语境位置对不同认知方式个体歧义句歧义消解的影响

李寿欣 陈慧媛 张建鹏

心理科学 ›› 2013, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5) : 1073-1077.

PDF(309 KB)
中文  |  English
PDF(309 KB)
心理科学 ›› 2013, Vol. 36 ›› Issue (5) : 1073-1077.
基础、实验与工效

语境位置对不同认知方式个体歧义句歧义消解的影响

  • 李寿欣1,陈慧媛2,张建鹏1
作者信息 +

The Influence of Context Position on Ambiguity Resolution for Individuals with Different Cognitive Styles

  • Shouxin Li 2, 2
Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

采用意义适合性判断任务,考察了语境位置对不同认知方式个体歧义句理解过程中抑制内部干扰的影响。结果发现:语境位置影响歧义句的歧义消解,对歧义句不适当意义的抑制作用方面,前语境优于后语境;在自然阅读的条件下,在句子加工的初始阶段,场独立个体能够更好的利用前语境信息抑制内部无关信息的干扰,而场依存个体在句子加工的初始阶段对前、后语境的阅读时间上不存在差异,而在句子加工的后期需用更多时间才能完成对内部干扰的抑制。

Abstract

In the process of cognition, inhibition is defined as a mechanism that either prevents the irrelevant information from entering the working memory or eliminates the irrelevant information after it has entered working memory. The function of the inhibition is preventing access, deletion and restraint. With the development of related studies in inhibition, more attention had been paid to the special groups. At present, researches on individual differences in inhibition mainly focused on different groups with different ages, different comprehension capacities and different working memory capacities. Many studies demonstrated that cognitive style (field-dependence/ independence) was associated with the cognitive reconstruction, the span of verbal working memory and the spatial selective attention. Shouxin Li et al (2010) found that field independence (FD) individuals have higher reading efficiency than the field dependence (FI) individuals. This difference takes place in the latter period of working memory process. The purpose of present study is to investigate the inhibition mechanism differences between FD and FI individuals in inhibitory processes using different position of context. The Embedded Figure Test (EFT) was adopted to select FI and FD individuals. Totally 120 undergraduates were tested by the EFT. 16 typical FD participants and 16 typical FI participants were selected in the experiment 1. The same numbers of FD and FI participants were selected in the experiment 2. The experimental materials are 24 ambiguous sentences, 24 unambiguous sentences and 6 practice sentences. 24 ambiguous sentences are designed for four conditions: 6 pre-context ambiguous sentences, 6 pre-context unambiguous sentences, 6 post-context ambiguous sentences and 6 post-context unambiguous sentences. E-prime 1.0 was used to write procedure, and the computer (1.7 GHz CPU Pentium4.0, 17 inch display, resolution 1024 x 768) was used to present stimulation in experiment 1. Eyelink 2000 eye tracking system produced by SR Research Company in Canadian was used, and the pupil + corneal model were designed for experiment 2. The fixed speed verbatim rendering paradigm was used in Experiment 1. The reaction time and accuracy rate were recorded and analyzed. In Experiment 2 participants controls the speed and the sentences were presented as a whole. The first run dwell time and the second run dwell time were recorded and analyzed. 2 (cognitive styles: FD, FI) × 2 (positions of context: pre-context, post-context) × 2 (types of sentence: ambiguous sentence, unambiguous sentence) mixed design was used, and cognitive style was between group variable, position of context and type of sentence were within group variable. The materials were presented visually to the subjects. Eye movements were recorded by using a video-based eye tracker. Reaction time, accurate rate, the first run dwell time and the second run dwell time were analyzed with a three-factor mixed design ANOVA. The results indicate that: (1) Inhibitory efficiency is affected by the position of context. The inhibitory effect of pre-context is superior to post-context. (2) Under natural reading conditions, FI individuals are better able to take advantage of the pre-context information to suppress the internal interference in the early stage of sentence processing, while there is no difference in the reading time on the condition of pre-context and post-context to FD individuals. In the latter stage of sentence processing, FD individuals require more time to complete the internal interference suppression than FI individuals do.

