语境影响反语理解的眼动研究元分析

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.01.005

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

运用元分析的方法考察语境在反语理解中的作用及其相关的调节因素。通过文献检索，共搜集了13篇有效文献，16项实验数据，包含了806名被试。结果发现：(1)在反语理解正确率指标上反语明显比字面语更难理解，语境与目标反语不一致会产生额外推理过程，导致反语理解相对困难。(2)目标区反语和字面语在第一遍阅读时间指标上没有差异，但是在回视路径阅读时间和总阅读时间指标上反语的加工时间显著更长，这表明语境在反语加工的后期产生了作用，读者需要在加工后期对反语进行重新分析和整合，这一结果基本符合模块化理论的预测。(3)熟悉性对目标区的第一遍阅读时间和总阅读时间产生了调节作用，表明不管语境强度如何，熟悉的意义首先被加工，这一结果与分级显著性假设的预测基本一致。

关键词: 语境, 反语加工, 眼动, 元分析

Abstract:

This study used the method of meta-analysis to explore the role of context in the understanding of irony and the relevant moderating factor. Through articles retrieval, 13 valid articles and 16 experimental data were collected, including 806 subjects. The results showed that: 1) The meta-analysis of the correct rate of irony understanding showed that irony was significantly more difficult to understand than literal language and the extra inference process caused by context inconsistency led to the relative difficulty of irony understanding. 2) The target ironic sentences had no difference from the literal sentences in first-pass reading time, while the processing time of irony was significantly longer in regression path reading time and total reading time, which indicated that context worked in the later processing of irony, readers need to reanalyze and integrate in the later processing. This result was in line with the prediction of modular accounts. 3) Familiarity moderated the first-pass reading time and the total reading time of the target region, indicating that the meaning of familiarity was processed first regardless of the intensity of the context, which was consistent with the prediction of the graded salience hypothesis.

Key words: context, irony processing, eye movement, meta-analysis

中图分类号:

B842

丁辉, 张志超, 张慢慢, 臧传丽. 语境影响反语理解的眼动研究元分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(1): 28-35.

Hui DING, Zhichao ZHANG, Manman ZHANG, Chuanli ZANG. A Meta-Analysis of Eye Movement Studies on the Effects of Context on Irony Comprehension[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(1): 28-35.

