汉语阅读中的语义相似度效应：语义预测的证据

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.04.002

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用眼动追踪技术，探讨汉语阅读中预测加工普遍发生在词汇水平还是语义水平。操纵句子中的目标词为高预测词和三种水平的低预测词，高预测词和低预测词之间的语义相似度逐渐降低(L1>L2>L3)。结果发现，在早期眼动指标上，低预测词和高预测词之间的语义相似度越低，读者对低预测词的加工时间越长，即语义相似度效应显著，体现了渐进性的语义预测特征；此外，语境限制性调节预测加工。研究结果支持“语义预测”观点。

关键词: 词汇预测, 语义预测, 语境限制性, 汉语阅读, 眼动

Abstract:

This study investigated whether predictive processing during Chinese reading predominantly occurs at the lexical level or semantic level by employing eye-tracking technology. The experiment manipulated target words within sentences to create conditions with either high-predictable or low-predictable words across three levels, with the semantic similarity between high-predictable and low-predictable words decreasing progressively (L1>L2>L3). The results revealed that as the semantic similarity between low-predictable and high-predictable words decreased, the processing time for low-predictable words increased in early eye movement measures. This finding demonstrates a significant semantic similarity effect, highlighting the graded nature of semantic prediction. Additionally, contextual constraints are shown to modulate predictive processing. These results provide support for the “semantic prediction” account.

Key words: lexical prediction, semantic prediction, contextual constraint, Chinese reading, eye-movement

常敏, 张阔, 孙悦, 李莎, 王敬欣. 汉语阅读中的语义相似度效应：语义预测的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(4): 442-449.

Min CHANG, Kuo ZHANG, Yue SUN, Sha LI, Jingxin WANG. Semantic Similarity Effects in Chinese Reading: Evidence for Semantic Prediction[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(4): 442-449.

图/表 5

参考文献 0

	白学军, 曹玉肖, 顾俊娟, 郭志英, 闫国利. 可预测性和空格对中文阅读影响的眼动研究. 心理科学, 2011, 34 (6): 1282- 1288.
	李琳, 赵赛男, 张俐娟, 王敬欣. 老年人汉语阅读中预测误差成本的产生机制. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30 (1): 1- 14.
	张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 张志超, 李鑫, 汪强, 白学军, 臧传丽. 预测性对快速读者和慢速读者词汇加工的影响. 心理学报, 2023, 55 (1): 79- 93.
	赵赛男, 李琳, 张俐娟, 王敬欣. 汉语阅读中高限制性语境对不可预测词加工的影响: 眼动研究. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19 (6): 736- 742.
	Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 2015, 67 (1): 1- 48.
	Bonhage, C. E., Mueller, J. L., Friederici, A. D., & Fiebach, C. J. Combined eye tracking and fMRI reveals neural basis of linguistic predictions during sentence comprehension. Cortex, 2015, 68, 33- 47. DOI
	Brothers, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. Word predictability effects are linear, not logarithmic: Implications for probabilistic models of sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 2021, 116, 104174.
	Cai, Q., & Brysbaert, M. SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS One, 2010, 5 (6): e10729. DOI
	Carter, B. T., Foster, B., Muncy, N. M., & Luke, S. G. Linguistic networks associated with lexical, semantic and syntactic predictability in reading: A fixation-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 2019, 189, 224- 240. DOI
	Chang, M., Zhang, K., Sun, Y., Li, S., & Wang, J. X. The graded predictive pre-activation in Chinese sentence reading: Evidence from eye movements. Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, 14, 1136488. DOI
	Cui, L., Zang, C. L., Xu, X. C., Zhang, W. X., Su, Y. H., & Liversedge, S. P. Predictability effects and parafoveal processing of compound words in natural Chinese reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2022, 75 (1): 18- 29. DOI
	Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 2005, 8 (8): 1117- 1121. DOI
	Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 1999, 41 (4): 469- 495. DOI
	Federmeier, K. D., McLennan, D. B., de Ochoa, E., & Kutas, M. The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 2002, 39 (2): 133- 146. DOI
	Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 2007, 1146, 75- 84.
	Frank, S. L., Otten, L. J., Galli, G., & Vigliocco, G. The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain and Language, 2015, 140, 1- 11. DOI
	Frisson, S., Harvey, D. R., & Staub, A. No prediction error cost in reading: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 2017, 95, 200- 214. DOI
	Günther, F., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. Latent semantic analysis cosines as a cognitive similarity measure: Evidence from priming studies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2016, 69 (4): 626- 653.
	Huettig, F., & Mani, N. (2016). Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 19–31.
	Ito, A., Corley, M., Pickering, M. J., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. Predicting form and meaning: Evidence from brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 2016, 86, 157- 171. DOI
	Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2004, 16 (1–2): 262- 284. DOI
	Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(1), 32–59.
	Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 1984, 307 (5947): 161- 163.
	Li, X. S., & Pollatsek, A. An integrated model of word processing and eye-movement control during Chinese reading. Psychological Review, 2020, 127 (6): 1139- 1162. DOI
	Liu, Y. P., Guo, S. Y., Yu, L., & Reichle, E. D. Word predictability affects saccade length in Chinese reading: An evaluation of the dynamic-adjustment model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2018, 25 (5): 1891- 1899.
	Luke, S. G., & Christianson, K. Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive Psychology, 2016, 88, 22- 60.
	McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1997, 126 (2): 99- 130. DOI
	Pan, J. E., Yan, M., Richter, E. M., Shu, H., & Kliegl, R. The Beijing sentence corpus: A Chinese sentence corpus with eye movement data and predictability norms. Behavior Research Methods, 2021, 54 (4): 1989- 2000. DOI
	Pynte, J., New, B., & Kennedy, A. On-line contextual influences during reading normal text: A multiple-regression analysis. Vision Research, 2008, 48 (21): 2172- 2183.
	Rayner, K., Li, X. S., Juhasz, B. J., & Yan, G. L. The effect of word predictability on the eye movements of Chinese readers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2005, 12 (6): 1089- 1093.
	Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1996, 3 (4): 504- 509.
	Roland, D., Yun, H., Koenig, J. P., & Mauner, G. Semantic similarity, predictability, and models of sentence processing. Cognition, 2012, 122 (3): 267- 279. DOI
	Schuster, S., Hawelka, S., Richlan, F., Ludersdorfer, P., & Hutzler, F. Eyes on words: A fixation-related fMRI study of the left occipito-temporal cortex during self-paced silent reading of words and pseudowords. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5 (1): 12686. DOI
	Song, Y., Shi, S. M., Li, J., & Zhang, H. S. (2018). Directional skip-gram: Explicitly distinguishing left and right context for word embeddings. In Proceedings of 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (pp. 175–180). New Orleans, LA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
	Staub, A. The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 2015, 9 (8): 311- 327. DOI
	Taylor, W. L. “Cloze Procedure”: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 1953, 30 (4): 415- 433.
	Traxler, M. J. Trends in syntactic parsing: Anticipation, Bayesian estimation, and good-enough parsing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2014, 18 (11): 605- 611. DOI
	Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th ed.). New York: Springer.
	Westfall, J. (2016). PANGEA: Power analysis for general ANOVA designs. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://github.com/jake-westfall/pangea
	Yun, H., Mauner, G., Roland, D., & Koenig, J. P. (2012). The effect of semantic similarity is a function of contextual constraint. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1191–1196). Austin, TX: The Cognitive Science Society.

