英语副词的理解:词义的本质与语言的神经认知结构》(The Nature of Lexical Meanings and the Neurocognitive Architecture of Language)。

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Maria M Piñango, Yao-Ying Lai, Ashwini Deo, Emily Foster-Hanson, Cheryl Lacadie, Todd Constable
{"title":"英语副词的理解:词义的本质与语言的神经认知结构》(The Nature of Lexical Meanings and the Neurocognitive Architecture of Language)。","authors":"Maria M Piñango, Yao-Ying Lai, Ashwini Deo, Emily Foster-Hanson, Cheryl Lacadie, Todd Constable","doi":"10.1111/tops.12746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>What is the nature of lexical meanings such that they can both compose with others and also appear boundless? We investigate this question by examining the compositional properties of for-time adverbial as in \"Ana jumped for an hour.\" At issue is the source of the associated iterative reading which lacks overt morphophonological support, yet, the iteration is not disconnected from the lexical meanings in the sentence. This suggests an analysis whereby the iterative reading is the result of the interaction between lexical meanings under a specific compositional configuration. We test the predictions of two competing accounts: Mismatch-and-Repair and Partition-Measure. They differ in their assumptions about lexical meanings: assumptions that have implications for the possible compositional mechanisms that each can invoke. Mismatch-and-Repair assumes that lexical meaning representations are discrete, separate from the conceptual system from which they originally emerged and brought into sentence meaning through syntactic composition. Partition-Measure assumes that lexical meanings are contextually salient conceptual structures substantially indistinguishable from the conceptual system that they inhabit. During comprehension, lexical meanings construe a conceptual representation, in parallel, morphosyntactic and morphophonological composition as determined by the lexical items involved in the sentence. Whereas both hypotheses capture the observed cost in the punctual predicate plus for-time adverbial composition (e.g., jump (vs. swim) for an hour), their predictions differ regarding iteration with durative predicates; for example, swim for a year (vs. for an hour). Mismatch-and-Repair predicts contrasting processing profiles and nonoverlapping activation patterns along punctuality differences. Partition-Measure predicts overlapping processing and cortical distribution profiles, along the presence of iterativity. Results from a self-paced reading and an functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies bear out the predictions of the Partition-Measure account, supporting a view of linguistic meaning composition in line with an architecture of language whereby combinatoriality and generativity are distributed, carried out in parallel across linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comprehension of English for-adverbials: The Nature of Lexical Meanings and the Neurocognitive Architecture of Language.\",\"authors\":\"Maria M Piñango, Yao-Ying Lai, Ashwini Deo, Emily Foster-Hanson, Cheryl Lacadie, Todd Constable\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/tops.12746\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>What is the nature of lexical meanings such that they can both compose with others and also appear boundless? We investigate this question by examining the compositional properties of for-time adverbial as in \\\"Ana jumped for an hour.\\\" At issue is the source of the associated iterative reading which lacks overt morphophonological support, yet, the iteration is not disconnected from the lexical meanings in the sentence. This suggests an analysis whereby the iterative reading is the result of the interaction between lexical meanings under a specific compositional configuration. We test the predictions of two competing accounts: Mismatch-and-Repair and Partition-Measure. They differ in their assumptions about lexical meanings: assumptions that have implications for the possible compositional mechanisms that each can invoke. Mismatch-and-Repair assumes that lexical meaning representations are discrete, separate from the conceptual system from which they originally emerged and brought into sentence meaning through syntactic composition. Partition-Measure assumes that lexical meanings are contextually salient conceptual structures substantially indistinguishable from the conceptual system that they inhabit. During comprehension, lexical meanings construe a conceptual representation, in parallel, morphosyntactic and morphophonological composition as determined by the lexical items involved in the sentence. Whereas both hypotheses capture the observed cost in the punctual predicate plus for-time adverbial composition (e.g., jump (vs. swim) for an hour), their predictions differ regarding iteration with durative predicates; for example, swim for a year (vs. for an hour). Mismatch-and-Repair predicts contrasting processing profiles and nonoverlapping activation patterns along punctuality differences. Partition-Measure predicts overlapping processing and cortical distribution profiles, along the presence of iterativity. Results from a self-paced reading and an functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies bear out the predictions of the Partition-Measure account, supporting a view of linguistic meaning composition in line with an architecture of language whereby combinatoriality and generativity are distributed, carried out in parallel across linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47822,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Topics in Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Topics in Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12746\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12746","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

