本文探究了汉语排他焦点副词句的语义和语用加工机制,研究对象为“只有中学生才会做这么难的数学题,大学生应该也会/不会……”结构。焦点副词“只”要求选项命题应符合排他语义约束（即大学生不会）,而世界知识则要求选项命题应符合事件合理性语用约束（即大学生也会）。这种双重约束为考察语义和语用信息在命题层面的实时加工提供了理想窗口。离线问卷结果显示,语用约束是决定句子可接受度的关键因素,语义约束在此基础上进一步提升可接受度。在线自控步速阅读和眼动阅读实验表明,语义约束被优先加工：当后续句符合排他语义约束时加工难度低,违反时加工难度高;语用约束的作用受到语义约束的制约,呈现出复杂模式。研究结果支持“语义优先、语用延迟”加工模式,揭示了语义约束对在线理解的关键影响以及语用约束在特定条件下对语义冲突的调节作用。
Abstract
The current study examined the online processing of semantic and pragmatic information in Mandarin exclusive focus adverb sentences, such as "Only middle school students can solve such difficult math problems; college students should also can/cannot." The focus particle "zhi" (only) requires subsequent sentences to conform to exclusive semantic constraints (i.e., college students cannot), while world knowledge requires them to satisfy event plausibility pragmatic constraints (i.e., college students can). Since subsequent sentences must satisfy both exclusive semantic constraints and event plausibility pragmatic constraints, this provides an ideal window for examining the real-time processing mechanisms of semantic and pragmatic information at the propositional level.
To investigate these dynamics, the study employed three experimental methods: offline questionnaire, self-paced reading, and eye tracking. Using a 2 X 2 experimental design, this study manipulated semantic constraints (consistent versus inconsistent) and pragmatic plausibility (plausible versus implausible). The materials included 40 target items and 64 fillers, counterbalanced using a Latin square design, with 40 participants in each task. For the online experiments, the analyses focused on the critical words “can/cannot” and the subsequent two-word spillover region.
The offline questionnaire showed that pragmatic constraints were the key factor determining sentence acceptability, with semantic constraints further enhancing acceptability when pragmatics were plausible. Online experiments demonstrated that semantic constraints were processed with priority: when sentences conformed to exclusive semantic constraints, processing difficulty was low; when they violated such semantic constraints, processing difficulty was high. Meanwhile, pragmatic constraints played a role during integration, which was modulated by semantic constraints.
In the self-paced reading task, pragmatic information only had an effect when semantic constraints were met. When semantic constraints were met, pragmatically implausible sentences incurred the greatest processing cost in the study. In contrast, when semantics were consistent, the pragmatic factor had no effect, indicating that semantic conflict dominated processing. We propose that the segmented presentation of self-paced reading creates distinct processing patterns. When semantics are inconsistent, resolving semantic conflicts consumes available cognitive resources, leaving none for pragmatic processing. However, when semantics are consistent, readers can fully construct semantic representations, allowing pragmatic factors to influence processing—with pragmatically implausible content increasing cognitive load.
In contrast, the eye-tracking stud showed that pragmatic information played a role when semantic constraints were violated: pragmatic plausibility did not play a role when semantic constraints were satisfied; pragmatic plausible sentences significantly alleviated processing difficulties when semantics were inconsistent where readers relied on pragmatic information to resolve semantic conflicts. We termed this the “pragmatic attraction effect”, a form of “acceptability illusion”. For semantic inconsistent sentences, pragmatic plausibility provided readers with a sense of rationality, making the sentence appear more reasonable and speeding up processing. Unlike the self-paced reading study where processing was broken into segments, the pragmatic attraction effect might be tied to the continuous, parallel processing enabled by natural eye movement.
These findings collectively suggest that offline processing supports top-down pragmatic strategies, while online comprehension aligns with a "semantic-first, pragmatics-delayed" processing model. This highlights the critical influence of semantic constraints in interpreting focus adverb sentences, with pragmatic constraints modulating semantic conflicts under specific conditions. The methodological dissociation between self-paced and eye-tracking paradigms further highlights how task demands shape the integration of semantic and pragmatic information during sentence comprehension, revealing different mechanisms at play during online language processing.
关键词
排他焦点副词句 /
事件合理性 /
语义约束 /
语用约束 /
自控步速阅读 /
眼动
Key words
exclusive focus adverbs sentence /
event plausibility /
semantic constraints /
pragmatic constraints /
self-paced reading /
eye movement
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 金花, 钟伟芳, 徐贵平, 蔡梦娴, 杨玉芳, 莫雷. (2009). 世界知识在句子理解中的整合过程. 心理学报, 41(7), 565-571.
[2] 汪玉霞, 陈莉. (2019). 汉语焦点副词结构加工的眼动研究. 外语教学与研究, 51(1), 44-56.
[3] 吴捷, 何立媛. (2024). 阅读研究中眼动指标的选择. 科学出版社..
[4] Abbott, M., & Staub, A. (2015). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading: Testing E-Z Reader' s null prediction. Journal of Memory and Language, 85, 76-87.
[5] Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., & Tily H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278.
[6] Braun, Β., & Tagliapietra, L. (2010). The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1024-1043.
[7] Chen, L., Li, X. & Y. Yang. (2012). Focus, newness and their combination: Processing of information structure in discourse. PloS ONE, 7(8), e42533.
