Empathy Effects on Antecedent Salience and Anaphor Processing in Japanese

IF 0.5 Q3 LINGUISTICS Psycholinguistics Pub Date : 2023-10-25 DOI:10.31470/2309-1797-2023-34-2-184-220
Shinichi Shoji, Jesse Sokolovsky
{"title":"Empathy Effects on Antecedent Salience and Anaphor Processing in Japanese","authors":"Shinichi Shoji, Jesse Sokolovsky","doi":"10.31470/2309-1797-2023-34-2-184-220","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose. The present study investigates whether antecedent saliency is affected by empathy status. That is, the possibility that when the speaker of a sentence empathizes with an entity, called the empathy locus, that entity is more salient than other entities. Accordingly, reduced forms of anaphors would be preferred to fuller forms when referring to an empathy locus. Methods. Two self-paced reading experiments were conducted using two-sentence discourses. Sentence 1 contained empathy-locus and non-empathy-locus antecedents. These were then referred to by fuller and reduced forms of anaphors in Sentence 2. The empathy statuses of the antecedents were indicated by Japanese ‘giving’ verbs, which obligatorily express the empathy locus. Results. Analyses of sentential reading-time results showed a significant interaction of antecedents and anaphors. Sentences 2 were read faster when the anaphors were reduced forms (i.e., null pronouns) than when they were fuller forms, but the reading-speed difference was significantly neutralized when the antecedents were non-empathy loci. Also, this significant neutralization appeared only when the anaphors were overt pronouns (not when they were repeated names) and when the anaphors were not marked by the topic morpheme. Conclusions. The outcomes indicate that empathy-locus antecedents are more salient than non-empathy-locus ones, which affects the choices of fuller or reduced forms of anaphors. Also, the results imply that Japanese overt pronouns may carry anti-logophoricity, which would cause them to avoid referring to empathy loci. In addition, the results imply that the topic’s inherent function, which is to refer to an entity that has previously appeared, may nullify the difference which results from antecedent saliency.","PeriodicalId":42961,"journal":{"name":"Psycholinguistics","volume":"101 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycholinguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2023-34-2-184-220","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose. The present study investigates whether antecedent saliency is affected by empathy status. That is, the possibility that when the speaker of a sentence empathizes with an entity, called the empathy locus, that entity is more salient than other entities. Accordingly, reduced forms of anaphors would be preferred to fuller forms when referring to an empathy locus. Methods. Two self-paced reading experiments were conducted using two-sentence discourses. Sentence 1 contained empathy-locus and non-empathy-locus antecedents. These were then referred to by fuller and reduced forms of anaphors in Sentence 2. The empathy statuses of the antecedents were indicated by Japanese ‘giving’ verbs, which obligatorily express the empathy locus. Results. Analyses of sentential reading-time results showed a significant interaction of antecedents and anaphors. Sentences 2 were read faster when the anaphors were reduced forms (i.e., null pronouns) than when they were fuller forms, but the reading-speed difference was significantly neutralized when the antecedents were non-empathy loci. Also, this significant neutralization appeared only when the anaphors were overt pronouns (not when they were repeated names) and when the anaphors were not marked by the topic morpheme. Conclusions. The outcomes indicate that empathy-locus antecedents are more salient than non-empathy-locus ones, which affects the choices of fuller or reduced forms of anaphors. Also, the results imply that Japanese overt pronouns may carry anti-logophoricity, which would cause them to avoid referring to empathy loci. In addition, the results imply that the topic’s inherent function, which is to refer to an entity that has previously appeared, may nullify the difference which results from antecedent saliency.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
移情对日语中前因显著性和拟声加工的影响
研究目的本研究探讨了前件显著性是否会受到移情状态的影响。也就是说,当句子的说话人对某个实体(称为移情位置)产生移情时,该实体就会比其他实体更突出。因此,在提及移情位置时,缩略形式的拟人句比完整形式的拟人句更受欢迎。 研究方法我们使用两句话进行了两次自定进度阅读实验。句子 1 包含移情焦点和非移情焦点前置词。在第 2 句中,这些前因词分别以更完整和更精简的形式出现。前因的移情状态由日语 "给予 "动词来表示,该动词必须表达移情位置。 研究结果对句子阅读时间结果的分析表明,前置句和拟人句之间存在显著的交互作用。句子 2 的拟声词为缩略形式(即空代词)时,阅读速度比拟声词为完整形式时要快,但当前置词为非移情定位词时,阅读速度的差异被显著中和。而且,只有当拟人代词是明显的代词(而不是重复的名字),并且拟人代词没有被主题语素标记时,这种显著的中和效应才会出现。 结论研究结果表明,移情焦点前置词比非移情焦点前置词更突出,这影响了对完整或简化形式拟声词的选择。结果还表明,日语公开代词可能带有反逻辑性,这将导致它们避免指称移情位置。此外,研究结果还表明,话题的固有功能--指代先前出现过的实体--可能会抵消因前事突出性而产生的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psycholinguistics
Psycholinguistics LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Impact of the Source-Text Syntactic Characteristics on the Sight-Translation Strategies and Quality Метод незакінчених речень в міждисциплінарному дослідженні соціально-демографічних та лінгвокультурних особливостей засуджених за колабораційну діяльність Information and Psychological Security of the Media Space. Ukrainian Experience of Implementation of Psycholinguistic Component Into Media Education The Use of Jordanian Arabic Possessive Pronouns by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder The Impact of Music on Verbal Memory: Evidence from Jordanian University Students
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1