荷兰语词汇选择过程中的跨词类语义干扰。

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-10-30 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105999
Constantijn L. van der Burght , Antje S. Meyer
{"title":"荷兰语词汇选择过程中的跨词类语义干扰。","authors":"Constantijn L. van der Burght ,&nbsp;Antje S. Meyer","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When producing a sentence, speakers must rapidly select appropriate words in the correct order. Models of lexical access often assume that this lexical selection process is competitive and that each word is chosen from a set of competing candidates. Therefore, an important theoretical issue is which factors constrain this choice. Speech error evidence suggests that word class plays a decisive role here and that lexical access is, at any point in time, restricted to words that fit the part of the grammatical structure of the sentence that is being constructed. Using a novel version of the picture-word interference paradigm, <span><span>Momma, Buffinton, Slevc, and Phillips (2020, Cognition)</span></span> showed experimentally that word class indeed constrains lexical selection. Specifically, in speakers of American English, action verbs (as in <em>she's singing</em>) competed with semantically related action verbs (as in <em>she's whistling</em>), but not with semantically related action nouns (as in <em>her whistling</em>). Similarly, action nouns only competed with semantically related action nouns, but not with action verbs. As this pattern has important implications for models of lexical access and sentence generation, we conducted a conceptual replication of the study in Dutch. In two experiments, we found a semantic interference effect, but, contrary to the original study, no evidence for a word class constraint. In accounting for these results, we propose that word class constraints on lexical selection are graded rather than categorical, and that, at least for verbs and action nouns, the marking for word class is clearer in English than in Dutch.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 105999"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semantic interference across word classes during lexical selection in Dutch\",\"authors\":\"Constantijn L. van der Burght ,&nbsp;Antje S. Meyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105999\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>When producing a sentence, speakers must rapidly select appropriate words in the correct order. Models of lexical access often assume that this lexical selection process is competitive and that each word is chosen from a set of competing candidates. Therefore, an important theoretical issue is which factors constrain this choice. Speech error evidence suggests that word class plays a decisive role here and that lexical access is, at any point in time, restricted to words that fit the part of the grammatical structure of the sentence that is being constructed. Using a novel version of the picture-word interference paradigm, <span><span>Momma, Buffinton, Slevc, and Phillips (2020, Cognition)</span></span> showed experimentally that word class indeed constrains lexical selection. Specifically, in speakers of American English, action verbs (as in <em>she's singing</em>) competed with semantically related action verbs (as in <em>she's whistling</em>), but not with semantically related action nouns (as in <em>her whistling</em>). Similarly, action nouns only competed with semantically related action nouns, but not with action verbs. As this pattern has important implications for models of lexical access and sentence generation, we conducted a conceptual replication of the study in Dutch. In two experiments, we found a semantic interference effect, but, contrary to the original study, no evidence for a word class constraint. In accounting for these results, we propose that word class constraints on lexical selection are graded rather than categorical, and that, at least for verbs and action nouns, the marking for word class is clearer in English than in Dutch.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"254 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105999\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002853\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002853","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在造句时,说话者必须按照正确的顺序迅速选择适当的词语。词汇获取模型通常假定这种词汇选择过程是竞争性的,每个词都是从一组竞争的候选词中选择出来的。因此,一个重要的理论问题是哪些因素制约了这种选择。语音错误的证据表明,词类在这里起着决定性的作用,在任何时候,词汇的使用都仅限于符合正在构建的句子语法结构部分的词。Momma、Buffinton、Slevc 和 Phillips(2020 年,《认知》)使用了一种新版本的图片-词语干扰范式,通过实验证明了词类确实限制了词汇选择。具体来说,在讲美式英语的人中,动作动词(如she's singing)与语义相关的动作动词(如she's whistling)竞争,但与语义相关的动作名词(如sher whistling)不竞争。同样,动作名词只与语义相关的动作名词竞争,而不与动作动词竞争。由于这种模式对词汇访问和句子生成模型有重要影响,我们用荷兰语对该研究进行了概念上的复制。在两个实验中,我们发现了语义干扰效应,但与最初的研究相反,没有证据表明存在词类限制。为了解释这些结果,我们提出词类对词汇选择的限制是分级的而不是分类的,而且至少对于动词和动作名词,英语中的词类标记比荷兰语中的更清晰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Semantic interference across word classes during lexical selection in Dutch
When producing a sentence, speakers must rapidly select appropriate words in the correct order. Models of lexical access often assume that this lexical selection process is competitive and that each word is chosen from a set of competing candidates. Therefore, an important theoretical issue is which factors constrain this choice. Speech error evidence suggests that word class plays a decisive role here and that lexical access is, at any point in time, restricted to words that fit the part of the grammatical structure of the sentence that is being constructed. Using a novel version of the picture-word interference paradigm, Momma, Buffinton, Slevc, and Phillips (2020, Cognition) showed experimentally that word class indeed constrains lexical selection. Specifically, in speakers of American English, action verbs (as in she's singing) competed with semantically related action verbs (as in she's whistling), but not with semantically related action nouns (as in her whistling). Similarly, action nouns only competed with semantically related action nouns, but not with action verbs. As this pattern has important implications for models of lexical access and sentence generation, we conducted a conceptual replication of the study in Dutch. In two experiments, we found a semantic interference effect, but, contrary to the original study, no evidence for a word class constraint. In accounting for these results, we propose that word class constraints on lexical selection are graded rather than categorical, and that, at least for verbs and action nouns, the marking for word class is clearer in English than in Dutch.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers? Relative source credibility affects the continued influence effect: Evidence of rationality in the CIE. Decoding face identity: A reverse-correlation approach using deep learning How does color distribution learning affect goal-directed visuomotor behavior? Bias-free measure of distractor avoidance in visual search
×
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