语用表征和在线理解:来自直接语篇和因果助词的教训

John Duff, Pranav Anand, Adrian Brasoveanu, Amanda Rysling
{"title":"语用表征和在线理解:来自直接语篇和因果助词的教训","authors":"John Duff, Pranav Anand, Adrian Brasoveanu, Amanda Rysling","doi":"10.5070/g6011198","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Studies on the reading of appositive relative clauses (ARCs) have found that ARCs seem to exhibit less influence in later parsing and decision-making than similar constructions (Dillon et al. 2014, 2017), a pattern we call discounting. Existing accounts often link discounting to the status of ARCs as independent segments in systems of pragmatic representation. This would predict discounting for other constructions as well. In this study, we test that prediction by investigating the reading of direct discourse speech reports and causal adjuncts in English. Diagnostics supplied by the theoretical literature show that these constructions contribute the same independent segments as ARCs in two different systems of pragmatic organization: direct discourse reports contribute an independent speech act, and causal adjuncts contribute their own discourse units. Nevertheless, in a series of five experiments, we find no evidence of ARC-like discounting for either. We conclude that discounting should not be linked to either of these pragmatic representations, and discuss the outlook for other approaches to the phenomenon.","PeriodicalId":164622,"journal":{"name":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pragmatic representations and online comprehension: Lessons from direct discourse and causal adjuncts\",\"authors\":\"John Duff, Pranav Anand, Adrian Brasoveanu, Amanda Rysling\",\"doi\":\"10.5070/g6011198\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Studies on the reading of appositive relative clauses (ARCs) have found that ARCs seem to exhibit less influence in later parsing and decision-making than similar constructions (Dillon et al. 2014, 2017), a pattern we call discounting. Existing accounts often link discounting to the status of ARCs as independent segments in systems of pragmatic representation. This would predict discounting for other constructions as well. In this study, we test that prediction by investigating the reading of direct discourse speech reports and causal adjuncts in English. Diagnostics supplied by the theoretical literature show that these constructions contribute the same independent segments as ARCs in two different systems of pragmatic organization: direct discourse reports contribute an independent speech act, and causal adjuncts contribute their own discourse units. Nevertheless, in a series of five experiments, we find no evidence of ARC-like discounting for either. We conclude that discounting should not be linked to either of these pragmatic representations, and discuss the outlook for other approaches to the phenomenon.\",\"PeriodicalId\":164622,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Glossa Psycholinguistics\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Glossa Psycholinguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5070/g6011198\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glossa Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/g6011198","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

对同位语从句(arc)阅读的研究发现,arc在后期的分析和决策中似乎比类似的结构表现出更小的影响(Dillon et al. 2014, 2017),我们称之为折扣模式。现有帐户经常将折扣与实际表示系统中arc作为独立部分的地位联系起来。这也可以预测其他建筑的折扣。在本研究中,我们通过调查英语直接语篇的间接引语和因果助词的阅读来验证这一预测。理论文献提供的诊断表明,这些结构在两种不同的语用组织系统中提供了与arc相同的独立语段:直接语篇报告提供了一个独立的言语行为,因果补语提供了自己的语篇单位。然而,在一系列的五个实验中,我们没有发现任何证据表明两者都存在类似arc的折扣。我们的结论是,折扣不应该与这些实用主义的表述联系在一起,并讨论了其他方法的前景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pragmatic representations and online comprehension: Lessons from direct discourse and causal adjuncts
Studies on the reading of appositive relative clauses (ARCs) have found that ARCs seem to exhibit less influence in later parsing and decision-making than similar constructions (Dillon et al. 2014, 2017), a pattern we call discounting. Existing accounts often link discounting to the status of ARCs as independent segments in systems of pragmatic representation. This would predict discounting for other constructions as well. In this study, we test that prediction by investigating the reading of direct discourse speech reports and causal adjuncts in English. Diagnostics supplied by the theoretical literature show that these constructions contribute the same independent segments as ARCs in two different systems of pragmatic organization: direct discourse reports contribute an independent speech act, and causal adjuncts contribute their own discourse units. Nevertheless, in a series of five experiments, we find no evidence of ARC-like discounting for either. We conclude that discounting should not be linked to either of these pragmatic representations, and discuss the outlook for other approaches to the phenomenon.
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