词义既能与其他词义构成,又显得无边无际,那么词义的本质是什么?我们通过研究 "安娜跳了一个小时 "中的 "时间副词 "的构成特性来探讨这个问题。问题在于相关的迭读的来源,它缺乏明显的语素支持,然而,迭读与句子中的词义并没有脱节。这表明,迭读是词义在特定成分配置下相互作用的结果。我们检验了两种相互竞争的说法的预测结果:错配修复说和分区测量说。它们的不同之处在于对词义的假设:这些假设对各自可能调用的构词机制都有影响。错配与修复假设词义表征是离散的,与概念系统是分离的,而概念系统最初是由词义表征产生的,并通过句法构成将词义表征带入句子意义中。分区-测量法假定词义是上下文中突出的概念结构,与其所在的概念系统基本没有区别。在理解过程中,词义解释了概念表征,同时,词素句法和词素音素构成由句子中涉及的词项决定。这两种假设都能捕捉到在准时谓词加时间副词构成中观察到的成本(例如,跳(与游)一小时),但它们对持续谓词迭代的预测却不同,例如,游一年(与游一小时)。错配与修复"(Mismatch-and-Repair)预测了准时性差异所带来的截然不同的处理概况和非重叠激活模式。分区测量法预测了存在迭代性的重叠处理和皮层分布概况。自我节奏阅读和功能性磁共振成像(fMRI)研究的结果证实了 "分区-测量 "理论的预测,支持语言意义构成与语言结构相一致的观点,即组合性和生成性在语言和非语言子系统中平行分布。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comprehension of English for-adverbials: The Nature of Lexical Meanings and the Neurocognitive Architecture of Language.

What is the nature of lexical meanings such that they can both compose with others and also appear boundless? We investigate this question by examining the compositional properties of for-time adverbial as in "Ana jumped for an hour." At issue is the source of the associated iterative reading which lacks overt morphophonological support, yet, the iteration is not disconnected from the lexical meanings in the sentence. This suggests an analysis whereby the iterative reading is the result of the interaction between lexical meanings under a specific compositional configuration. We test the predictions of two competing accounts: Mismatch-and-Repair and Partition-Measure. They differ in their assumptions about lexical meanings: assumptions that have implications for the possible compositional mechanisms that each can invoke. Mismatch-and-Repair assumes that lexical meaning representations are discrete, separate from the conceptual system from which they originally emerged and brought into sentence meaning through syntactic composition. Partition-Measure assumes that lexical meanings are contextually salient conceptual structures substantially indistinguishable from the conceptual system that they inhabit. During comprehension, lexical meanings construe a conceptual representation, in parallel, morphosyntactic and morphophonological composition as determined by the lexical items involved in the sentence. Whereas both hypotheses capture the observed cost in the punctual predicate plus for-time adverbial composition (e.g., jump (vs. swim) for an hour), their predictions differ regarding iteration with durative predicates; for example, swim for a year (vs. for an hour). Mismatch-and-Repair predicts contrasting processing profiles and nonoverlapping activation patterns along punctuality differences. Partition-Measure predicts overlapping processing and cortical distribution profiles, along the presence of iterativity. Results from a self-paced reading and an functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies bear out the predictions of the Partition-Measure account, supporting a view of linguistic meaning composition in line with an architecture of language whereby combinatoriality and generativity are distributed, carried out in parallel across linguistic and nonlinguistic subsystems.

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
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
×
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