该文讨论了花园幽径现象(GPP)的数据结构。GPP数据结构呈现理解折返的认知树形结构,不同于语法前状态的词集合结构、句子理解的语法线性结构和语义匹配多对多的歧义图状结构。GPP结构的显著性特征如下:(1)GPP理解初期,数据结构呈线性特征;(2)GPP理解中期,语义触发点迫使原解码模式被推翻,数据结构表现为词集合结构;(3)GPP理解末期,行进式错位导致回溯形成,解码结构最终呈现树形结构;(4)GPP动态解码融合了除歧义图状结构之外的两种结构特征,语义触发语的激活产生额外认知负担。GPP树形结构与歧义图状结构的不同从数据结构角度证实了两种语法现象的迥异,从而为计算语言学解读GPP提供了理论支撑。
Abstract
This paper discusses data structure of garden path phenomenon (GPP). The data structure of GPP belongs to cognitive tree-liked structure rather than the other structures, e.g. word set structure in pre-grammar condition, linear grammatical structure in syntactic understanding, and ambiguous map-liked structure in semantic-matched multiple cognition. The distinctive structure features of GPP include. (1) In the early understanding, the data structure of GPP shows a linear feature; (2) in the medium-term understanding, semantic trigger point brings the breakdown of the original model, and the data structure of GPP is a word set structure; (3) in the late understanding, processing breakdown results in backtracking and GPP creates a tree-liked data structure at the end; (4)the dynamic understanding of GPP is the integration of two structures except map-liked one, and the activation of semantic trigger point brings additional cognitive load. The difference between tree-liked data structure of GPP and map-liked data structure of ambiguity reflects the dissimilarity between these two syntactic phenomena from the perspective of data structure, which provides the theoretical support for computational linguistics to interpret GPP.
关键词
花园幽径现象 /
数据结构 /
认知 /
折返性 /
语义触发
{{custom_keyword}} /
Key words
garden path phenomenon /
data structure /
cognition /
half-returned feature /
semantic trigger
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] Bever T G. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures[A]//Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970: 279-352.
[2] Pritchett B L. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing[J]. Language, 1988,64: 539-576.
[3] Hussler J, Bader M. The assembly and disassembly of determiner phrases: Minimality is needed, but not sufficient[J]. Lingua, 2009, 119(10): 1560-1580.
[4] Malsburg T, Vasishth S. What is the scanpath signature of syntactic reanalysis?[J].Journal of Memory and Language, 2011, 65(2): 109-127.
[5] Jin Y H. Semantic analysis of Chinese garden-path sentences[C]//Proceedings of the Fifth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing, 2006,7: 33-39.
[6] Christianson K, Hollingworth A, Halliwell J, et al. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 2001,42: 368-407.
[7] Wilson M P, Garnsey S M. Making simple sentences hard: Verb bias effects in simple direct object sentences[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2009, 60(3): 368-392.
[8] Foss D J, Jenkins C M. Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973,12: 577.
[9] Bailey K G D, Ferreira F. Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2003,49: 183-200.
[10] Bader M, Haussler J. Resolving number ambiguities during language comprehension[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2009,61(3): 352-373.
[11] Patson N D, et al. Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2009, 35(1), 280-285.
[12] 杜家利,于屏方. 花园幽径现象顿悟性的认知解读[J]. 外语与外语教学,2011,6: 26-29.
[13] Choi Y, Trueswell J C. Childrens (in)ability to recover from garden paths in a verb-final language: Evidence for developing control in sentence processing[J]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2010, 106(1):41-61.
[14] 冯志伟. 花园幽径句的自动分析算法[J]. 当代语言学, 2003,4: 339-349.
[15] Yu P F, Du J L. Automatic analysis of textual garden path phenomenon: A computational perspective[J]. Journal of Communication and Computer, 2008, 5 (10): 58-65.
[16] 杜家利, 于屏方. 花园路径现象认知解读的程序化特性分析[J]. 计算机工程与应用, 2011,47 (21): 5-9.
[17] Malaia E, Wilbur R B, Weber-Fox C. ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences[J]. Brain and Language, 2009, 108(3):145-158.
[18] McMurray B, Tanenhaus M K, Aslin R N. Within-category VOT affects recovery from "lexical" garden-paths: Evidence against phoneme-level inhibition[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2009, 60(1): 65-91.
[19] ORourke P L, Petten C V. Morphological agreement at a distance: Dissociation between early and late components of the event-related brain potential[J]. Brain Research, 2011, 1392(5): 62-79.
[20] Staub A. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses[J]. Cognition, 2010, 116(1): 71-86.
[21] Christensen K R. Syntactic reconstruction and reanalysis, semantic dead ends, and prefrontal cortex[J]. Brain and Cognition, 2010, 73(1): 41-50.
[22] 于屏方, 杜家利. 良构子串表在自然语言处理中的程序化应用: 以花园幽径句为例[J]. 中文信息学报, 2012, 26(5): 107-113.
[23] 宋艳雪, 张绍武, 林鸿飞. 基于语境歧义词的句子情感倾向性分析[J]. 中文信息学报, 2012, 26(3): 38-43.
[24] 张仰森, 黄改娟, 苏文杰. 基于隐最大熵原理的汉语词义消歧方法[J]. 中文信息学报, 2012, 26(3): 72-78.
[25] 张禄彭,易绵竹,周云. 中文歧义研究25年——以《中文信息学报》论文为例[J]. 中文信息学报,2012, 26(4): 73-84.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_cn}}
脚注
{{custom_fn.content}}
基金
国家社科后期资助项目(12FYY019; 12FYY021);广东外语外贸大学人才引进项目(399-X3413012)
{{custom_fund}}
PDF(2546 KB)
