Suppr超能文献

作为首音节的封闭类词确实会干扰对非词的词汇判断:对语法缺失理论的启示。

Closed-class words as first syllables do interfere with lexical decisions for nonwords: implications for theories of agrammatism.

作者信息

Petocz A, Oliphant G

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Sydney, N.S.W., Australia.

出版信息

Brain Lang. 1988 May;34(1):127-46. doi: 10.1016/0093-934x(88)90127-7.

Abstract

It has been proposed that a principal cause of the agrammatism of some Broca's aphasics is that such patients, unlike normal subjects, are unable to make use of a special retrieval mechanism for closed-class ("function") words (D. C. Bradley, 1978, Computational distinctions of vocabulary type, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis; D. C. Bradley, M. F. Garrett, & E. B. Zurif, 1980. In D. Caplan (Ed.), Biological studies of mental processes). The main evidence for the existence of such a mechanism consisted of two observations: (1) the recognition of open-class words was observed to be frequency-sensitive, but that of closed-class words was not; and (2) lexical decisions for nonwords which began with open-class words were delayed, whereas there was no such interference for nonwords which began with closed-class words. However, the first of these observations has proved nonreplicable (e.g., B. Gordon & A. Caramazza, 1982, Brain and Language, 15, 143-160, 1983, Brain and Language, 19, 335-345; J. Segui, J. Mehler, W. Frauenfelder, & J. Morton, 1982, Neuropsychologia, 20, 615-627), and in the present paper, three lexical decision experiments are reported in which it is found that, when certain confounding variables are controlled, nonwords which begin with closed-class words are subject to interference. Moreover, contrary to a suggestion of Kolk and Blomert (1985, Brain and Language, 26, 94-105) the interference is independent of the presence of closed-class items in the lexical decision word list. It seems, then, that closed-class words are not qualitatively different from open-class words with respect either to frequency sensitivity or to nonword interference, and in consequence, the above proposed explanation of agrammatism is left without major empirical support.

摘要

有人提出,一些布罗卡失语症患者语法缺失的主要原因在于,与正常受试者不同,这类患者无法利用一种针对封闭类(“功能”)词的特殊检索机制(D. C. 布拉德利,1978年,《词汇类型的计算差异》,未发表的博士论文;D. C. 布拉德利、M. F. 加勒特和E. B. 祖里夫,1980年。载于D. 卡普兰编《心理过程的生物学研究》)。存在这种机制的主要证据包括两项观察结果:(1)观察发现,开放类词的识别对词频敏感,而封闭类词则不然;(2)以开放类词开头的非词的词汇判断会延迟,而以封闭类词开头的非词则不存在这种干扰。然而,这些观察结果中的第一个已被证明无法重复(例如,B. 戈登和A. 卡拉马扎,1982年,《大脑与语言》,第15卷,第143 - 160页,1983年,《大脑与语言》,第19卷,第335 - 345页;J. 塞吉、J. 梅勒、W. 弗劳恩费尔德和J. 莫顿,1982年,《神经心理学》,第20卷,第615 - 627页),并且在本文中,报告了三项词汇判断实验,结果发现,当某些混杂变量得到控制时,以封闭类词开头的非词会受到干扰。此外,与科尔克和布洛默特(1985年,《大脑与语言》,第26卷,第94 - 105页)的观点相反,这种干扰与词汇判断词表中封闭类项目的存在无关。那么,似乎封闭类词在词频敏感性或非词干扰方面与开放类词并无质的差异,因此,上述提出的对语法缺失的解释缺乏主要的实证支持。

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