中文词汇加工过程中的无关言语效应

心理与行为研究 ›› 2020, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (5): 611-617.

中文词汇加工过程中的无关言语效应

俞锦旺^1,2,4, 孟珠², 秦钊², 邓志洲⁵, 赵绍晨⁶, 闫国利^1,2,3

1. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300387;
2. 天津师范大学心理学部，天津 300387;
3. 学生心理发展与学习天津市高校社会科学实验室，天津 300387;
4. 广东机电职业技术学院汽车学院，广州 510515;
5. 广东财经大学应用心理学系，广州 510320;
6. 中国人民警察大学基础部，广州 510663

收稿日期:2020-05-03 发布日期:2020-12-17
通讯作者: 闫国利,E-mail:psyygl@163.com
基金资助:
天津市教学成果奖重点培育项目（PYJJ-039）；天津师范大学2017年博士研究生学术新人项目（2017BSXR004）

The Effect of Irrelevant Speech on Chinese Word Processing

YU Jinwang^1,2,4, MENG Zhu², QIN Zhao², DENG Zhizhou⁵, ZHAO Shaochen⁶, YAN Guoli^1,2,3

1. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
2. Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
3. Tianjin Social Science Laboratory of Students’ Mental Development and Learning, Tianjin 300387;
4. Department of Automotive Engineering, Guangdong Mechanical & Electrical Polytechnic, Guangzhou 510515;
5. Department of Applied Psychology, Guangdong University of Finance & Economics, Guangzhou 510320;
6. Department of Basic, China People’s Police University, Guangzhou 510663

Received:2020-05-03 Published:2020-12-17

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过两个词汇识别任务，考察词汇加工过程中的无关言语效应。实验1采用真假词判断任务，考察有意义言语、无意义言语、白噪音和安静的背景声音对不同具体性的词汇识别的影响。结果发现，仅有意义言语干扰了词汇识别，且主要体现在对低具体性词汇判断的反应时显著增加。实验2采用了语义范畴判断任务，同样发现有意义言语条件下被试的反应时显著大于其他声音条件。结果表明，中文词汇加工过程中存在无关言语效应，且当任务强调语义加工时，干扰主要源于无关言语的语义成分，支持了语义干扰假说。

关键词: 中文词汇加工, 词汇判断, 语义范畴, 无关言语效应

Abstract: In the present study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the irrelevant speech effects in the word processing by using lexical task. In Experiment 1, we used a 4 (background speech: meaningful speech, meaningless speech, white noises, silence)×2 (word type: concrete word, abstract word) within-subjects design. Forty-four college students were required to perform visual lexical decision tasks on words and pseudowords under four conditions. The results showed that only meaningful words interfered with word recognition, which was mainly reflected in the response to the judgment of abstract words. However, there was no significant influence on the judgment of concrete words. Experiment 2 adopted the semantic category judgment task which is more dependent on semantic processing, and it was also found that the response time of subjects in meaningful speech condition was significantly higher than that in other acoustic conditions. The results show that there is irrelevant speech effect in the process of Chinese word processing, and when the task emphasizes semantic processing, the interference mainly comes from the semantic component of irrelevant speech, which supports the semantic-interference hypothesis.

Key words: Chinese word processing, lexical decision, semantic category, irrelevant speech effect

中图分类号:

B842

俞锦旺, 孟珠, 秦钊, 邓志洲, 赵绍晨, 闫国利. 中文词汇加工过程中的无关言语效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(5): 611-617.

YU Jinwang, MENG Zhu, QIN Zhao, DENG Zhizhou, ZHAO Shaochen, YAN Guoli. The Effect of Irrelevant Speech on Chinese Word Processing[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(5): 611-617.

参考文献

陈宝国, 彭聃龄. (1998). 词的具体性对词汇识别的影响. 心理学报, 30(4), 387-393
陈宝国, 尤文平, 周会霞. (2007). 汉语词汇习得的年龄效应: 语义假设的证据. 心理学报, 39(1), 9-17
何立媛, 黄有玉, 王梦轩, 孟珠, 闫国利. (2015). 不同背景音对中文篇章阅读影响的眼动研究. 心理科学, 38(6), 1290-1295
彭聃龄. (1997). 汉语认知研究. 济南: 山东教育出版社.
闫国利, 孟珠. (2018). 无关言语对阅读的干扰基于内容还是过程?——来自眼动研究的证据. 心理科学, 41(1), 2-7
张必隐. (1992). 阅读心理学. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485-493, doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.8.4.485.
Baddeley, A. D., & Salamé, P. (1986). The unattended speech effect: Perception or memory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(4), 525-529, doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.12.4.525.
Colle, H. A., & Welsh, A. (1976). Acoustic masking in primary memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 17-31, doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(76)90003-7.
Ellermeier, W., & Zimmer, K. (1997). Individual differences in susceptibility to the “irrelevant speech effect”. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102(4), 2191-2199, doi: 10.1121/1.419596.
Hanley, J. R., & Bakopoulou, E. (2003). Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and phonological similarity: A test of the phonological loop model and the feature model. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(2), 435-444, doi: 10.3758/BF03196503.
Hyönä, J., & Ekholm, M. (2016). Background speech effects on sentence processing during reading: An eye movement study. PLoS One, 11(3), e0152133, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152133.
Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2009). Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition, 110(1), 23-38, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.003.
Marsh, J. E., Perham, N., Sörqvist, P., & Jones, D. M. (2014). Boundaries of semantic distraction: Dominance and lexicality act at retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1285-1301, doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0438-6.
Martin, R. C., Wogalter, M. S., & Forlano, J. G. (1988). Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 382-398, doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90063-0.
Oswald, C. J. P., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (2000). Disruption of comprehension by the meaning of irrelevant sound. Memory, 8(5), 345-350, doi: 10.1080/09658210050117762.
Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(2), 150-164, doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90521-7.
Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1986). Phonological factors in STM: Similarity and the unattended speech effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24(4), 263-265, doi: 10.3758/BF03330135.
Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1987). Noise, unattended speech and short-term memory. Ergonomics, 30(8), 1185-1194, doi: 10.1080/00140138708966007.
Schendel, Z. A. (2006). The irrelevant sound effect: Similarity of content or similarity of process? (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus.
Vasilev, M. R., Kirkby, J. A., & Angele, B. (2018). Auditory distraction during reading: A Bayesian meta-analysis of a continuing controversy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 567-597, doi: 10.1177/1745691617747398.
Vasilev, M. R., Liversedge, S. P., Rowan, D., Kirkby, J. A., & Angele, B. (2019). Reading is disrupted by intelligible background speech: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(11), 1484-1512, doi: 10.1037/xhp0000680.
Venetjoki, N., Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2006). The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics, 49(11), 1068-1091, doi: 10.1080/00140130600679142.
Yan, G. L., Meng, Z., Liu, N., He, L. Y., & Paterson, K. B. (2018). Effects of irrelevant background speech on eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(6), 1270-1275, doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1339718.

[1]	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.
[2]	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.
[3]	陈宝国,周会霞. 多义词意义间的联系程度对词汇判断时间的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2005, 3(3): 214-218.
[4]	刘旭刚, 彭聃龄. 词汇判断中汉语多义词识别的优势效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2005, 3(2): 116-120.