昨天已成历史,明天仍是个谜:句子阅读过程中过去和将来时间参照加工的眼动研究。

Nicoletta Biondo, Marielena Soilemezidi, Simona Mancini
{"title":"昨天已成历史,明天仍是个谜:句子阅读过程中过去和将来时间参照加工的眼动研究。","authors":"Nicoletta Biondo,&nbsp;Marielena Soilemezidi,&nbsp;Simona Mancini","doi":"10.1037/xlm0001053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ability to think about nonpresent time is a crucial aspect of human cognition. Both the past and future imply a temporal displacement of an event outside the \"now.\" They also intrinsically differ: The past refers to inalterable events; the future to alterable events, to possible worlds. Are the past and future processed similarly or differently? In this study, we addressed this question by investigating how Spanish speakers process past/future time reference violations during sentence processing, while recording eye movements. We also investigated the role of verbs (in isolation; within sentences) and adverbs (deictic; nondeictic) during time processing. Existing accounts propose that past processing, which requires a link to discourse, is more complex than future processing, which-like the present-is locally bound. Our findings show that past and future processing differs, especially at early stages of verb processing, but this difference is not limited to the presence/absence of discourse linking. We found earlier mismatch effects for past compared to future time reference in incongruous sentences, in line with previous studies. Interestingly, it took longer to categorize the past than the future tense when verbs were presented in isolation. However, it took longer to categorize the future than the past when verbs were presented in congruous sentences, arguably because the future implies alterable worlds. Finally, temporal adverbs were found to play an important role in reinspection and reanalysis triggered by the presence of undefined time frames (nondeictic adverbs) or incongruences (mismatching verbs). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":504300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","volume":" ","pages":"1001-1018"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery: An eye-tracking investigation of the processing of past and future time reference during sentence reading.\",\"authors\":\"Nicoletta Biondo,&nbsp;Marielena Soilemezidi,&nbsp;Simona Mancini\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xlm0001053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The ability to think about nonpresent time is a crucial aspect of human cognition. Both the past and future imply a temporal displacement of an event outside the \\\"now.\\\" They also intrinsically differ: The past refers to inalterable events; the future to alterable events, to possible worlds. Are the past and future processed similarly or differently? In this study, we addressed this question by investigating how Spanish speakers process past/future time reference violations during sentence processing, while recording eye movements. We also investigated the role of verbs (in isolation; within sentences) and adverbs (deictic; nondeictic) during time processing. Existing accounts propose that past processing, which requires a link to discourse, is more complex than future processing, which-like the present-is locally bound. Our findings show that past and future processing differs, especially at early stages of verb processing, but this difference is not limited to the presence/absence of discourse linking. We found earlier mismatch effects for past compared to future time reference in incongruous sentences, in line with previous studies. Interestingly, it took longer to categorize the past than the future tense when verbs were presented in isolation. However, it took longer to categorize the future than the past when verbs were presented in congruous sentences, arguably because the future implies alterable worlds. Finally, temporal adverbs were found to play an important role in reinspection and reanalysis triggered by the presence of undefined time frames (nondeictic adverbs) or incongruences (mismatching verbs). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":504300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1001-1018\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001053\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/8/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/8/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

思考非当下时间的能力是人类认知的一个重要方面。过去和未来都意味着一个事件在“现在”之外的时间位移。它们在本质上也是不同的:过去指的是不可改变的事件;从未来到多变的事件,到可能的世界。过去和未来的处理是相似的还是不同的?在这项研究中,我们通过调查西班牙语使用者在句子处理过程中如何处理过去/未来时间参照违规,同时记录眼球运动,来解决这个问题。我们还研究了动词的作用(孤立地;在句子中)和副词(指示语;(非指示)在时间处理期间。现有的研究表明,过去的处理需要与话语的联系,这比未来的处理要复杂得多,而未来和现在一样是局部的。我们的研究结果表明,过去和将来的加工是不同的,特别是在动词加工的早期阶段,但这种差异并不局限于话语连接的存在/缺失。我们发现,在不连贯的句子中,过去时间与未来时间的不匹配效应较早,这与以往的研究一致。有趣的是,当动词单独呈现时,对过去时态进行分类的时间要比对将来时态进行分类的时间长。然而,当动词在连贯的句子中出现时,对未来进行分类的时间要比对过去进行分类的时间长,这可能是因为未来意味着可变的世界。最后,时间副词被发现在由未定义的时间框架(非指示副词)或不一致(不匹配动词)的存在引发的重新检查和重新分析中发挥重要作用。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery: An eye-tracking investigation of the processing of past and future time reference during sentence reading.

The ability to think about nonpresent time is a crucial aspect of human cognition. Both the past and future imply a temporal displacement of an event outside the "now." They also intrinsically differ: The past refers to inalterable events; the future to alterable events, to possible worlds. Are the past and future processed similarly or differently? In this study, we addressed this question by investigating how Spanish speakers process past/future time reference violations during sentence processing, while recording eye movements. We also investigated the role of verbs (in isolation; within sentences) and adverbs (deictic; nondeictic) during time processing. Existing accounts propose that past processing, which requires a link to discourse, is more complex than future processing, which-like the present-is locally bound. Our findings show that past and future processing differs, especially at early stages of verb processing, but this difference is not limited to the presence/absence of discourse linking. We found earlier mismatch effects for past compared to future time reference in incongruous sentences, in line with previous studies. Interestingly, it took longer to categorize the past than the future tense when verbs were presented in isolation. However, it took longer to categorize the future than the past when verbs were presented in congruous sentences, arguably because the future implies alterable worlds. Finally, temporal adverbs were found to play an important role in reinspection and reanalysis triggered by the presence of undefined time frames (nondeictic adverbs) or incongruences (mismatching verbs). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

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