该文借助126名英语专业大二学生对100个花园幽径句和对照句的限时理解实验,讨论了中国英语学习者在解读花园幽径句过程中产生的错位效应,测算了效应强度,并与stanford parser的自动翻译进行了人机对比研究。花园幽径现象是一种有意识的受控行为。其编码和解码具有行进错位和认知过载现象,并能反映人类复杂的心理认知活动。实验证明: 在划分的引导词类错位、宾语辖域错位、嵌套错位和兼类错位四类中,错位效应呈现非对称性,其中兼类错位频数最高,错位效应强度也最大。在人机对照中,机器的程序解码错位和学习者认知解码错位不具有完全联动性和绝对共时性。
Abstract
Based on a time-restricted experiment in which 126 English major sophomores are required to decode 100 garden path sentences and control sentences, this article investigates the breakdown effect produced by Chinese English learners in the garden path sentence processing, quantifying of the intensity of breakdown effect, and making a comparative study against an machine translation system with the Stanford parser. Garden path phenomenon is a conscious and controlled behavior. The encoding and decoding reflect the phenomena of both processing breakdown and cognitive overload, as well as the complex psychological cognitive activities of human beings. The experiment proves that breakdown effects appear asymmetrically, with a top frequency and intensity occurred in the multi-category breakdown in contrast to the complementizer breakdown, object breakdown, embedded breakdown and multi-category breakdown. In the human computer comparative study, the machines program decoding and the learners cognitive decoding are not proved completely resonant or absolutely co-occurent.
关键词
计算语言学 /
花园幽径句 /
行进错位 /
认知过载 /
斯坦福解析器
{{custom_keyword}} /
Key words
computational linguistics /
garden path sentence /
processing breakdown /
cognitive overload /
Stanford Parser
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
{{custom_keyword}} /
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 冯志伟. 论歧义结构的潜在性[J]. 中文信息学报, 1995, 9 (04): 14-24.
[2] Bever T G. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures [A], In Hayes, J. R. (ed.). Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1970: 279-352.
[3] Lorsbach T C, Katz G A and Cupak A J. Developmental Differences in the Ability to Inhibit the Initial Misinterpretation of Garden Path Passages[J]. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1998, 71(3): 275-296.
[4] Milne R. Predicting garden path sentences[J]. Cognitive Science, 1982(6): 349-373.
[5] Sturt P. Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery[J]. Cognition, 2007, 105: 477-488.
[6] Friederici A D, Steinhauer K, Mecklinger A et al. Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses[J]. Biological psychology, 1998, 47(3): 193-221.
[7] Altmann G T, Garnham M A and Dennis Y. Avoiding the garden path: Eye movements in context[J]. Journal of Memory & Language, 1992, 31(92): 685-712.
[8] Daneman M, Carpenter P A. Individual differences in working memory and reading[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1980, 19(4): 450-466.
[9] Karpicke J D et al. False memories are not surprising: The subjective experience of an associative memory illusion[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2008, 58(4): 1065-1079.
[10] Crain S, Steedman M. On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological syntax processor[A]. in Dowty, D, et al (eds.). Natural Language Parsing: Psychological. Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985: 320-358.
[11] Farmer T A, Anderson S E and Spivey M J. Gradiency and visual context in syntactic garden-paths[J]. Journal of Memory & Language, 2007, 57(4): 570-595.
[12] 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(5): 577-589.
[13] Malaia E, Wilbur R B, and Weber-Fox C. ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences[J]. Brain & Language, 2009, 108(3): 145-158.
[14] Bailey K G D, Ferreira F. Disfluencies affect the parsing of garden-path sentences[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2003, 49: 183-200.
[15] Maxfield N D, Lyon J M and Silliman E R. Disfluencies along the garden path: Brain electrophysiological evidence of disrupted sentence processing[J]. Brain and Language, 2009, 111: 86-100.
