4)重音的对比有系统地变化。对于每个句子,受试者被要求说出两个名词中哪个是行为人。结果表明,美国人对语序的依赖程度非常高,在虚拟网络中使用第一名策略,在虚拟网络和非虚拟句子中使用第二名策略。德国人既依赖于协议,也依赖于热情。意大利人极度依赖协议暗示。在德语和意大利语中,重音都在与词序和一致性的复杂互动中发挥作用。这些发现是根据贝茨和麦克威尼的“竞争模型”来解释的(在H. Winitz(主编)的《纽约科学院母语和外语习得会议年鉴》上)。纽约:纽约科学院,1982),其中线索效度被认为是线索强度的主要决定因素。根据这个模型,当线索具有高适用性和高信度时,就被称为高效度线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书