非限制竞赛还是竞争整合：来自汉语歧义加工的眼动实验证据*

心理与行为研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (2): 214-218.

非限制竞赛还是竞争整合：来自汉语歧义加工的眼动实验证据^*

于秒^1,2,闫国利¹,石锋³

1 天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300074
2 天津外国语大学，天津 300204
3 南开大学，天津 300071

收稿日期:2014-08-08 出版日期:2016-03-20 发布日期:2016-04-12
通讯作者: 闫国利，E-mail：psyygl@163.com。
基金资助:
教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目（13YJC740126）和中国博士后科学基金资助项目（2014M550145）。

The Unrestricted Race Model or Competition Model-Eye Movement Evidence from Chinese Ambiguity Processing

Yu Miao^1,2, Yan Guoli¹, Shi Feng³

1 Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Noamal University, Tianjin 300074;
2 Tianjin Foreign Studies University, Tianjin 300204;
3 Nankai University, Tianjin 300071

Received:2014-08-08 Online:2016-03-20 Published:2016-04-12

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用Eyelink II眼动仪，以30名大学生为被试，探讨被试对“Q+NP1+的+NP2”类歧义结构构成的整体歧义句及其消歧后构成的解歧句的加工情况。研究发现，与解歧句相比，整体歧义句的注视时间和回视入次数均不是最小的，研究结论不支持非限制竞赛模型，也不支持长持续竞争模型，而支持短持续竞争模型。

关键词: 眼动, 非限制竞赛模型, 长持续竞争模型, 短持续竞争模型。

Abstract: This paper investigates processing process of sentences containing three kinds of ″Q+N1+of+N2″ ambiguous phrases before and after they are disambiguated. The results show that globally ambiguous sentences are not easier to process than disambiguated sentences. The results are consistent with the short-lasting competition models instead of unrestricted competition models or long-lasting competition models.

Key words: eye movement, unrestricted race model, long-lasting competition models, short-lasting competition models

中图分类号:

B842.5

于秒,闫国利,石锋. 非限制竞赛还是竞争整合：来自汉语歧义加工的眼动实验证据^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(2): 214-218.

Yu Miao, Yan Guoli, Shi Feng. The Unrestricted Race Model or Competition Model-Eye Movement Evidence from Chinese Ambiguity Processing[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(2): 214-218.

参考文献

黄国营.(1985). 现代汉语的歧义短语. 语言研究,(1), 69-89.
肖国萍.(1996). 与量词有关的歧义结构. 福建论坛(文史哲版),(2), 72-75.
邹韶华, 马彪.(2007). 歧义的倾向性研究. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社.
Clifton, C., Traxler, M. J., Mohamed, M. T., Williams, R. S., Morris, R. K., Rayner, k.(2003). The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(3), 317-334.
Frazier, L.(1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Cotheart(Ed.), The psychology of reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, 559-586.
Green, M. J., & Mitchell, D. C.(2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 1-17.
MacDonald, M. C., Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A.(1992). Working memory constraints on the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 56-98.
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S.(1994).Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676-703.
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(1998). Modeling the influence of thematic fit(and other constraints)in on-line sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38(3), 283-312.
Mitchell, D. C., & Holmes, V. I.(1985). The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 24(5), 542-559.
Spivey, M. J., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(1998). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in discourse: Modeling the effects of referential context and lexical frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(6), 1521-1543.
Tabor, W., Juliano, C., & Tanenhaus, M. K.(1997). Parsing in a dynamical system: An attractor-based account of the interaction of lexical and structural constraints in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2&3), 211-271.
Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., & Clifton, C.(1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 558-592.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M.(1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285-318.
Van Gompel, R. P., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J.(2000). Unrestricted race: A new model of syntactic ambiguity resolution. In: A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & Pynte(Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process(pp. 621-648). Oxford: Elsevier.
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & Liversedge, S. P.(2005). Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 284-307.
Van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J.(2001). Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 225–258.
Vosse, T, & Kempen, G.(2009). In defense of competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 38(1), 1-9.

[1]	贾宁, 容丽卓, 代景华. 社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 593-599.
[2]	李士一, 谢岩枫, 赵光, 白学军. 媒体多任务经验对不同注意模式下内隐记忆的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 433-440.
[3]	张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 边菡, 李芳, 张志超, 臧传丽. 中文阅读中快速读者与慢速读者的词频效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 304-310.
[4]	何立媛, 赵星, 白玉, 刘妮娜. 汉语老年读者的多词单元加工：来自眼动研究的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 160-166.
[5]	秦钊, 王影超, 叶佳滢, 袁小源, 闫国利. 聋人句子阅读中的视觉功能补偿现象：副中央凹−中央凹效应的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 167-173.
[6]	顾俊娟, 高志华, 马绍扬. 嵌套词汉字位置加工的亚词边界效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 1-7.
[7]	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[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[8]	刘璐, 姜雅梅, 张巧明, 李诸洋. 义符位置与语义透明度对形声字语义激活的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 585-591.
[9]	李赛男, 闫国利, 王亚丽, 刘敏, 赵淑萍. 一年级小学生阅读知觉广度的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 606-611.
[10]	张苏媛, 兰泽波, 张水, 孟珠, 闫国利. 无关言语对一年级小学生阅读影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 433-438,446.
[11]	高晓雷, 沈梦, 任晓飞, 白学军, 高蕾. 高、低汉语水平藏–汉读者汉语阅读知觉广度及预视效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 297-303,333.
[12]	贺斐, 梁菲菲, 白学军. 汉语阅读伴随词汇学习的形旁类别一致性效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 304-311.
[13]	康立超, 兰泽波, 韩映虹. 不同阅读方式下图画书重复阅读对4～5岁幼儿文字关注影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 368-374.
[14]	何立媛, 田雪, 李悦, 沈凤丹, 王永胜, 吴捷. 无关言语影响老年人阅读过程的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 375-381.
[15]	乌仁其木格, 赵傲雪, 汪钰涵, 庄想灵, 马国杰. “找茬”任务中的视野偏好与参照策略[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 166-171.