[16] Christianson K et al. Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 2001, 42: 368-407.
[17] Bornkessel I et al. Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: dissociating phrase structure from case marking[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2004, 51: 495-522.
[18] Jin Y H. Semantic analysis of Chinese garden-path sentences[J]. Proceedings of the Fifth SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing (Sydney), 2006, 7: 33-39.
[19] Patson N D, Darowski E S, Moon N and Ferreira F. Lingering misinterpretations in garden-path sentences: Evidence from a paraphrasing task[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Jan. 2009, 35: 280-285.
[20] Gibson E, Pearlmutter N J. Constraints on sentence comprehension[J]. Trends in cognitive sciences, 1998, 2(7): 262-268.
[21] Kaan E, Swaab T Y. Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2003, 15(1): 98-110.
[22] Kimball J. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language[J]. Cognition, 1973, 2: 15-47.
[23] Lin C C, Bever T G. Garden path and the comprehension of head-final relative clauses[J]. Processing and producing head-final structures. Springer Netherlands, 2011: 277-297.
[24] Du J L, Yu P F. Machine learning from garden path sentences: Application of computational linguistics[J]. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2014, 9(6): 58-62.
[25] Kempen G. Computational models of syntactic processing in human language comprehension[A]. In: Dijkstra T & Smedt D K (Eds.), Computational Psycholinguistics: Symbolic and Subsymbolic Models of Language Processing. London: Taylor & Francis. 1996: 192-220.
[26] Patson N D, Ferreira F. Conceptual plural information is used to guide early parsing decisions: Evidence from garden-path sentences with reciprocal verbs[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2009, 60: 464-486.
[27] Roark B. Robust garden path parsing[J]. Natural Language Engineering, 2004, 10: 1-24.
[28] Lau E F, Ferreira F. Lingering effects of disfluent material on comprehension of garden path sentences[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2005, 20: 633-666.
[29] Lee K S, Kageura K and Choi K S. Implicit ambiguity resolution using incremental clustering in cross-language information retrieval[J]. Information Processing and Management, 2004, 40: 145-159.
[30] Frazier L, Rayner K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences[J]. Cognitive Psychology, 1982, 14: 178-210.
[31] Choi Y, Trueswell J C. Children’s (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.
[32] Altmann G, Steedman M. Interaction with context during human sentence processing[J]. Cognition, 1988, 30: 191-238.
[33] Shooshtari Z G, Shahri S. Down the garden path: an effective kind of EFL grammar instruction[J]. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2014, (98): 1777-1784.
[34] Gompel R P G et al. The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: Evidence from structural priming[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 2006, 55: 335-362.
[35] Pritchett B L. Garden path phenomena and the grammatical basis of language processing[J]. Language, 1988, 64: 539-576.
[36] Slattery T J et al. Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations[J]. Journal of Memory & Language, 2013, 69(2): 104-120.
[37] 顾琦一, 程秀苹. 中国英语学习者的花园幽径句理解——与工作记忆容量和语言水平的相关研究[J],现代外语, 2010, 3: 297-304.
[38] 杜家利, 于屏方. 花园幽径现象理解折返性的数据结构分析[J],中文信息学报, 2015, 29(1): 28-37.
[39] 冯志伟. 花园幽径句的自动分析算法[J],当代语言学, 2003, 04: 339-349.
[40] 蒋祖康. “花园路径现象”研究综述[J],外语教学与研究, 2000, 04: 246-252.
[41] 张亚旭, 舒华, 张厚粲, 周晓林. 话语参照语境条件下汉语歧义短语的加工[J],心理学报,2002, 34 (02): 126-134.
{{custom_fnGroup.title_cn}}
脚注
{{custom_fn.content}}
基金
国家留学基金(201507150009, 201607150007);中国博士后特别资助项目(2016T90440);一等资助项目(2015M570424);广东省社科项目(GD15HWW02)
{{custom_fund}}
PDF(2586 KB)
