• 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

词缀法无法阻止对多义词词根的语义通达——即使在句子语境中也不行:来自眼动追踪和迷宫任务的证据。

Semantic access to ambiguous word roots cannot be stopped by affixation-Not even in sentence contexts: Evidence from eye-tracking and the maze task.

作者信息

de Almeida Roberto G, Gallant Jordan, Antal Caitlyn, Libben Gary

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Concordia University.

Department of Linguistics and Language, McMaster University.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2025 Mar;51(3):435-459. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001378. Epub 2024 Sep 5.

DOI:10.1037/xlm0001378
PMID:39235874
Abstract

How does the language comprehension system identify and interpret word constituents-or morphemes-during sentence reading? We investigated this question by employing words containing semantically ambiguous roots (e.g., , with meanings related to both "dog" and "tree") which are disambiguated when affixed by - (e.g., ; related to "dog" only). We aimed to understand whether higher-level access to the meaning of the root would be constrained by lower-level morphological affixation. In Experiment 1, using eye-tracking, participants read sentences containing words with semantically ambiguous roots, such as (a prime), combined with targets that were either related to two meanings of the root (, ) or they were cloze and unrelated controls. All five eye-tracking measures we employed (first fixation duration, gaze duration, go-past time, total reading time, and regressions to target) showed no difference between the two root-related targets, which were slower than cloze, but faster than unrelated. Results show that even in cases where a meaning is inconsistent with the full word form ), both meanings of the ambiguous root are activated. These results were supported by Experiment 2, employing a maze task in which the time to select the cloze () continuation for the sentence … was disrupted by the presence of distractors related to both meanings of bark. We discuss the implications of these findings for the nature of morphological parsing and lexical ambiguity resolution in sentence contexts. We suggest that word recognition and lexical access processes involve separating roots from affixes, yielding independent and exhaustive access to root meanings-even when they are ruled out by affixation and context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

语言理解系统在句子阅读过程中是如何识别和解释单词成分——即词素的呢?我们通过使用包含语义模糊词根(例如,具有与“狗”和“树”相关的含义)的单词来研究这个问题,这些词根在加上 - (例如,;仅与“狗”相关)时会消除歧义。我们旨在了解对词根 含义的高级访问是否会受到低级形态词缀的限制。在实验1中,使用眼动追踪技术,参与者阅读包含语义模糊词根的单词的句子,例如 (一个词素),并结合与词根的两种含义相关的目标(, ),或者是完形填空且不相关的控制目标。我们采用的所有五项眼动追踪测量指标(首次注视持续时间、注视持续时间、越过时间、总阅读时间和对目标的回视)在两个与词根相关的目标之间均未显示出差异,这两个目标比完形填空慢,但比不相关的目标快。结果表明,即使在一种含义与完整单词形式不一致的情况下(),模糊词根的两种含义都会被激活。实验2支持了这些结果,该实验采用了一个迷宫任务,其中选择句子 … 的完形填空()延续的时间因与“树皮”的两种含义相关的干扰项的存在而受到干扰。我们讨论了这些发现对句子语境中形态分析和词汇歧义消解性质的影响。我们认为,单词识别和词汇访问过程涉及将词根与词缀分离,从而对词根含义进行独立且详尽的访问——即使它们被词缀和语境排除在外。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2025美国心理学会,保留所有权利)

相似文献

1
Semantic access to ambiguous word roots cannot be stopped by affixation-Not even in sentence contexts: Evidence from eye-tracking and the maze task.词缀法无法阻止对多义词词根的语义通达——即使在句子语境中也不行:来自眼动追踪和迷宫任务的证据。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2025 Mar;51(3):435-459. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001378. Epub 2024 Sep 5.
2
Readers use recent experiences with word meanings to support the processing of lexical ambiguity: Evidence from eye movements.读者利用近期对词义的体验来支持词汇歧义的处理:来自眼动的证据。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2025 Jul;51(7):1157-1177. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001418. Epub 2024 Dec 12.
3
Bilingual lexical access in context: evidence from eye movements during reading.语境中的双语词汇通达:来自阅读过程中眼动的证据。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Mar;35(2):381-90. doi: 10.1037/a0014875.
4
Orthographic and root frequency effects in Arabic: Evidence from eye movements and lexical decision.阿拉伯语中的正字法和词频效应:来自眼动和词汇判断的证据。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2019 May;45(5):934-954. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000626. Epub 2018 Sep 24.
5
Reading comprehension of ambiguous sentences by school-age children with autism spectrum disorder.自闭症谱系障碍儿童对歧义句的阅读理解。
Autism Res. 2017 Dec;10(12):2002-2022. doi: 10.1002/aur.1850. Epub 2017 Aug 22.
6
Listeners and readers generalize their experience with word meanings across modalities.听众和读者会跨模态归纳他们对词义的体验。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Oct;44(10):1533-1561. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000532. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
7
Involvement of episodic memory in language comprehension: Naturalistic comprehension pushes unrelated words closer in semantic space for at least 12 h.情景记忆在语言理解中的作用:自然语言理解使不相关词汇在语义空间中至少在12小时内更为接近。
Cognition. 2025 May;258:106086. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106086. Epub 2025 Feb 20.
8
Recovery from misinterpretations during online sentence processing.在线句子处理中误解的恢复。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Jun;47(6):968-997. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000936. Epub 2020 Nov 30.
9
Semantic Ambiguity: Do Multiple Meanings Inhibit or Facilitate Word Recognition?语义歧义:多种含义会抑制还是促进单词识别?
J Psycholinguist Res. 2018 Jun;47(3):679-698. doi: 10.1007/s10936-017-9554-3.
10
Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension.句子理解中句法启动的电生理和行为学证据。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Jan;35(1):19-45. doi: 10.1037/a0013984.