Kong Lingda, Sun Yanting, Jiang Xiaoming
Institute of Corpus Studies & Applications, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai 201620, China.
Institute of Linguistics and Key Laboratory of Language Sciences and Multilingual Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai 201620, China.
Behav Sci (Basel). 2024 Aug 8;14(8):686. doi: 10.3390/bs14080686.
Previous theories have established the mental model activation of processing different types of conditionals, stating that counterfactual conditionals expressing events that contradict known facts (e.g., "If it had rained, then they would not go to the park.") are considered to trigger two mental models: (1) a hypothetical but factually wrong model (e.g., "rain" and "did not go to the park") and (2) a corresponding real-world model (e.g., "did not rain" and "went to the park"). This study aimed to investigate whether pragmatic factors differentially influence readers' comprehension and distinction between counterfactual and hypothetical conditional sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Participants were required to read and judge the comprehensibility of Chinese hypothetical and counterfactual conditionals, which were different in temporal indicators (past vs. future temporal indicators) in the antecedent. Different polarities (with vs. without negators) and different moving directions (different directional verbs: [come] vs. [go]) in the consequent were also manipulated. Linear mixed-effects models (LMEM) revealed that hypothetical conditionals (with future temporal indicators) were more comprehensible than counterfactual conditionals (with past temporal indicators). The semantic similarities within the subordinate clause revealed future temporal indicators had higher lexical-semantic co-occurrence than past indicators, suggesting that temporal indicators impact comprehension partly through lexical semantics in the premise, and hypothetical conditionals are more easily processed. However, the semantic similarity analysis of the main and the subordinate clauses showed no effect of temporal indicators, suggesting that lexical-semantic co-occurrence across clauses may not substantially contribute to the distinction between hypothetical conditionals and counterfactual conditionals. In conclusion, this study offers insights into the comprehension of Chinese conditional sentences by shedding light on the pragmatic factors influencing the activation of different mental models.
以往的理论已经确立了处理不同类型条件句时的心理模型激活情况，指出表达与已知事实相矛盾事件的反事实条件句（例如，“如果下雨了，那么他们就不会去公园。”）被认为会触发两种心理模型：（1）一个假设但事实上错误的模型（例如，“下雨”和“没去公园”）和（2）一个相应的现实世界模型（例如，“没下雨”和“去了公园”）。本研究旨在调查语用因素是否会对读者理解和区分汉语中的反事实条件句和假设条件句产生不同影响。参与者被要求阅读并判断汉语假设条件句和反事实条件句的可理解性，这些句子在前件的时间指示词（过去与将来时间指示词）上有所不同。结果从句中的不同极性（有与没有否定词）和不同移动方向（不同的方向动词：[来]与[去]）也进行了操控。线性混合效应模型（LMEM）显示，假设条件句（带有将来时间指示词）比反事实条件句（带有过去时间指示词）更易理解。从句内的语义相似性表明，将来时间指示词的词汇 - 语义共现比过去指示词更高，这表明时间指示词部分地通过前提中的词汇语义影响理解，并且假设条件句更易于处理。然而，主句和从句的语义相似性分析表明时间指示词没有影响，这表明跨从句的词汇 - 语义共现可能对区分假设条件句和反事实条件句没有实质性贡献。总之，本研究通过揭示影响不同心理模型激活的语用因素，为汉语条件句的理解提供了见解。
