语义优先于世界知识参与句子理解过程：来自眼动的证据

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.02.002

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

在句子加工过程中，读者不仅要进行词汇含义(语义)的理解，还要结合事实(世界知识)理解句子。语义与世界知识在句子理解中的加工进程仍不明确。本研究采用眼动追踪技术，通过设置四种条件(正确、语义正确−世界知识违反、语义违反−低世界知识违反、语义违反−高世界知识违反)来考察二者何时参与句子理解过程。结果显示，跳读率和首次注视时间上出现语义违反效应，凝视时间上出现世界知识违反效应，表明语义早于世界知识被加工；语义违反−低世界知识违反句中读者对目标词的总注视时间显著长于语义违反−高世界知识违反句，表明读者能加工语义违反句中的世界知识。这些结果表明，语义早于世界知识参与句子理解过程，支持两步模型；语义违反不阻碍世界知识的加工。

关键词: 语义, 世界知识, 中文阅读, 眼动

Abstract:

Both semantics and world knowledge play crucial roles in sentences comprehension. However, it is still unclear whether semantics takes precedence over world knowledge during sentence integration. To explore this issue, we created correct, world knowledge violation, semantic violation - low world knowledge violation, and semantic violation - high world knowledge violation sentences. By comparing processing patterns between the two types of semantic violation sentences, we could also investigate whether readers integrate world knowledge when a sentence contains semantic violation. The results showed that semantic violation effect emerged in skipping rate and first fixation duration, while world knowledge violation effect was observed in gaze duration. Moreover, total fixation duration on the target word was significantly longer in the semantic violation - low world knowledge violation condition than in the semantic violation - high world knowledge violation condition. Our findings suggest that semantics is processed prior to world knowledge which provides support for the two-step model. Additionally, semantics is not necessary for world knowledge processing.

Key words: semantics, world knowledge, Chinese reading, eye movements

杜宇菲, 张志超, 张慢慢, 臧传丽. 语义优先于世界知识参与句子理解过程：来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(2): 153-160.

Yufei DU, Zhichao ZHANG, Manman ZHANG, Chuanli ZANG. Semantics Takes Precedence over World Knowledge in Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from Eye Movements[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(2): 153-160.

