D-linking or set-restriction? Processing Which-questions in Dutch

J. Donkers, J. Hoeks, L. Stowe
{"title":"D-linking or set-restriction? Processing Which-questions in Dutch","authors":"J. Donkers, J. Hoeks, L. Stowe","doi":"10.1080/01690965.2011.566343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on Wh-questions suggests that Which questions are harder to process than Who questions (e.g., Who/Which athlete won the competition?). According to the Discourse (D)-linking Hypothesis, Which-questions differ from Who-questions in that Which questions need a link to a preceding discourse, while Who questions do not. However, this difference in processing may also be caused by differences in “set-restriction.” Who is much less restrictive in the set of potential referents it presupposes than Which N (e.g., Which athlete). A self-paced reading study investigated how Who and Which N questions were processed compared to questions involving the generic Which person, which refer to the same relatively unrestrictive referential set as Who. Our results showed that Which N questions were significantly more difficult than Which person or Who questions in object initial structures, supporting the hypothesis that increased processing cost for Which should be explained by a mechanism of set-restriction inherent to Which N questions. Additionally we found that the syntactic role of the possible referents in the discourse context affects question processing before the readers encountered disambiguating information.","PeriodicalId":87410,"journal":{"name":"Language and cognitive processes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01690965.2011.566343","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language and cognitive processes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.566343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Research on Wh-questions suggests that Which questions are harder to process than Who questions (e.g., Who/Which athlete won the competition?). According to the Discourse (D)-linking Hypothesis, Which-questions differ from Who-questions in that Which questions need a link to a preceding discourse, while Who questions do not. However, this difference in processing may also be caused by differences in “set-restriction.” Who is much less restrictive in the set of potential referents it presupposes than Which N (e.g., Which athlete). A self-paced reading study investigated how Who and Which N questions were processed compared to questions involving the generic Which person, which refer to the same relatively unrestrictive referential set as Who. Our results showed that Which N questions were significantly more difficult than Which person or Who questions in object initial structures, supporting the hypothesis that increased processing cost for Which should be explained by a mechanism of set-restriction inherent to Which N questions. Additionally we found that the syntactic role of the possible referents in the discourse context affects question processing before the readers encountered disambiguating information.
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
d链接还是集合限制?荷兰语中which -疑问句
对“为什么”问题的研究表明,“哪个”问题比“谁”问题更难处理(例如,“谁/哪个运动员赢得了比赛?”)。根据语篇连接假说,Which疑问句与Who疑问句的不同之处在于Which疑问句需要与前面的语篇连接,而Who疑问句则不需要。然而,这种处理上的差异也可能是由“集合限制”的差异引起的。在潜在的指称物集合中,谁比哪个N(例如,哪个运动员)限制少得多。一项自定节奏阅读研究调查了Who和Which N问题与涉及一般的Which person的问题的处理方式,后者与Who指的是相同的相对不受限制的参考集合。我们的研究结果表明,在对象初始结构中,Which N题明显比Which person或Who题更难,这支持了Which N题加工成本增加的假设,这可以用Which N题固有的集限制机制来解释。此外,我们发现在读者遇到消歧义信息之前,可能的指称物在语篇语境中的句法作用会影响问题加工。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Referential choice across the lifespan: why children and elderly adults produce ambiguous pronouns. MEG evidence that the LIFG effect of object extraction requires similarity-based interference. Phonemes and Production. Memory availability and referential access. The architecture of speech production and the role of the phoneme in speech processing.
×
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