混合使用结构粒子抑制中文阅读的认知过程:来自眼动的证据

Yuntao Gao, Chenxi Wang, Pingping Liu, B. Han
{"title":"混合使用结构粒子抑制中文阅读的认知过程:来自眼动的证据","authors":"Yuntao Gao, Chenxi Wang, Pingping Liu, B. Han","doi":"10.1145/3523286.3524508","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: The structural particles “De”(的) and “De”(地) are often mixed up in the written language, arousing heated debate on whether “De”(地) could be replaced by “De”(的). However, most of the current studies focus on grammatical or pragmatic differences of these two words, while no studies have been conducted to look into the effect of the mixed use of these two words on information processing and whether there are differences between the effect of two mixed use patterns—“De”(地)for “De”(的) and “De”(的) for “De”(地). In this study, an eye-tracking experiment with 30 college students was conducted to examine the influence of the mixed use on information processing and whether different patterns have different impacts. The results showed that: 1. the mixed use of “De”(的) and “De”(地) significantly affects the dwell time and fixation count of the whole sentence. In the violation condition, the dwell time was longer and the fixation count was higher; 2. the analysis of the target word showed that there was an interaction between the usage specification (standard or not) and the mixed-use pattern on many eye-tracking indicators, such as first fixation duration, dwell time, regression in times and fixation count, and this influence was mainly caused by “De”(地)for “De”(的) ; (3) the analysis of the remaining sentence after the target word showed different results-there was an interaction between the usage specification (standard or not) and the misuse patterns on fixation count, and the influence is mainly caused by “De”(的) for “De”(地). On the whole, both “De”(地)for “De”(的) and “De”(的) for “De”(地) caused disruption on readers' reading experience, while “De”(的) for “De”(地) with a low degree of violation had a delayed effect on information processing, which was mainly reflected in the remaining sentence after the target word. The findings of the current research provide evidence from eye-tracking studies for the division of “De”(的) and “De”(地).","PeriodicalId":268165,"journal":{"name":"2022 2nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Intelligent Computing","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mixed Use of Structural Particles Inhibits Cognitive Processes in Chinese Reading: Evidences from Eye Movements\",\"authors\":\"Yuntao Gao, Chenxi Wang, Pingping Liu, B. Han\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3523286.3524508\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: The structural particles “De”(的) and “De”(地) are often mixed up in the written language, arousing heated debate on whether “De”(地) could be replaced by “De”(的). However, most of the current studies focus on grammatical or pragmatic differences of these two words, while no studies have been conducted to look into the effect of the mixed use of these two words on information processing and whether there are differences between the effect of two mixed use patterns—“De”(地)for “De”(的) and “De”(的) for “De”(地). In this study, an eye-tracking experiment with 30 college students was conducted to examine the influence of the mixed use on information processing and whether different patterns have different impacts. The results showed that: 1. the mixed use of “De”(的) and “De”(地) significantly affects the dwell time and fixation count of the whole sentence. In the violation condition, the dwell time was longer and the fixation count was higher; 2. the analysis of the target word showed that there was an interaction between the usage specification (standard or not) and the mixed-use pattern on many eye-tracking indicators, such as first fixation duration, dwell time, regression in times and fixation count, and this influence was mainly caused by “De”(地)for “De”(的) ; (3) the analysis of the remaining sentence after the target word showed different results-there was an interaction between the usage specification (standard or not) and the misuse patterns on fixation count, and the influence is mainly caused by “De”(的) for “De”(地). On the whole, both “De”(地)for “De”(的) and “De”(的) for “De”(地) caused disruption on readers' reading experience, while “De”(的) for “De”(地) with a low degree of violation had a delayed effect on information processing, which was mainly reflected in the remaining sentence after the target word. The findings of the current research provide evidence from eye-tracking studies for the division of “De”(的) and “De”(地).\",\"PeriodicalId\":268165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 2nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Intelligent Computing\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 2nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Intelligent Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3523286.3524508\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 2nd International Conference on Bioinformatics and Intelligent Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3523286.3524508","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在书面语中,结构小品“得”和“得”经常被混淆,这引起了人们对“得”是否可以被“得”所取代的争论。然而,目前的研究大多集中在这两个词的语法或语用差异上,而没有研究这两个词混合使用对信息加工的影响,以及“De”(“得”)和“De”(“得”)两种混合使用模式的效果是否存在差异。本研究通过对30名大学生进行眼动追踪实验,考察了混合使用对信息加工的影响,以及不同使用方式对信息加工的影响是否不同。结果表明:1。“得”和“得”的混合使用显著影响了整句的停留时间和固定次数。违规条件下,停留时间较长,固定次数较高;2. 对目标词的分析表明,使用规范(标准或不标准)与混合使用模式对首次注视时长、停留时间、回归次数、注视次数等多项眼动指标存在交互作用,且这种影响主要由“得”()对“得”()造成;(3)对目标词后剩余句子的分析结果不同——使用规范(标准或不标准)与误用模式对固定次数的影响存在交互作用,其影响主要是由“得”对“得”造成的。总体而言,“得”(英文)的“得”(英文)和“得”(英文)的“得”(英文)都会对读者的阅读体验造成干扰,而违规程度较低的“得”(英文)的“得”(英文)对信息加工产生延迟效应,主要体现在目标词后的剩余句子中。本研究结果为“得”与“得”的区分提供了眼动追踪研究的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mixed Use of Structural Particles Inhibits Cognitive Processes in Chinese Reading: Evidences from Eye Movements
Abstract: The structural particles “De”(的) and “De”(地) are often mixed up in the written language, arousing heated debate on whether “De”(地) could be replaced by “De”(的). However, most of the current studies focus on grammatical or pragmatic differences of these two words, while no studies have been conducted to look into the effect of the mixed use of these two words on information processing and whether there are differences between the effect of two mixed use patterns—“De”(地)for “De”(的) and “De”(的) for “De”(地). In this study, an eye-tracking experiment with 30 college students was conducted to examine the influence of the mixed use on information processing and whether different patterns have different impacts. The results showed that: 1. the mixed use of “De”(的) and “De”(地) significantly affects the dwell time and fixation count of the whole sentence. In the violation condition, the dwell time was longer and the fixation count was higher; 2. the analysis of the target word showed that there was an interaction between the usage specification (standard or not) and the mixed-use pattern on many eye-tracking indicators, such as first fixation duration, dwell time, regression in times and fixation count, and this influence was mainly caused by “De”(地)for “De”(的) ; (3) the analysis of the remaining sentence after the target word showed different results-there was an interaction between the usage specification (standard or not) and the misuse patterns on fixation count, and the influence is mainly caused by “De”(的) for “De”(地). On the whole, both “De”(地)for “De”(的) and “De”(的) for “De”(地) caused disruption on readers' reading experience, while “De”(的) for “De”(地) with a low degree of violation had a delayed effect on information processing, which was mainly reflected in the remaining sentence after the target word. The findings of the current research provide evidence from eye-tracking studies for the division of “De”(的) and “De”(地).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信