图/表 4

参考文献 0

	金花, 钟伟芳, 徐贵平, 蔡梦娴, 杨玉芳, 莫雷. 世界知识在句子理解中的整合时程. 心理学报, 2009, 41 (7): 565- 571.
	闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军. 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21 (4): 589- 605.
	Bader, M., & Meng, M. (2018). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(8), 1286–1311.
	Berkum, J. J. A. V., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1999, 11 (6): 657- 671. DOI
	Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Kutas, M. Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments. Journal of Memory and Language, 2010, 63 (4): 489- 505. DOI
	Carter, G. A., & Hoffman, P. Discourse coherence modulates use of predictive processing during sentence comprehension. Cognition, 2024, 242, 105637. DOI
	Chen, S. H., Nathaniel, S., Ryskin, R., & Gibson, E. The effect of context on noisy-channel sentence comprehension. Cognition, 2023, 238, 105503. DOI
	Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. Accessing world knowledge: Evidence from N400 and reaction time priming. Cognitive Brain Research, 2005, 25 (3): 589- 606. DOI
	Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 1975, 82 (6): 407- 428. DOI
	Cook, A. E. Processing anomalous anaphors. Memory & Cognition, 2014, 42 (7): 1171- 1185.
	Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 2005, 39 (2–3): 265- 278. DOI
	Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. The simpler syntax hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2006, 10 (9): 413- 418. DOI
	DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2020). Comprehending surprising sentences: Sensitivity of post-N400 positivities to contextual congruity and semantic relatedness. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(8), 1044–1063.
	Dudschig, C., Maienborn, C., & Kaup, B. Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing. Brain and Cognition, 2016, 103, 38- 49. DOI
	Ferretti, T. R., Kutas, M., & McRae, K. (2007). Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 182–196.
	Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 2001, 44 (4): 516- 547. DOI
	Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
	Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
	Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 2004, 304 (5669): 438- 441. DOI
	Hagoort, P., & van Berkum, J. Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2007, 362 (1481): 801- 811. DOI
	Hare, M., Jones, M., Thomson, C., Kelly, S., & McRae, K. Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 2009, 111 (2): 151- 167. DOI
	Huang, K. J., & Staub, A. Using eye tracking to investigate failure to notice word transpositions in reading. Cognition, 2021, 216, 104846. DOI
	Huettig, F., Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R. A parallel architecture perspective on pre-activation and prediction in language processing. Cognition, 2022, 224, 105050. DOI
	Isberner, M. B., & Richter, T. Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 2013, 142 (1): 15- 22. DOI
	Jackendoff, R. Précis of foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2003, 26 (6): 651- 665. DOI
	Jones, C. R., & Bergen, B. Does word knowledge account for the effect of world knowledge on pronoun interpretation?. Language and Cognition, 2024, 16 (4): 1182- 1213. DOI
	Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review, 1980, 87 (4): 329- 354. DOI
	Lattner, S., & Friederici, A. D. Talker’s voice and gender stereotype in human auditory sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 2003, 339 (3): 191- 194. DOI
	Lelonkiewicz, J. R., Rabagliati, H., & Pickering, M. J. The role of language production in making predictions during comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2021, 74 (12): 2193- 2209. DOI
	Liu, Z. W., Li, Y., Paterson, K. B., & Wang, J. X. (2020). A transposed-word effect in Chinese reading. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(8), 3788–3794.
	Marslen-Wilson, W., Brown, C. M., & Tyler, L. K. Lexical representations in spoken language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1988, 3 (1): 1- 16. DOI
	Martin, C. D., Garcia, X., Breton, A., Thierry, G., & Costa, A. From literal meaning to veracity in two hundred milliseconds. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014, 8, 40.
	Marx, E., & Wittenberg, E. Temporal construal in sentence comprehension depends on linguistically encoded event structure. Cognition, 2025, 254, 105975. DOI
	Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 913–934.
	McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Ferretti, T. A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 2005, 33 (7): 1174- 1184.
	Metusalem, R., Kutas, M., Urbach, T. P., Hare, M., McRae, K., & Elman, J. L. Generalized event knowledge activation during online sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 2012, 66 (4): 545- 567. DOI
	Michael, M., Kyoko, H., & Katsuo, T. Task effects on sentence processing using eye-tracking. Studia Linguistica, 2014, 28, 91- 110.
	Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M. M. B., & Brysbaert, M. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1995, 24 (6): 469- 488. DOI
	Nicenboim, B., Vasishth, S., & Rösler, F. Are words pre-activated probabilistically during sentence comprehension? Evidence from new data and a bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using publicly available data. Neuropsychologia, 2020, 142, 107427. DOI
	Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 2012, 67 (4): 426- 448. DOI
	Pylkkänen, L., Oliveri, B., & Smart, A. J. Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2009, 24 (9): 1313- 1334. DOI
	R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R foundation for statistical computing.
	Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B. J., & Liversedge, S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1290–1301.
	Rohde, H., & Rubio-Fernandez, P. Color interpretation is guided by informativity expectations, not by world knowledge about colors. Journal of Memory and Language, 2022, 127, 104371. DOI
	Roland, D., Yun, H., Koenig, J. P., & Mauner, G. Semantic similarity, predictability, and models of sentence processing. Cognition, 2012, 122 (3): 267- 279. DOI
	Sanford, A. J., & Garrod, S. C. Memory-based approaches and beyond. Discourse Processes, 2005, 39 (2–3): 205- 224. DOI
	Staub, A., Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Hyönä, J., & Majewski, H. (2007). The time course of plausibility effects on eye movements in reading: Evidence from noun-noun compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1162–1169.
	Troyer, M., & Kutas, M. (2020). Harry Potter and the chamber of what?: The impact of what individuals know on word processing during reading. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(5), 641–657.
	Vela-Candelas, J., Català, N., & Demestre, J. Effects of world knowledge on the prediction of upcoming verbs: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2022, 51 (6): 1335- 1345. DOI
	Walsh, E. K., Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. Processing real-world violations embedded within a fantasy-world narrative. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2018, 71 (11): 2282- 2294. DOI
	Warren, T., & Dickey, M. W. The use of linguistic and world knowledge in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2021, 15 (4): e12411. DOI
	Warren, T., & McConnell, K. Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2007, 14 (4): 770- 775.
	Warren, T., Milburn, E., Patson, N. D., & Dickey, M. W. (2015). Comprehending the impossible: What role do selectional restriction violations play? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(8), 932–939.
	Westfall, J., Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015, 10 (3): 390- 399. DOI
	Wong, R., Reichle, E. D., & Veldre, A. (2024). Prediction in reading: A review of predictability effects, their theoretical implications, and beyond. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–34.
	Yang, J. M., Wang, S. P., Chen, H. C., & Rayner, K. The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from eye movements. Memory & Cognition, 2009, 37 (8): 1164- 1176.