图/表 6

参考文献

	*为纳入元分析文献
	白学军, 闫国利. (2017). 阅读心理学. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
	苗沂林. (2019). 不同认知方式个体的反语认知加工* (硕士学位论文). 山东师范大学, 济南.
	任志洪, 江光荣抑郁症计算机化治疗的效果及其影响因素: 基于RCT的元分析与元回归分析. 心理科学, 2014, 37 (3): 748- 755.
	伍秋萍, 郑佩芸, 刘相辉 3–12岁儿童对汉语声、韵、调的意识与早期阅读的关系: 基于元分析的证据. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15 (5): 643- 653.
	胥杉. (2020). 中文阅读中反语理解的眼动研究——语境中情绪信息的作用* (硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.
	郑德叶. (2012). 母子公司知识异质性与创新绩效的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 浙江工业大学, 杭州.
	郑明华. (2013). Meta分析软件应用与实例解析. 北京: 人民卫生出版社.
	Attardo, S. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 2000, 32 (6): 793- 826. DOI
	*Au-Yeung, S. K., Kaakinen, J. K., Liversedge, S. P., & Benson, V. Processing of written irony in autism spectrum disorder: An eye-movement study. Autism Research, 2015, 8 (6): 749- 760. DOI
	Calmus, A., & Caillies, S. Verbal irony processing: How do contrast and humour correlate?. International Journal of Psychology, 2014, 49 (1): 46- 50. DOI
	Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
	Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.
	Ellis, P. D. (2010). Drawing conclusions using meta-analysis. In The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results (pp. 89–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	Falkum, I. L., & Köder, F. The acquisition of figurative meanings. Journal of Pragmatics, 2020, 164, 18- 24. DOI
	*Filik, R., Howman, H., Ralph-Nearman, C., & Giora, R. The role of defaultness and personality factors in sarcasm interpretation: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Metaphor and Symbol, 2018, 33 (3): 148- 162. DOI
	*Filik, R., Leuthold, H., Wallington, K., & Page, J. Testing theories of irony processing using eye-tracking and ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2014, 40 (3): 811- 828. DOI
	*Filik, R., & Moxey, L. M. The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 2010, 116 (3): 421- 436. DOI
	Gibbs, R. W., Jr. Interpreting what speakers say and implicate. Brain and Language, 1999, 68 (3): 466- 485. DOI
	Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (2012). Interpreting specific figures of speech. In Interpreting figurative meaning (pp. 128–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	Giora, R. (2003). On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
	Giora, R., Drucker, A., Fein, O., & Mendelson, I. Default sarcastic interpretations: On the priority of nonsalient interpretations. Discourse Processes, 2015, 52 (3): 173- 200. DOI
	Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
	Hedges, L. V. Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1981, 6 (2): 107- 128. DOI
	Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 2003, 327 (7414): 557- 560. DOI
	Ivanko, S. L., & Pexman, P. M. Context incongruity and irony processing. Discourse Processes, 2003, 35 (3): 241- 279. DOI
	*Kaakinen, J. K., Olkoniemi, H., Kinnari, T., & Hyönä, J. Processing of written irony: An eye movement study. Discourse Processes, 2014, 51 (4): 287- 311. DOI
	Katz, A. N., Blasko, D. G., & Kazmerski, V. A. Saying what you don’t mean: Social influences on sarcastic language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2004, 13 (5): 186- 189. DOI
	*Olkoniemi, H., Johander, E., & Kaakinen, J. K. The role of look-backs in the processing of written sarcasm. Memory & Cognition, 2019, 47 (1): 87- 105. DOI
	Olkoniemi, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. Processing of irony in text: A systematic review of eye-tracking studies. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2021, 75 (2): 99- 106. DOI
	*Olkoniemi, H., Ranta, H., & Kaakinen, J. K. Individual differences in the processing of written sarcasm and metaphor: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2016, 42 (3): 433- 450. DOI
	*Olkoniemi, H., Strömberg, V., & Kaakinen, J. K. The ability to recognise emotions predicts the time-course of sarcasm processing: Evidence from eye movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2019, 72 (5): 1212- 1223. DOI
	Pexman, P. M. (2005). Social factors in the interpretation of verbal irony: The roles of speaker and listener characteristics. In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension (pp. 209–232). New York: Routledge.
	Rayner, K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 1998, 124 (3): 372- 422. DOI
	Schwoebel, J., Dews, S., Winner, E., & Srinivas, K. Obligatory processing of the literal meaning of ironic utterances: Further evidence. Metaphor and Symbol, 2000, 15 (1–2): 47- 61. DOI
	Țurcan, A. (2016). Studying the online comprehension of written sarcasm: An eye-tracking investigation* (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Nottingham, United Kingdom.
	*Țurcan, A., & Filik, R. An eye-tracking investigation of written sarcasm comprehension: The roles of familiarity and context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2016, 42 (12): 1867- 1893. DOI
	*Țurcan, A., Howman, H., & Filik, R. Examining the role of context in written sarcasm comprehension: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2020, 46 (10): 1966- 1976. DOI

研究	语言	被试	项目数	实验设计	理解正确率
苗沂林, 2019	汉语	22	48	2(反语、字面语)×2(认知方式：场独立、场依存)	Y
胥杉, 2020	汉语	44	60	2(反语、非反语)×2(情绪信息：有、无)	Y
Au-Yeung et al., 2015	英语	19	36	2(反语、非反语)×2(典型发育组、孤独症组)	Y
Filik et al., 2018a	英语	40	24	2(反语、非反语)×2(肯定句、否定句)	N
Filik et al., 2018b	英语	48	28	2(反语、非反语)×2(恶意幽默：相关、不相关)	N
Filik et al., 2014	英语	44	44	2(反语、非反语)×2(熟悉性：熟悉、不熟悉)	N
Filik & Moxey, 2010	英语	48	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(量词：肯定、否定)	N
Kaakinen et al., 2014a	芬兰语	51	24	反语×字面语	Y
Kaakinen et al., 2014b	芬兰语	60	24	反语×字面语	Y
Olkoniemi, Johander, & Kaakinen, 2019	芬兰语	62	28	反语×字面语	Y
Olkoniemi et al., 2016	芬兰语	60	20	反语×隐语×字面语	Y
Olkoniemi, Strömberg, & Kaakinen, 2019	芬兰语	60	40	反语×字面语	Y
Țurcan, 2016	英语	64	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(熟悉性：熟悉、不熟悉)	N
Țurcan & Filik, 2016a	英语	64	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(熟悉性：熟悉、不熟悉)	N
Țurcan & Filik, 2016b	英语	64	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(说话人期望：显性、隐性)	N
Țurcan et al., 2020	英语	56	28	2(字面语、反语)×2(语境：字面特征、反语特征)	N

