Suppr超能文献

在线句子处理中误解的恢复。

Recovery from misinterpretations during online sentence processing.

机构信息

Division of Psychology and Language Sciences.

Department of Psychology.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Jun;47(6):968-997. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000936. Epub 2020 Nov 30.

Abstract

Misinterpretations during language comprehension are common. The ability to recover from processing difficulties is therefore crucial for successful day-to-day communication. Previous research on the recovery from misinterpretations has focused on sentences containing syntactic ambiguities. The present study instead investigated the outcome of comprehension processes and online reading behavior when misinterpretations occurred due to lexical-semantic ambiguity. Ninety-six adult participants read "garden-path" sentences in which an ambiguous word was disambiguated toward an unexpected meaning (e.g., "The ball was crowded"), while their eye movements were monitored. A meaning coherence judgment task required them to decide whether or not each sentence made sense. Results suggested that readers did not always engage in reinterpretation processes but instead followed a "good enough" processing strategy. Successful detection of a violation of sentence coherence and associated reinterpretation processes also required additional processing time compared to sentences that did not induce a misinterpretation. Although these reinterpretation-related processing costs were relatively stable across individuals, there was some evidence to suggest that readers with greater lexical expertise benefited from greater sensitivity to the disambiguating information, and were able to flexibly adapt their online reading behavior to recover from misinterpretations more efficiently. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

在语言理解过程中,误解是很常见的。因此,从处理困难中恢复的能力对于日常成功的沟通至关重要。先前关于从误解中恢复的研究集中在包含句法歧义的句子上。而本研究则调查了当由于词汇语义歧义而导致误解时,理解过程和在线阅读行为的结果。96 名成年参与者阅读了“花园小径”句子,其中一个歧义词被歧义理解为一个意想不到的意思(例如,“球被挤满了”),同时监测他们的眼球运动。一个意义连贯判断任务要求他们决定每个句子是否有意义。结果表明,读者并不总是进行重新解释过程,而是遵循“足够好”的处理策略。与没有引起误解的句子相比,成功检测到句子连贯性的违反和相关的重新解释过程也需要额外的处理时间。虽然这些与重新解释相关的处理成本在个体之间相对稳定,但有一些证据表明,词汇知识更丰富的读者从更敏感的歧义信息中受益,并能够灵活地调整他们的在线阅读行为,更有效地从误解中恢复。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2021 APA,保留所有权利)。

相似文献

1
Recovery from misinterpretations during online sentence processing.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Jun;47(6):968-997. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000936. Epub 2020 Nov 30.
2
Is children's reading "good enough"? Links between online processing and comprehension as children read syntactically ambiguous sentences.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(5):855-79. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1011176. Epub 2015 Mar 16.
6
Benchmark eye movement effects during natural reading in autism spectrum disorder.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Jan;43(1):109-127. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000289. Epub 2016 Aug 8.
7
Reading comprehension of ambiguous sentences by school-age children with autism spectrum disorder.
Autism Res. 2017 Dec;10(12):2002-2022. doi: 10.1002/aur.1850. Epub 2017 Aug 22.
8
Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading.
Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2004 Mar;19(1):59-73. doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022.
9
Resolving syntactic-semantic conflicts: comprehension and processing patterns by deaf Chinese readers.
J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2024 Jun 24;29(3):396-411. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enae008.

本文引用的文献

1
2
False Positives and Other Statistical Errors in Standard Analyses of Eye Movements in Reading.
J Mem Lang. 2017 Jun;94:119-133. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.10.003. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
3
Comprehension demands modulate re-reading, but not first pass reading behavior.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Mar 16:1-37. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1307862.
4
Putting concepts into context.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1015-27. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0948-7.
5
Executive function and intelligence in the resolution of temporary syntactic ambiguity: an individual differences investigation.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Jul;70(7):1263-1281. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1178785. Epub 2016 May 5.
6
Good-enough linguistic representations and online cognitive equilibrium in language processing.
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016;69(5):1013-40. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1053951. Epub 2015 Jun 23.
7
Children's eye-movements during reading reflect the quality of lexical representations: An individual differences approach.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2015 Nov;41(6):1675-83. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000133. Epub 2015 May 25.
8
The influence of event-related knowledge on verb-argument processing in aphasia.
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Jan;67:63-81. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.003. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
9
Trends in syntactic parsing: anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing.
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Nov;18(11):605-11. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.08.001. Epub 2014 Sep 5.
10
Roles of frontal and temporal regions in reinterpreting semantically ambiguous sentences.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jul 29;8:530. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00530. eCollection 2014.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验