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

Abstract

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

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。

CLC Number:

B842.5

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.

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.

References

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]	JIA Ning, RONG Lizhuo, DAI Jinghua. Effects of Social Cues on Explicit and Implicit Metacognitive Monitoring and Control [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(5): 593-599.
[2]	LI Shiyi, XIE Yanfeng, ZHAO Guang, BAI Xuejun. The Influence of Media Multitasking Experience on Implicit Memory in Different Attention Patterns [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(4): 433-440.
[3]	ZHANG Manman, HU Huilan, BIAN Han, LI Fang, ZHANG Zhichao, ZANG Chuanli. Word Frequency Effects in Fast and Slow Readers During Skilled Chinese Reading [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(3): 304-310.
[4]	HE Liyuan, ZHAO Xing, BAI Yu, LIU Nina. Multi-Word Unit Processing for Chinese Older Readers: Evidence from Eye Movements [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(2): 160-166.
[5]	QIN Zhao, WANG Yingchao, YE Jiaying, YUAN Xiaoyuan, YAN Guoli. Visual Compensation in Chinese Deaf Readers’ Sentence Reading: Evidence from Parafoveal-on-Foveal Effect [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(2): 167-173.
[6]	GU Junjuan, GAO Zhihua, MA Shaoyang. The Sub-Word Boundary Effect of Chinese Character Position Processing in Incremental Words [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(1): 1-7.
[7]	ZHAO Sainan, LI Lin, ZHANG Lijuan, WANG Jingxin. The Influence of Constrictive Context on the Processing of Unpredictable Word in Chinese Reading [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[8]	LIU Lu, JIANG Yamei, ZHANG Qiaoming, LI Zhuyang. Influence of the Position and Transparency of Semantic Radicals on Semantic Activation in Chinese Phonogram Recognition [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 585-591.
[9]	LI Sainan, YAN Guoli, WANG Yali, LIU Min, ZHAO Shuping. The Perceptual Span for Chinese Grade 1 Primary School Students [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 606-611.
[10]	ZHANG Suyuan, LAN Zebo, ZHANG Shui, MENG Zhu, YAN Guoli. The Effects of Irrelevant Speech on Reading Among First Graders First-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 433-438,446.
[11]	GAO Xiaolei, SHEN Meng, REN Xiaofei, BAI Xuejun, GAO Lei. The Perceptual Span and Parafoveal Preview Effect of Tibetan-Chinese Readers with High and Low Chinese Level in Reading Chinese [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(3): 297-303,333.
[12]	HE Fei, LIANG Feifei, BAI Xuejun. Semantic Radical Category Consistency Effect in Chinese Incidental Vocabulary Learning [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(3): 304-311.
[13]	KANG Lichao, LAN Zebo, HAN Yinghong. The Effect of Repeated Reading on the 4 to 5 Years Old Children’s Print Attention in Different Reading Styles [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(3): 368-374.
[14]	HE Liyuan, TIAN Xue, LI Yue, SHEN Fengdan, WANG Yongsheng, WU Jie. The Irrelevant Speech Effect on Reading in Older Adults: Evidence from Eye Movements [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(3): 375-381.
[15]	WU-REN Qimuge, ZHAO Aoxue, WANG Yuhan, ZHUANG Xiangling, MA Guojie. Visual Field Preference and Reference Strategy in Comparative Visual Search [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(2): 166-171.