语篇突出在先行词检索中的作用:以属格名词短语为例

IF 0.5 Q3 LINGUISTICS
S. Kennison
{"title":"语篇突出在先行词检索中的作用:以属格名词短语为例","authors":"S. Kennison","doi":"10.4000/DISCOURS.9202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The research investigated how readers comprehended reflexive pronoun anaphors (e.g., himself or herself) that occurred in the same sentence with an antecedent that was modified by a genitive noun phrase (NP). Prior research suggested that during the search for an antecedent, readers consider only those preceding discourse entities that are prominent in the discourse; thus, genitive NPs would not be considered because they lack discourse prominence (Badecker & Straub, 2002). Two reading experiments tested this claim. In Experiment 1, genitive NPs were noun descriptions that were strongly stereotyped for gender (e.g., “The executive’s/secretary’s father cut himself…”). In Experiment 2, genitive NPs were gender-specific proper names (e.g., “John’s/Mary’s father cut himself…”), similar to those used in the prior research. The results indicated that genitive NPs that were strongly stereotyped for gender influenced sentence processing time, but genitive NPs that were gender-specific proper names did not; thus, genitive NPs are not uniformly excluded from consideration during the resolution of reflexive pronouns.","PeriodicalId":51977,"journal":{"name":"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Discourse Prominence in Antecedent Search: The Case of Genitive Noun Phrases\",\"authors\":\"S. Kennison\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/DISCOURS.9202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The research investigated how readers comprehended reflexive pronoun anaphors (e.g., himself or herself) that occurred in the same sentence with an antecedent that was modified by a genitive noun phrase (NP). Prior research suggested that during the search for an antecedent, readers consider only those preceding discourse entities that are prominent in the discourse; thus, genitive NPs would not be considered because they lack discourse prominence (Badecker & Straub, 2002). Two reading experiments tested this claim. In Experiment 1, genitive NPs were noun descriptions that were strongly stereotyped for gender (e.g., “The executive’s/secretary’s father cut himself…”). In Experiment 2, genitive NPs were gender-specific proper names (e.g., “John’s/Mary’s father cut himself…”), similar to those used in the prior research. The results indicated that genitive NPs that were strongly stereotyped for gender influenced sentence processing time, but genitive NPs that were gender-specific proper names did not; thus, genitive NPs are not uniformly excluded from consideration during the resolution of reflexive pronouns.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51977,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/DISCOURS.9202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discours-Revue de Linguistique Psycholinguistique et Informatique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/DISCOURS.9202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该研究调查了读者如何理解反身代词指代(例如,他或她自己),这些指代出现在同一个句子中,前面有一个属格名词短语(NP)。先前的研究表明,在寻找先行词的过程中,读者只考虑那些在语篇中突出的先行语篇实体;因此,属格np不会被考虑,因为它们缺乏话语突出性(Badecker & Straub, 2002)。两个阅读实验验证了这一说法。在实验1中,属格np是具有强烈性别刻板印象的名词描述(例如,“行政/秘书的父亲割伤了自己……”)。在实验2中,属格np是特定性别的专有名称(例如,“约翰/玛丽的父亲割伤了自己……”),与先前研究中使用的类似。结果表明,性别刻板印象对句子加工时间有显著影响,而性别专有名词对句子加工时间无显著影响;因此,在反身代词的解析过程中,并没有统一地将属格NPs排除在外。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Discourse Prominence in Antecedent Search: The Case of Genitive Noun Phrases
The research investigated how readers comprehended reflexive pronoun anaphors (e.g., himself or herself) that occurred in the same sentence with an antecedent that was modified by a genitive noun phrase (NP). Prior research suggested that during the search for an antecedent, readers consider only those preceding discourse entities that are prominent in the discourse; thus, genitive NPs would not be considered because they lack discourse prominence (Badecker & Straub, 2002). Two reading experiments tested this claim. In Experiment 1, genitive NPs were noun descriptions that were strongly stereotyped for gender (e.g., “The executive’s/secretary’s father cut himself…”). In Experiment 2, genitive NPs were gender-specific proper names (e.g., “John’s/Mary’s father cut himself…”), similar to those used in the prior research. The results indicated that genitive NPs that were strongly stereotyped for gender influenced sentence processing time, but genitive NPs that were gender-specific proper names did not; thus, genitive NPs are not uniformly excluded from consideration during the resolution of reflexive pronouns.
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
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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