• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

句子理解中数字干扰效应的任务依赖性和结构依赖性。

Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension.

作者信息

Franck Julie, Colonna Saveria, Rizzi Luigi

机构信息

Laboratoire de Psycholinguistique, University of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland.

Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - University of Paris 8 Paris, France.

出版信息

Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 10;6:349. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349. eCollection 2015.

DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349
PMID:25914652
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4392591/
Abstract

We report three experiments on French that explore number mismatch effects in intervention configurations in the comprehension of object A'-dependencies, relative clauses and questions. The study capitalizes on the finding of object attraction in sentence production, in which speakers sometimes erroneously produce a verb that agrees in number with a plural object in object relative clauses. Evidence points to the role of three critical constructs from formal syntax: intervention, intermediate traces and c-command (Franck et al., 2010). Experiment 1, using a self-paced reading procedure on these grammatical structures with an agreement error on the verb, shows an enhancing effect of number mismatch in intervention configurations, with faster reading times with plural (mismatching) objects. Experiment 2, using an on-line grammaticality judgment task on the ungrammatical versions of these structures, shows an interference effect in the form of attraction, with slower response times with plural objects. Experiment 3 with a similar grammaticality judgment task shows stronger attraction from c-commanding than from preceding interveners. Overall, the data suggest that syntactic computations in performance refer to the same syntactic representations in production and comprehension, but that different tasks tap into different processes involved in parsing: whereas performance in self-paced reading reflects the intervention of the subject in the process of building an object A'-dependency, performance in grammaticality judgment reflects intervention of the object on the computation of the subject-verb agreement dependency. The latter shows the hallmarks of structure-dependent attraction effects in sentence production, in particular, a sensitivity to specific characteristics of hierarchical representations.

摘要

我们报告了三项关于法语的实验,这些实验探讨了在理解宾语A'-依存关系、关系从句和疑问句的干预结构中数字不匹配效应。该研究利用了句子生成中宾语吸引的发现,即说话者有时会错误地生成一个与宾语关系从句中的复数宾语在数上一致的动词。证据指向形式句法中三个关键结构的作用:干预、中间语迹和成分统领(弗兰克等人,2010)。实验1使用自定步速阅读程序处理这些语法结构,动词存在一致错误,结果显示在干预结构中数字不匹配有增强效应,复数(不匹配)宾语的阅读时间更快。实验2对这些结构的不符合语法的版本使用在线语法判断任务,结果显示出以吸引形式出现的干扰效应,复数宾语的反应时间更慢。实验3使用类似的语法判断任务,结果显示成分统领比前位干预者产生更强的吸引作用。总体而言,数据表明,语言运用中的句法计算在生成和理解中涉及相同的句法表征,但不同任务涉及到句法分析中不同的过程:自定步速阅读中的表现反映了主语在构建宾语A'-依存关系过程中的干预,而语法判断中的表现反映了宾语对主谓一致依存关系计算的干预。后者显示了句子生成中结构依赖吸引效应的特征,特别是对层次表征特定特征的敏感性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/61e18670e48a/fpsyg-06-00349-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/41fdb640cabc/fpsyg-06-00349-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/e9457abbcc1f/fpsyg-06-00349-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/ce613c5332e7/fpsyg-06-00349-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/f46d974ab9ee/fpsyg-06-00349-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/687d5cb44a76/fpsyg-06-00349-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/61e18670e48a/fpsyg-06-00349-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/41fdb640cabc/fpsyg-06-00349-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/e9457abbcc1f/fpsyg-06-00349-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/ce613c5332e7/fpsyg-06-00349-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/f46d974ab9ee/fpsyg-06-00349-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/687d5cb44a76/fpsyg-06-00349-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7f6a/4392591/61e18670e48a/fpsyg-06-00349-g006.jpg

相似文献

1
Task-dependency and structure-dependency in number interference effects in sentence comprehension.句子理解中数字干扰效应的任务依赖性和结构依赖性。
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 10;6:349. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00349. eCollection 2015.
2
On the Nature of Clitics and Their Sensitivity to Number Attraction Effects.论附着词的性质及其对数量吸引效应的敏感性
Front Psychol. 2017 Sep 5;8:1470. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01470. eCollection 2017.
3
Misretrieval but not misrepresentation: A feature misbinding account of post-interpretive effects in number attraction.误提取而非误表述:数量吸引中后解释效应的特征绑定解释。
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2022 Sep;75(9):1727-1745. doi: 10.1177/17470218211061578. Epub 2021 Dec 1.
4
The Reading Signatures of Agreement Attraction.协议吸引力的阅读特征。
Open Mind (Camb). 2021 Nov 1;5:132-153. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00047. eCollection 2021.
5
Encoding interference effects support self-organized sentence processing.编码干扰效应支持自组织的句子处理。
Cogn Psychol. 2021 Feb;124:101356. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2020.101356. Epub 2020 Dec 4.
6
Representing number in the real-time processing of agreement: self-paced reading evidence from Arabic.在协议实时处理中对数字的表征:来自阿拉伯语的自定步速阅读证据。
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 9;6:347. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00347. eCollection 2015.
7
Error-Driven Retrieval in Agreement Attraction Rarely Leads to Misinterpretation.协议吸引中基于错误驱动的检索很少导致误解。
Front Psychol. 2019 May 7;10:1002. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01002. eCollection 2019.
8
Agreement and movement: a syntactic analysis of attraction.一致关系与移位:对吸引现象的句法分析
Cognition. 2006 Aug;101(1):173-216. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2005.10.003. Epub 2005 Dec 15.
9
Similarity-based interference in agreement comprehension and production: Evidence from object agreement.基于相似性的一致性理解和产生干扰:来自宾语一致性的证据。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 Jan;46(1):170-188. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000718. Epub 2019 Apr 29.
10
The grammaticality asymmetry in agreement attraction reflects response bias: Experimental and modeling evidence.在一致性吸引中语法不对称反映了反应偏差:实验和建模证据。
Cogn Psychol. 2019 May;110:70-104. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2019.01.001. Epub 2019 Feb 22.