研究	语言	被试	项目数	实验设计	理解正确率
苗沂林, 2019	汉语	22	48	2(反语、字面语)×2(认知方式：场独立、场依存)	Y
胥杉, 2020	汉语	44	60	2(反语、非反语)×2(情绪信息：有、无)	Y
Au-Yeung et al., 2015	英语	19	36	2(反语、非反语)×2(典型发育组、孤独症组)	Y
Filik et al., 2018a	英语	40	24	2(反语、非反语)×2(肯定句、否定句)	N
Filik et al., 2018b	英语	48	28	2(反语、非反语)×2(恶意幽默：相关、不相关)	N
Filik et al., 2014	英语	44	44	2(反语、非反语)×2(熟悉性：熟悉、不熟悉)	N
Filik & Moxey, 2010	英语	48	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(量词：肯定、否定)	N
Kaakinen et al., 2014a	芬兰语	51	24	反语×字面语	Y
Kaakinen et al., 2014b	芬兰语	60	24	反语×字面语	Y
Olkoniemi, Johander, & Kaakinen, 2019	芬兰语	62	28	反语×字面语	Y
Olkoniemi et al., 2016	芬兰语	60	20	反语×隐语×字面语	Y
Olkoniemi, Strömberg, & Kaakinen, 2019	芬兰语	60	40	反语×字面语	Y
Țurcan, 2016	英语	64	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(熟悉性：熟悉、不熟悉)	N
Țurcan & Filik, 2016a	英语	64	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(熟悉性：熟悉、不熟悉)	N
Țurcan & Filik, 2016b	英语	64	48	2(反语、非反语)×2(说话人期望：显性、隐性)	N
Țurcan et al., 2020	英语	56	28	2(字面语、反语)×2(语境：字面特征、反语特征)	N

眼动指标	异质性			Tau-squared
眼动指标	Q	df (Q)	I²	Tau-squared	Tau
目标区第一遍阅读时间	26.02	17	35%	0.02	0.15
目标区回视路径阅读时间	19.11	14	27%	0.16	0.13
目标区总阅读时间	27.62	18	35%	0.02	0.15
溢出区第一遍阅读时间	42.19^***	18	57%	0.06	0.24
溢出区回视路径阅读时间	57.88^***	13	78%	0.16	0.40
溢出区总阅读时间	59.59^***	15	75%	0.15	0.37
反语理解的正确率	41.86^***	7	83%	0.26	0.51

眼动指标	异质性			Tau-squared
眼动指标	Q	df (Q)	I²	Tau-squared	Tau
目标区第一遍阅读时间	26.02	17	35%	0.02	0.15
目标区回视路径阅读时间	19.11	14	27%	0.16	0.13
目标区总阅读时间	27.62	18	35%	0.02	0.15
溢出区第一遍阅读时间	42.19^***	18	57%	0.06	0.24
溢出区回视路径阅读时间	57.88^***	13	78%	0.16	0.40
溢出区总阅读时间	59.59^***	15	75%	0.15	0.37
反语理解的正确率	41.86^***	7	83%	0.26	0.51

眼动指标	k	N	d	95%CI
目标区第一遍阅读时间	18	755	0.12	[−0.00, 0.23]
目标区回视路径阅读时间	15	573	0.17^**	[0.06, 0.27]
目标区总阅读时间	19	806	0.19^***	[0.08, 0.31]
溢出区第一遍阅读时间	19	806	0.15^*	[0.01, 0.29]
溢出区回视路径阅读时间	14	509	0.31^*	[0.07, 0.55]
溢出区总阅读时间	16	622	0.26^*	[0.06, 0.46]
反语理解的正确率	8	356	−0.80^***	[−1.20, −0.41]