Patson Nikole D, George Gerret, Warren Tessa
a Department of Psychology , The Ohio State University , Marion , OH , USA.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014;67(7):1349-65. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2013.863372. Epub 2013 Dec 12.
The experiments reported here investigated the format of plural conceptual representations using a picture-matching paradigm. In Experiment 1, participants read sentences that ended with a singular noun phrase (NP), a two-quantified plural NP, or a plural definite description [The parents handed the child the (two) crayon/s] and then saw a picture of one or multiple referents for the NP. Judgement times to confirm that there was overlap between the pictured object(s) and a noun in the sentence showed an interaction between the NP's number and NP-picture match. For singular NPs and two-quantified NPs, participants were reliably faster to respond "yes" to a picture that had the exact number of objects specified by the NP, but for plural definite descriptions, the effect of the number of pictured items was not reliable. Experiment 2 extended this finding to conceptual plurals. Participants read sentences biased toward either a collective (Together the men carried a box-box is interpreted as singular) or distributed (Each of the men carried a box-box is likely interpreted as plural) reading. Experiment 2 showed the same interaction between NP conceptual plurality and NP-picture match as that in Experiment 1. These results suggest that: (a) our default conceptual representations for plural definite descriptions are no more similar to images of small sets of multiple items than to images of singular items; and (b) the difference between singular and plural conceptual representations is unlikely to be simply the presence or absence of a plural feature. The results are consistent with theories in which plurality is unmarked, such that some plural NPs can refer to singular referents [e.g., Sauerland, U., Anderssen, J., & Yatsushiro, J. (2005). The plural is semantically unmarked. In S. Kepser & M. Reis (Eds.), Linguistic evidence (pp. 413-434). Berlin: de Gruyter].
此处报告的实验使用图片匹配范式研究了复数概念表征的形式。在实验1中,参与者阅读以单数名词短语(NP)、两个量化的复数NP或复数限定描述结尾的句子[父母把(两支)蜡笔递给孩子],然后看到一个或多个该NP所指对象的图片。判断图片中的对象与句子中的名词是否有重叠的反应时间显示,NP的数量与NP-图片匹配之间存在交互作用。对于单数NP和两个量化的NP,当图片中对象的数量与NP指定的数量完全一致时,参与者对“是”的反应明显更快,但对于复数限定描述,图片中项目数量的影响并不显著。实验2将这一发现扩展到概念复数。参与者阅读偏向集体(男人们一起抬一个箱子——箱子被解释为单数)或分布(每个男人抬一个箱子——箱子可能被解释为复数)解读的句子。实验2显示出与实验1中相同的NP概念复数与NP-图片匹配之间的交互作用。这些结果表明:(a)我们对复数限定描述的默认概念表征与少量多个项目的图像并不比与单数项目的图像更相似;(b)单数和复数概念表征之间的差异不太可能仅仅是复数特征的有无。这些结果与复数无标记的理论一致,即一些复数NP可以指代单数所指对象[例如,绍尔兰、U.、安德森、J.和八代史郎、J.(2005年)。复数在语义上是无标记的。载于S.凯普泽尔和M.赖斯(编),《语言证据》(第413 - 434页)。柏林:德古意特出版社]。