文本验证:忽略问题结构中的差异。

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Murray Singer, Jackie Spear, Ariah J Spence, Joshua R Anderson
{"title":"文本验证:忽略问题结构中的差异。","authors":"Murray Singer,&nbsp;Jackie Spear,&nbsp;Ariah J Spence,&nbsp;Joshua R Anderson","doi":"10.1037/cep0000303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is converging evidence that readers monitor text coherence and consistency by immediate, nonstrategic processes of validation. The literature also offers numerous instances of deficient validation. A prominent example of the latter is that understanders tend to overlook discourse anomalies that are embedded in given (presupposed) sentence information. However, we previously documented reading time \"consistency effects\" (O'Brien & Albrecht, 1992) that exposed readers' <i>sensitivity</i> to both given and new text discrepancies in numerous declarative syntactic constructions (Singer et al., 2017; Singer & Spear, 2020). Five new experiments addressed these phenomena with reference to constructions regularly shown to mask discourse inconsistencies: namely, interrogatives. In striking contrast with declaratives, five interrogative conditions in four experiments yielded no significant consistency effect. Experiments 2-4 documented coincident consistency effects with declarative but not interrogative constructions. A fifth experiment denied that the interrogative-construction findings resulted from readers' lack of knowledge about critical concepts. The cognitive-scientific linguistic construct of verb resolutivity offers a possible basis for these outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51529,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","volume":"77 2","pages":"85-97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Text validation: Overlooking discrepancies in question constructions.\",\"authors\":\"Murray Singer,&nbsp;Jackie Spear,&nbsp;Ariah J Spence,&nbsp;Joshua R Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/cep0000303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is converging evidence that readers monitor text coherence and consistency by immediate, nonstrategic processes of validation. The literature also offers numerous instances of deficient validation. A prominent example of the latter is that understanders tend to overlook discourse anomalies that are embedded in given (presupposed) sentence information. However, we previously documented reading time \\\"consistency effects\\\" (O'Brien & Albrecht, 1992) that exposed readers' <i>sensitivity</i> to both given and new text discrepancies in numerous declarative syntactic constructions (Singer et al., 2017; Singer & Spear, 2020). Five new experiments addressed these phenomena with reference to constructions regularly shown to mask discourse inconsistencies: namely, interrogatives. In striking contrast with declaratives, five interrogative conditions in four experiments yielded no significant consistency effect. Experiments 2-4 documented coincident consistency effects with declarative but not interrogative constructions. A fifth experiment denied that the interrogative-construction findings resulted from readers' lack of knowledge about critical concepts. The cognitive-scientific linguistic construct of verb resolutivity offers a possible basis for these outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale\",\"volume\":\"77 2\",\"pages\":\"85-97\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000303\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000303","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的证据表明,读者通过即时的、非战略性的验证过程来监控文本的连贯性和一致性。文献还提供了许多缺乏验证的实例。后者的一个突出例子是,理解者倾向于忽略嵌入在给定(预设)句子信息中的话语异常。然而,我们之前记录了阅读时间的“一致性效应”(O' brien & Albrecht, 1992),揭示了读者对许多陈述性句法结构中给定文本和新文本差异的敏感性(Singer等人,2017;Singer & Spear, 2020)。五个新的实验通过引用经常显示的掩盖话语不一致的结构来解决这些现象:即疑问句。与陈述句形成鲜明对比的是,4个实验中的5个疑问句没有产生显著的一致性效应。实验2-4记录了陈述句而非疑问句结构的一致性效应。第五个实验否认疑问式结构的结果是由于读者缺乏对关键概念的了解。动词决定论的认知科学语言结构为这些结果提供了可能的基础。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 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。
Text validation: Overlooking discrepancies in question constructions.

There is converging evidence that readers monitor text coherence and consistency by immediate, nonstrategic processes of validation. The literature also offers numerous instances of deficient validation. A prominent example of the latter is that understanders tend to overlook discourse anomalies that are embedded in given (presupposed) sentence information. However, we previously documented reading time "consistency effects" (O'Brien & Albrecht, 1992) that exposed readers' sensitivity to both given and new text discrepancies in numerous declarative syntactic constructions (Singer et al., 2017; Singer & Spear, 2020). Five new experiments addressed these phenomena with reference to constructions regularly shown to mask discourse inconsistencies: namely, interrogatives. In striking contrast with declaratives, five interrogative conditions in four experiments yielded no significant consistency effect. Experiments 2-4 documented coincident consistency effects with declarative but not interrogative constructions. A fifth experiment denied that the interrogative-construction findings resulted from readers' lack of knowledge about critical concepts. The cognitive-scientific linguistic construct of verb resolutivity offers a possible basis for these outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology publishes original research papers that advance understanding of the field of experimental psychology, broadly considered. This includes, but is not restricted to, cognition, perception, motor performance, attention, memory, learning, language, decision making, development, comparative psychology, and neuroscience. The journal publishes - papers reporting empirical results that advance knowledge in a particular research area; - papers describing theoretical, methodological, or conceptual advances that are relevant to the interpretation of empirical evidence in the field; - brief reports (less than 2,500 words for the main text) that describe new results or analyses with clear theoretical or methodological import.
×
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