引用本文的文献

1
Not primed to agree? Short or no effect of rhythmic priming on typical adults processing number agreement.未准备好同意?节奏启动对典型成年人处理数的一致性影响不大或无影响。
Front Psychol. 2025 Jun 13;16:1512267. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1512267. eCollection 2025.
2
Number Agreement Attraction in Czech Comprehension: Negligible Facilitation Effects.捷克语理解中的数一致吸引:微不足道的促进效应。
Open Mind (Camb). 2023 Oct 27;7:802-836. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00107. eCollection 2023.
3
Emotional Attractors in Subject-Verb Number Agreement.

本文引用的文献

1
The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: Multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction.一致性理解中特征干扰的时间进程:多种机制与不对称吸引
J Mem Lang. 2014 Oct 1;76:195-215. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2014.07.003.
2
What counts in grammatical number agreement?在语法数一致中,什么是重要的?
Cognition. 2013 Aug;128(2):149-69. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.009. Epub 2013 May 13.
3
Direct evidence of memory retrieval as a source of difficulty in non-local dependencies in language.记忆提取的直接证据是非语言中远距离依存关系的困难之源。
主谓一致中的情感吸引因素
Front Psychol. 2022 Jun 29;13:880755. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.880755. eCollection 2022.
4
Beyond the Benchmarks: Toward Human-Like Lexical Representations.超越基准:迈向类人词汇表征
Front Artif Intell. 2022 May 24;5:796741. doi: 10.3389/frai.2022.796741. eCollection 2022.
5
The Reading Signatures of Agreement Attraction.协议吸引力的阅读特征。
Open Mind (Camb). 2021 Nov 1;5:132-153. doi: 10.1162/opmi_a_00047. eCollection 2021.
6
Age and Education Effects on a Novel Syntactic Assessment Battery for Elderly Adults.年龄和教育程度对一种针对老年人的新型句法评估量表的影响。
Front Psychol. 2021 Jun 18;12:639866. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.639866. eCollection 2021.
7
Attraction Effects for Verbal Gender and Number Are Similar but Not Identical: Self-Paced Reading Evidence From Modern Standard Arabic.语言性别的吸引效应和数的吸引效应相似但不相同:来自现代标准阿拉伯语的自定步速阅读证据。
Front Psychol. 2021 Jan 21;11:586464. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586464. eCollection 2020.
8
Gender Agreement Attraction in Greek Comprehension.希腊语理解中的性别一致性吸引
Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 29;11:717. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00717. eCollection 2020.
9
Error-Driven Retrieval in Agreement Attraction Rarely Leads to Misinterpretation.协议吸引中基于错误驱动的检索很少导致误解。
Front Psychol. 2019 May 7;10:1002. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01002. eCollection 2019.
10
Not All Phrases Are Equally Attractive: Experimental Evidence for Selective Agreement Attraction Effects.并非所有短语都同样具有吸引力:选择性一致性吸引效应的实验证据。
Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 28;9:1566. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01566. eCollection 2018.
Cogn Sci. 2013 Mar;37(2):378-94. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12021. Epub 2013 Jan 30.
4
An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval.基于激活的句子处理模型是一种熟练的记忆检索。
Cogn Sci. 2005 May 6;29(3):375-419. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_25.
5
Processing polarity: how the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical.加工极性:不合语法的如何闯入语法正确的。
Cogn Sci. 2008 Jun;32(4):685-712. doi: 10.1080/03640210802066865.
6
Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children.语法特征差异使关系从句更易理解:一项针对意大利儿童的理解研究。
Lingua. 2010 Sep;120(9-3):2148-2166. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2010.03.018.
7
A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies.视觉世界研究中基于目标的眼动视角。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Jun;137(2):172-80. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.09.010. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
8
Task effects on BOLD signal correlates of implicit syntactic processing.任务对隐式句法加工的BOLD信号相关性的影响。
Lang Cogn Process. 2010 Jul;25(6):866-901. doi: 10.1080/01690961003672447.
9
On the interpretation of the number attraction effect: Response time evidence.关于数字吸引效应的解读:反应时间证据
J Mem Lang. 2009 Feb;60(2):308. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2008.11.002.
10
Response time distributional evidence for distinct varieties of number attraction.对不同类型数字吸引力的反应时间分布证据。
Cognition. 2010 Mar;114(3):447-54. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.003. Epub 2009 Dec 8.