Psychology Department, New York UniversityPsychology Department, University of Edinburgh.
Cogn Sci. 2006 Jan 2;30(1):181-92. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_49.
Comprehenders often need to go beyond conventional word senses to obtain an appropriate interpretation of an expression. We report an experiment examining the processing of standard metonymies (The gentleman read Dickens) and logical metonymies (The gentleman began Dickens), contrasting both to the processing of control expressions with a conventional interpretation (The gentleman met Dickens). Eye movement measures during reading indicated that standard (producer-for-product) metonymies were not more costly to interpret than conventional expressions, but logical metonymies were more costly to interpret than both standard metonymies and conventional expressions. These results indicate that constructing alternative senses is sometimes taxing and that not all types of deferred interpretations are processed in the same way. The results suggest that a critical factor in determining the attendant cost of constructing alternative senses is whether compositional operations must generate unexpressed semantic structure to realize an extended sense of an expression.
理解者通常需要超越常规词义来获得一个表达式的恰当解释。我们报告了一个实验,该实验考察了标准转喻(这位先生读狄更斯)和逻辑转喻(这位先生开始读狄更斯)的处理过程,将这两者与具有常规解释的控制表达式(这位先生遇到狄更斯)进行了对比。阅读过程中的眼动测量表明,标准(生产者-产品)转喻的解释并不比常规表达更困难,但逻辑转喻的解释比标准转喻和常规表达都更困难。这些结果表明,构建替代意义有时是费力的,而且并非所有类型的延迟解释都以相同的方式处理。结果表明,决定构建替代意义的附加成本的一个关键因素是,组合操作是否必须生成未表达的语义结构来实现表达式的扩展意义。