心理科学 ›› 2024, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (1): 28-35.DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20240104

• 基础、实验与工效 • 上一篇    下一篇

听障者文本阅读的句法加工:质变还是量变?*

王阳1,2, 吴岩**1,3   

  1. 1东北师范大学心理学院,长春,130024;
    2新疆师范大学心智发展与学习科学重点实验室,乌鲁木齐,830017;
    3吉林省认知神经科学与脑智发展重点实验室,长春,130024
  • 出版日期:2024-01-20 发布日期:2024-01-30
  • 通讯作者: **吴岩,E-mail: wuy399 @nenu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    *本研究得到国家自然科学基金面上项目(3237110)、吉林省教育厅重点项目(JJKH20231279SK)和新疆自治区重点实验室一般项目(XJDK2003-2023-06)的资助

Syntactic Processing of Text Reading for People Who are Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing: Qualitative or Quantitative Difference?

Wang Yang1,2, Wu Yan1,3   

  1. 1School of Psychology, Northeast Normal University, Changchun, 130024;
    2Key Laboratory of Mental Development and Learning Science, Xinjiang normal university, Urumchi, 830017;
    3Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Cognitive Neuroscience and Brain Development, Changchun, 130024
  • Online:2024-01-20 Published:2024-01-30

摘要: 听障者文本阅读困难的根源之一在于句法意识缺陷。薄弱的句法意识是否也体现在句法加工过程中?一种观点认为与健听者相比,听障者在句法加工时发生了“质变”,完全忽略句法信息,更依赖语义信息。另一种观点则认为是“量变”差异,听障者可以自动激活句法信息,只是激活强度较弱或提取速度变慢。同时,“质-量”差异与个体因素有关,如手语习得年龄和工作记忆容量。未来研究应融合多种研究范式,关注不同语言经验或认知能力差异的听障者,深入探究大脑功能的代偿机制,从根本上解答听障者句法加工的“质-量”差异问题。

关键词: 听障者, 文本阅读, 句法加工, "质-量"差异, 个体差异

Abstract: Text-reading ability is required for people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to access external information and integrate into society. However, the reading comprehension scores of deaf readers are lower than those of hearing readers. After high school graduation, the average reading comprehension levels of deaf readers are comparable to those of hearing readers in the fourth grade of primary school. According to the results of the language proficiency test, the syntactic awareness deficit is one of the reasons for the reading difficulties of deaf readers. Syntactic awareness contributes more to the reading comprehension of deaf readers than other linguistic or non-linguistic factors.
Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the deficit in syntactic awareness may affect the syntactic processing and whether deaf readers have access to syntactic information when reading text. Currently, two distinct perspectives exist. First, there is a qualitative difference in syntactic processing between deaf readers and hearing readers. Syntactic violations in sentences have not elicited a P600 effect for deaf readers. In contrast, only the N400 effect accurately predicted their reading performance. This study has revealed that deaf readers have neglected syntactic information and prioritized semantic information for comprehension. The second perspective is a quantitative difference whereby deaf readers activate syntactic information automatically, yet it takes them longer and is less accurate. Despite the uncertainty over whether the syntactic processing of deaf readers has undergone a qualitative or quantitative change, it is indisputable that the sentence processing speed and accuracy of deaf readers are lower than those of hearing readers as a result of the impairment of their syntactic processing ability.
What would this difference occur? The word processing efficiency hypothesis in previous studies has suggested that deaf readers show improvement in visual compensation due to their hearing loss, thereby increasing their perceptual span. Deaf readers can process semantic information, such as orthography, more quickly, which can impede syntactic processing. What is the extent of compensation provided by the visual area and other brain areas? Findings reveal that individual differences, such as prior experience with sign language and working memory capacity, influence the syntactic processing of deaf readers.
Future research is expected to focus on the syntactic processing mechanisms in deaf readers from four directions. First, it can investigate the neural basis of deaf readers' syntactic processing at the space-time level from the perspective of brain function compensation. Second, for the experimental design, future studies could choose a paradigm that is more suitable for speech impairment and Chinese characteristics. Third, regarding individual differences, it is essential to examine the effect of oral experience on executive functioning. Lastly, it should create sign bilingualism and co-enrollment environments and control groups that are suitable for interventions.

Key words: deaf and hard-of-hearing people, text reading, syntactic processing, the qualitative-quantitative difference, individual difference