关键词

阅读 抑制 内部干扰 语境 认知方式

Key words

reading, inhibition, internal interference, context, cognitive style

引用本文

导出引用
李寿欣 陈慧媛 张建鹏. 语境位置对不同认知方式个体歧义句歧义消解的影响[J]. 心理科学. 2013, 36(5): 1073-1077
Shouxin Li. The Influence of Context Position on Ambiguity Resolution for Individuals with Different Cognitive Styles[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2013, 36(5): 1073-1077

参考文献

陈宝国, 徐慧卉. (2010). 工作记忆容量的差异对第二语言句法歧义句加工的影响.心理学报, 42(2):185-192. 金志成, 张禹, 盖笑松. (2002). 在抑制分心物干扰效应上学困生和学优生的比较. 心理学报,34(3): 229-234. 李寿欣, 徐增杰, 陈慧媛. (2010). 不同认知方式个体在语篇阅读中抑制外部干扰的眼动研究. 心理学报, 42(5): 539?546. 宋广文, 韩树杰. (2007). 场依存—场独立认知方式干扰抑制的比较. 心理与行为研究,5(2):100-104. 武宁宁, 舒华. (2003a). 汉语词类歧义解决初探. 心理科学, 26 (1):60-63. 武宁宁, 舒华. (2003b).汉语词类歧义解决(II) . 心理科学, 26 (6):60-63. 杨丽霞, 陈永明, 崔耀, 周治金. (2002). 理解能力不同的个体抑制干扰信息的效率. 心理学报, 34 (2): 120-125. 周治金, 陈永明. (2003). 实验任务对汉语同形歧义词加工过程的影响. 华中科技大学学报?社会科学版, (6): 89-94. 周治金,赵雷,杨文娇,陈永明.(2007). 汉语同形歧义词歧义消解的两半球差异.心理科学, 30 (1) :48 – 51. Cochran, K. F., & Davis, J. K. (1987). Individual differences in inference processes. Journal of Research in Personality. 21(2), 197-210 Connelly, S. L., & Hasher, L. (1993). Aging and inhibition of spatial location.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,19:1238-1250. Connelly, S. L., Hasher, L., & Zacks, T. (1991). Age and Reading: The impact of distraction. Psychology and Aging, 6: 533-541. Glucksberg, S. (1986). How people use context to resolve ambiguity: Implications for an interactive model of language understanding. In Knowledge and Language. J. H. Danks, I. Kurcz and G. Shugar, (Eds.), Amsterdam: North Holland. Goodman, D. R. (1971).Cognitive Style Factors in linguistic Performance with Ambiguous Sentences. Unpublished master’s thesis. York University, Canada. Gernsbacher, M. A., Varner, K. R., & Faust, M. E. (1990). Investigation differeces in general comprehension skill.Journal of Experimental Psychology: learning, memory and congition, 16:430-445. Hasher, L., Zacks, R. T., May, C.P.(1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal, and age. In Gopher, D., Koriat, A. (Eds.), Attention and performance. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 653–675. Hogaboam, Thomas, W., Perfetti, & Charles, A. (1975). Lexical Ambiguity and Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14(3):265-274. Lefever, M. M., & Ehri, L. C. (1976).The Relationship Between Field Independence and Sentence Disambiguation Ability. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5:99-106. Simpson, G. B., & Kang, H. (1994). Inhibitory processing in the recognition of homograph meaning, In:Dagenbach, D. ed. Inhibitory processes inattention, memory, and language. Academic Press, 359-381. Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18: 645-659. Witkin, H. A. (1979). Socialization, Culture and Ecology in the Development of Group and Sex Differences in Cognitive Style. Human Development, 22(5):58-72. Witkin, H. A, & Goodenough, D. R. (1981) Cognitive style: Essence and origins. New York: International University Press, pp1-141

基金

学生阅读过程个体差异的眼动差异研究

PDF(309 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/