并非所有的处理困难都是一样的

Johannes Kizach
{"title":"并非所有的处理困难都是一样的","authors":"Johannes Kizach","doi":"10.7146/aul.348.104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A slowdown in reaction time in self-paced reading is typically interpreted as a sign of processing diffi culty. Similarly, a low acceptability rating can, among other things, be caused by processing diffi culty. The question examined in this article is whether a slowdown in reaction time always affects acceptability negatively. To investigate this, an acceptability study was performed, comparing sentences that only differ regarding the main verb (Mia noticed/presumed the pig in the pen needed water) and where the word-for-word reaction time data in reading is known from previous research. The reaction time data show that both types involve a slowdown, but at different locations in the sentence (at the embedded subject vs. at the embedded verb) and for different reasons (missing complementizer vs. reanalysis). The acceptability ratings show that the two types of slowdowns are not equally costly: The slowdown due to reanalysis causes a signifi cantly lower rating than the slowdown due to a missing complementizer. The result illustrates that not all processing diffi culties (measured as a slowdown in self-paced reading) have the same adverse impact on acceptability judgments.","PeriodicalId":347827,"journal":{"name":"The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not all processing difficulties are created equal\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Kizach\",\"doi\":\"10.7146/aul.348.104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A slowdown in reaction time in self-paced reading is typically interpreted as a sign of processing diffi culty. Similarly, a low acceptability rating can, among other things, be caused by processing diffi culty. The question examined in this article is whether a slowdown in reaction time always affects acceptability negatively. To investigate this, an acceptability study was performed, comparing sentences that only differ regarding the main verb (Mia noticed/presumed the pig in the pen needed water) and where the word-for-word reaction time data in reading is known from previous research. The reaction time data show that both types involve a slowdown, but at different locations in the sentence (at the embedded subject vs. at the embedded verb) and for different reasons (missing complementizer vs. reanalysis). The acceptability ratings show that the two types of slowdowns are not equally costly: The slowdown due to reanalysis causes a signifi cantly lower rating than the slowdown due to a missing complementizer. The result illustrates that not all processing diffi culties (measured as a slowdown in self-paced reading) have the same adverse impact on acceptability judgments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":347827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner\",\"volume\":\"59 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.348.104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7146/aul.348.104","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

在自定节奏阅读中,反应时间的减慢通常被解释为处理困难的迹象。类似地,除其他因素外,低可接受性评级可能是由处理困难引起的。本文研究的问题是反应时间的减慢是否总是对可接受性产生负面影响。为了调查这一点,进行了一项可接受性研究,比较了只有主动词不同的句子(Mia注意到/假设猪圈里的猪需要水),以及从先前的研究中已知的阅读中逐字反应时间数据。反应时间数据显示,这两种类型都涉及到减速,但在句子的不同位置(在嵌入的主语和嵌入的动词)和不同的原因(缺少补语和重新分析)。可接受度评级表明,这两种类型的减速代价并不相等:由于重新分析而导致的减速导致的评级明显低于由于缺少补充剂而导致的评级。结果表明,并非所有的处理困难(以自定节奏阅读速度的减慢来衡量)对可接受性判断都有同样的不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Not all processing difficulties are created equal
A slowdown in reaction time in self-paced reading is typically interpreted as a sign of processing diffi culty. Similarly, a low acceptability rating can, among other things, be caused by processing diffi culty. The question examined in this article is whether a slowdown in reaction time always affects acceptability negatively. To investigate this, an acceptability study was performed, comparing sentences that only differ regarding the main verb (Mia noticed/presumed the pig in the pen needed water) and where the word-for-word reaction time data in reading is known from previous research. The reaction time data show that both types involve a slowdown, but at different locations in the sentence (at the embedded subject vs. at the embedded verb) and for different reasons (missing complementizer vs. reanalysis). The acceptability ratings show that the two types of slowdowns are not equally costly: The slowdown due to reanalysis causes a signifi cantly lower rating than the slowdown due to a missing complementizer. The result illustrates that not all processing diffi culties (measured as a slowdown in self-paced reading) have the same adverse impact on acceptability judgments.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信