条件	世界知识合理性	语义合理性	词频(次/百万)	笔画数	相关性
正确	4.47(0.56)	4.54(0.52)	28.00(6.03)	16.03(5.10)
语义正确−世界知识违反	2.47(1.10)	4.37(0.55)	27.63(5.37)	16.00(5.16)	3.00(0.87)
语义违反−低世界知识违反	3.10(0.91)	1.64(0.67)	27.47(10.28)	16.67(4.39)	3.40(0.88)
语义违反−高世界知识违反	2.50(0.82)	1.62(0.57)	28.27(6.23)	16.20(5.07)	1.75(0.62)

条件	世界知识合理性	语义合理性	词频(次/百万)	笔画数	相关性
正确	4.47(0.56)	4.54(0.52)	28.00(6.03)	16.03(5.10)
语义正确−世界知识违反	2.47(1.10)	4.37(0.55)	27.63(5.37)	16.00(5.16)	3.00(0.87)
语义违反−低世界知识违反	3.10(0.91)	1.64(0.67)	27.47(10.28)	16.67(4.39)	3.40(0.88)
语义违反−高世界知识违反	2.50(0.82)	1.62(0.57)	28.27(6.23)	16.20(5.07)	1.75(0.62)

眼动指标	正确	语义正确− 世界知识违反	语义违反− 低世界知识违反	语义违反− 高世界知识违反
跳读率	0.30(0.17)	0.28(0.16)	0.27(0.18)	0.26(0.16)
首次注视时间(ms)	221(30)	228(33)	236(35)	239(37)
凝视时间(ms)	239(35)	252(44)	271(48)	271(50)
总注视时间(ms)	415(126)	423(95)	533(163)	501(144)
回视路径时间(ms)	296(71)	325(84)	347(80)	350(78)
回视出比率	0.16(0.13)	0.20(0.15)	0.19(0.12)	0.21(0.13)

眼动指标	正确	语义正确− 世界知识违反	语义违反− 低世界知识违反	语义违反− 高世界知识违反
跳读率	0.30(0.17)	0.28(0.16)	0.27(0.18)	0.26(0.16)
首次注视时间(ms)	221(30)	228(33)	236(35)	239(37)
凝视时间(ms)	239(35)	252(44)	271(48)	271(50)
总注视时间(ms)	415(126)	423(95)	533(163)	501(144)
回视路径时间(ms)	296(71)	325(84)	347(80)	350(78)
回视出比率	0.16(0.13)	0.20(0.15)	0.19(0.12)	0.21(0.13)

眼动指标		截距	世界知识违反	语义违反−低	语义违反−高	语义违反−(高vs.低)
跳读率	b	0.28	−0.02	−0.03	−0.04	0.00
	SE	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
	t	15.58	−1.15	−2.34	−2.65	0.31
	p	<0.001	0.25	0.02	0.01	0.76
	95%CI	[0.24, 0.31]	[−0.04, 0.01]	[−0.06, −0.01]	[−0.06, −0.01]	[−0.02, 0.03]
首次注视时间	b	5.38	0.02	0.06	0.07	0.01
	SE	0.02	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
	t	339.80	1.80	4.41	5.16	0.74
	p	<0.001	0.07	<0.001	<0.001	0.46
	95%CI	[5.35, 5.41]	[0.00, 0.05]	[0.03, 0.08]	[0.04, 0.10]	[−0.02, 0.04]
凝视时间	b	5.47	0.04	0.12	0.11	−0.01
	SE	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
	t	312.39	2.86	7.64	7.29	−0.38
	p	<0.001	0.004	<0.001	<0.001	0.70
	95%CI	[5.44, 5.51]	[0.01, 0.07]	[−0.06, −0.01]	[0.08, 0.14]	[−0.04, 0.02]
总注视时间	b	5.98	0.03	0.25	0.20	−0.05
	SE	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
	t	247.49	1.30	12.45	10.03	−2.51
	p	<0.001	0.20	<0.001	<0.001	0.01
	95%CI	[5.94, 6.03]	[−0.01, 0.07]	[0.09, 0.15]	[0.16, 0.24]	[−0.09, −0.01]
回视路径时间	b	5.65	0.09	0.15	0.16	0.00
	SE	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02	0.02
	t	260.81	4.68	7.97	8.17	0.19
	p	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	0.85
	95%CI	[5.61, 5.69]	[0.05, 0.13]	[0.21, 0.29]	[0.12, 0.19]	[−0.03, 0.04]
回视出比率	b	0.19	0.04	0.03	0.04	−0.02
	SE	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01	0.01
	t	13.47	2.48	1.91	3.11	−1.21
	p	<0.001	0.01	0.06	<0.01	0.23
	95%CI	[0.16, 0.22]	[0.01, 0.06]	[0.00, 0.05]	[0.02, 0.07]	[−0.04, 0.01]