[8] Christensen, R. H. B. (2020). Ordinal - Regression models for ordinal data. R package version 2019.
[9] Ferreira F.,& Çokal, D. (2016). Sentence processing. In G. Hickok & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 265-274). Academic Press.
[10] Ferreira F.,& Nye, J. (2017). The modularity of sentence processing reconsidered. In R. G. de Almeida & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), On concepts, modules, and language: Cognitive science at its core (pp. 64-85). Oxford University Press.
[11] Filik R., Paterson K., & Liversedge S. (2009). The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 678-683.
[12] Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6(4), 291-325.
[13] Frank S. L., Fernandez Monsalve I., Thompson R. L., & Vigliocco G. (2013). Reading time data for evaluating broad-coverage models of English sentence processing. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1182-1190.
[14] Fujita, H., & Yoshida, M. (2024). Online reflexive resolution and interference. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 39(4), 513-526.
[15] Gotzner N., Warten burger I., & Spalek K. (2016). The impact of focus particles on the recognition and rejection of contrastive alternatives. Language and Cognition, 8(1), 59-95.
[16] Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., & Peterson K. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438-441.
[17] Haeuser, K.I., & Kray, J. (2022). How odd: Diverging effects of predictability and plausibility violations on sentence reading and word memory. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(5), 1193-1220.
[18] Hare M., Jones M., Thomson C., Kelly S., & McRae K. (2009). Activating event knowledge. Cognition, 111, 151-167.
[19] Hoeks M., Toosarvandani M., & Rysling A. (2023). Processing of linguistic focus depends on contrastive alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 132, 104444.
[20] Jiang X., Li Y., & Zhou X. (2013). Even a rich man can afford that expensive house: ERP responses to construction-based pragmatic constraints during sentence comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1857-1866.
[21] Kaan E., Futch C., Fuertes R. F., Mujcinovic S., & De La Fuente, E. Á. (2019). Adaptation to syntactic structures in native and nonnative sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 3-27.
[22] Kiss, K. (1998). Identification focus versus information focus. Language, 74(2), 245-273.
[23] König, E. (1991). The meaning of focus particles: A comparative perspective. Routledge.
[24] Krifka, M. (2007). Basic notions of information structure. In C. Fery, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies of information structure 6 (pp. 13-56). Universitätsverlag Potsdam.
[25] Kuperberg, G. R. (2021). Tea with milk? A hierarchical generative framework of sequential event comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(1), 256-298.
[26] Kuperberg G. R., Brothers T., & Wlotko E. W. (2020). A tale of two positivities and the N400: Distinct neural signatures are evoked by confirmed and violated predictions at different levels of representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(1), 12-35.
[27] Laurinavinchyute, A., & Malsburg, T. (2024). Agreement attraction in grammatical sentences and the role of the task. Journal of Memory and Language, 137, 104525.
[28] Lyu S., Tu J. Y., & Lin, C. J. C. (2020). Processing plausibility in concessive and causal relations: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye-tracking. Discourse Processes, 57(4), 320-342.
[29] Matsuki K., Chow T., Hare M., Elman J. L., Scheepers C., & McRae K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences online language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory and Cognition, 37(4), 913-934.
[30] Murray, W.S. (2006). The nature and time course of pragmatic plausibility effects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 35, 79-99.
[31] Myslín, M., & Levy, R. (2016). Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: Evidence from syntactic processing. Cognition, 147, 29-56.
[32] R Core Team. (2018). R foundation for statistical computing; Vienna, Austria. 2014. https://www.r-project.org/
[33] Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372.
[34] Rayner K., Juhasz B. J., & Brown S. J. (2007). Do readers obtain preview benefit from word N+ 2? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(1), 230.
[35] Rayner K., Warren T., Juhasz Β. J., & Liversedge S. P. (2004). The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 1290-1301.
[36] Rooth, M. (1992). A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics, 1, 75-116.
[37] Schotter E. R., Angele B., & Rayner K. (2012). Parafoveal processing in reading. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 74, 5-35.
[38] Spalek K., Gotzner N., & Warten burger I. (2014). Not only the apples: Focus sensitive particles improve memory for information-structural alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 70, 68-84.
[39] Staub, A. (2015). The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: Critical review and theoretical interpretation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 9(8), 311-327.
[40] Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements and on-line comprehension processes. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 327, 342.
[41] Sturt, P. (2003). The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 542-562.
[42] Thornton, R., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). Plausibility and grammatical agreement. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(4), 740-759.
[43] Veldre A., Reichle E. D., Wong R., & Andrews S. (2020). The effect of contextual plausibility on word skipping during reading. Cognition, 197, 104184.
[44] Wagers M. W., Lau E. F., & Phillips C. (2009). Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 206-237.
[45] Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye-movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 770-775.
[46] 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.
[47] Witzel N., Witzel J., & Forster K. (2012). Comparisons of online reading paradigms: Eye tracking, moving-window, and maze. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(2), 105-128.
[48] Zang C. L., et al., (2019). Eye movements reveal delayed use of construction-based pragmatic information during online sentence reading: A case of Chinese Lian…dou Construction. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, article 2211.
基金
*本研究得到国家社科基金重大项目（23&ZD320）的资助
PDF(1172 KB)
