{"title":"语言焦点的处理取决于对比选择","authors":"Morwenna Hoeks, Maziar Toosarvandani, Amanda Rysling","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2023.104444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Readers progressed through a sentence in the Maze task (Forster et al., 2009), deciding at each word between a sensical and a non-sensical continuation. Contexts presented before these sentences manipulated whether words were linguistically focused and whether they were given or new (Experiment 1); focused targets were read more slowly even when they were given, and new targets were read slowly in general. This both replicated earlier results in which slowdowns were found in the reading of focus (Benatar and Clifton, 2014; Birch and Rayner, 1997; Lowder and Gordon, 2015), and demonstrated that focus slowdowns are not reducible to newness. To clarify earlier results in which speed-ups were found on focused words (Birch and Rayner, 2010; Morris and Folk, 1998), contexts manipulated whether contrastive alternatives to focused words were presented with a focus particle (Experiment 2) or in a cleft construction (Experiment 3). Focused targets were read less slowly when a contrastive alternative was present in the context. This effect of contrastive alternatives cannot be reduced to simple semantic associate priming: Contexts also manipulated whether a semantically associated expression was present independently of the presence of a contrastive alternative (Experiment 4). Readers slowed down less when an alternative was present in the context, even when this alternative was not semantically associated to the target. These results indicate that the processing of focus depends on contrastive alternatives, in their interaction with newness, semantic association, and focus construction.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Processing of linguistic focus depends on contrastive alternatives\",\"authors\":\"Morwenna Hoeks, Maziar Toosarvandani, Amanda Rysling\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jml.2023.104444\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Readers progressed through a sentence in the Maze task (Forster et al., 2009), deciding at each word between a sensical and a non-sensical continuation. Contexts presented before these sentences manipulated whether words were linguistically focused and whether they were given or new (Experiment 1); focused targets were read more slowly even when they were given, and new targets were read slowly in general. This both replicated earlier results in which slowdowns were found in the reading of focus (Benatar and Clifton, 2014; Birch and Rayner, 1997; Lowder and Gordon, 2015), and demonstrated that focus slowdowns are not reducible to newness. To clarify earlier results in which speed-ups were found on focused words (Birch and Rayner, 2010; Morris and Folk, 1998), contexts manipulated whether contrastive alternatives to focused words were presented with a focus particle (Experiment 2) or in a cleft construction (Experiment 3). Focused targets were read less slowly when a contrastive alternative was present in the context. This effect of contrastive alternatives cannot be reduced to simple semantic associate priming: Contexts also manipulated whether a semantically associated expression was present independently of the presence of a contrastive alternative (Experiment 4). Readers slowed down less when an alternative was present in the context, even when this alternative was not semantically associated to the target. These results indicate that the processing of focus depends on contrastive alternatives, in their interaction with newness, semantic association, and focus construction.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of memory and language\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of memory and language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X23000438\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X23000438","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在迷宫任务中,读者在一个句子中前进(Forster et al., 2009),决定每个单词是有意义的还是无意义的延续。在这些句子之前呈现的语境操纵了单词在语言上是否集中,以及它们是给定的还是新的(实验1);注意力集中的目标即使在给定的情况下也会被读得更慢,而新目标的阅读速度一般也会更慢。这两者都重复了先前的结果,即在焦点阅读中发现了减速(Benatar和Clifton, 2014;Birch and Rayner, 1997;Lowder和Gordon, 2015),并证明焦点减速不能简化为新鲜感。为了澄清之前的结果,即在重点词上发现了加速(Birch和Rayner, 2010;Morris和Folk, 1998),语境控制了焦点词的对比替代词是用焦点粒子呈现(实验2)还是用裂口结构呈现(实验3)。当语境中存在对比替代词时,焦点目标的阅读速度会降低。对比选项的这种影响不能简化为简单的语义关联启动:上下文也会操纵语义相关表达是否独立于对比选项的存在而存在(实验4)。当上下文中存在替代选项时,读者的阅读速度会降低,即使该替代选项与目标没有语义关联。这些结果表明,焦点加工依赖于对比选择,以及它们与新颖性、语义关联和焦点构建的相互作用。
Processing of linguistic focus depends on contrastive alternatives
Readers progressed through a sentence in the Maze task (Forster et al., 2009), deciding at each word between a sensical and a non-sensical continuation. Contexts presented before these sentences manipulated whether words were linguistically focused and whether they were given or new (Experiment 1); focused targets were read more slowly even when they were given, and new targets were read slowly in general. This both replicated earlier results in which slowdowns were found in the reading of focus (Benatar and Clifton, 2014; Birch and Rayner, 1997; Lowder and Gordon, 2015), and demonstrated that focus slowdowns are not reducible to newness. To clarify earlier results in which speed-ups were found on focused words (Birch and Rayner, 2010; Morris and Folk, 1998), contexts manipulated whether contrastive alternatives to focused words were presented with a focus particle (Experiment 2) or in a cleft construction (Experiment 3). Focused targets were read less slowly when a contrastive alternative was present in the context. This effect of contrastive alternatives cannot be reduced to simple semantic associate priming: Contexts also manipulated whether a semantically associated expression was present independently of the presence of a contrastive alternative (Experiment 4). Readers slowed down less when an alternative was present in the context, even when this alternative was not semantically associated to the target. These results indicate that the processing of focus depends on contrastive alternatives, in their interaction with newness, semantic association, and focus construction.
期刊介绍:
Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published.
The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech.
Research Areas include:
• Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing
• Linguistics
• Neuropsychology.