Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba.
Can J Exp Psychol. 2023 Jun;77(2):85-97. doi: 10.1037/cep0000303. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
There is converging evidence that readers monitor text coherence and consistency by immediate, nonstrategic processes of validation. The literature also offers numerous instances of deficient validation. A prominent example of the latter is that understanders tend to overlook discourse anomalies that are embedded in given (presupposed) sentence information. However, we previously documented reading time "consistency effects" (O'Brien & Albrecht, 1992) that exposed readers' to both given and new text discrepancies in numerous declarative syntactic constructions (Singer et al., 2017; Singer & Spear, 2020). Five new experiments addressed these phenomena with reference to constructions regularly shown to mask discourse inconsistencies: namely, interrogatives. In striking contrast with declaratives, five interrogative conditions in four experiments yielded no significant consistency effect. Experiments 2-4 documented coincident consistency effects with declarative but not interrogative constructions. A fifth experiment denied that the interrogative-construction findings resulted from readers' lack of knowledge about critical concepts. The cognitive-scientific linguistic construct of verb resolutivity offers a possible basis for these outcomes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
有越来越多的证据表明,读者通过即时的、非策略性的验证过程来监控文本的连贯性和一致性。文献中也有许多验证不足的例子。后者的一个突出例子是,理解者往往会忽略嵌入在给定(预设)句子信息中的话语异常。然而,我们之前记录了阅读时间的“一致性效应”(O'Brien & Albrecht,1992),这些效应暴露了读者在许多陈述性句法结构(Singer 等人,2017;Singer & Spear,2020)中对给定文本和新文本差异的关注。五项新的实验通过参考经常被证明可以掩盖话语不一致的结构来解决这些现象:即疑问句。与陈述句形成鲜明对比的是,四项实验中的五个疑问句条件没有产生显著的一致性效应。实验 2-4 记录了与陈述句一致但与疑问句不一致的一致性效应。第五项实验否认了疑问句结构的发现是由于读者对关键概念缺乏了解。认知科学的语言结构动词决断性为这些结果提供了一个可能的基础。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。