条件	句子
高预测词H	救援队当前面临的困难是如何移动受伤的游客。
低预测词L1	救援队当前面临的问题是如何移动受伤的游客。
低预测词L2	救援队当前面临的挑战是如何移动受伤的游客。
低预测词L3	救援队当前面临的任务是如何移动受伤的游客。

条件	句子
高预测词H	救援队当前面临的困难是如何移动受伤的游客。
低预测词L1	救援队当前面临的问题是如何移动受伤的游客。
低预测词L2	救援队当前面临的挑战是如何移动受伤的游客。
低预测词L3	救援队当前面临的任务是如何移动受伤的游客。

	高预测词(H)	低预测词1(L1)	低预测词2(L2)	低预测词3(L3)
预测性	0.83(0.15)	0.03(0.04)	0.02(0.03)	0.02(0.04)
句子通顺性	5.26(0.50)	5.26(0.44)	5.25(0.45)	5.18(0.40)
词频	3.04(0.67)	2.61(0.85)	2.64(0.84)	2.54(0.77)
首字字频	4.19(0.57)	4.17(0.61)	4.13(0.65)	4.13(0.61)
尾字字频	4.12(0.57)	4.22(0.64)	4.03(0.83)	4.17(0.64)
整词笔画数	16.25(4.44)	16.83(4.29)	16.88(4.83)	15.85(4.85)
首字笔画数	8.00(2.60)	8.34(2.99)	8.78(3.12)	7.71(3.33)
尾字笔画数	8.25(3.02)	8.49(3.18)	8.10(3.17)	8.14(3.40)
语义相似度	1.00(0.00)	0.69(0.11)	0.58(0.11)	0.47(0.11)

	高预测词(H)	低预测词1(L1)	低预测词2(L2)	低预测词3(L3)
预测性	0.83(0.15)	0.03(0.04)	0.02(0.03)	0.02(0.04)
句子通顺性	5.26(0.50)	5.26(0.44)	5.25(0.45)	5.18(0.40)
词频	3.04(0.67)	2.61(0.85)	2.64(0.84)	2.54(0.77)
首字字频	4.19(0.57)	4.17(0.61)	4.13(0.65)	4.13(0.61)
尾字字频	4.12(0.57)	4.22(0.64)	4.03(0.83)	4.17(0.64)
整词笔画数	16.25(4.44)	16.83(4.29)	16.88(4.83)	15.85(4.85)
首字笔画数	8.00(2.60)	8.34(2.99)	8.78(3.12)	7.71(3.33)
尾字笔画数	8.25(3.02)	8.49(3.18)	8.10(3.17)	8.14(3.40)
语义相似度	1.00(0.00)	0.69(0.11)	0.58(0.11)	0.47(0.11)

	高预测词(H)	低预测词1(L1)	低预测词2(L2)	低预测词3(L3)
跳读率(%)	37(1)	31(1)	33(1)	34(1)
首次注视时间(ms)	242(3)	247(3)	245(2)	256(3)
单一注视时间(ms)	240(3)	245(3)	244(3)	255(3)
凝视时间(ms)	258(4)	271(4)	278(4)	282(4)
回视路径阅读时间(ms)	312(8)	330(7)	335(8)	349(9)
总注视时间(ms)	322(6)	345(6)	355(6)	365(7)