英语缩略相对从句中是否存在局部连贯效应?

IF 2.9 1区 心理学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Journal of memory and language Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2024.104578
Dario Paape , Garrett Smith, Shravan Vasishth
{"title":"英语缩略相对从句中是否存在局部连贯效应?","authors":"Dario Paape ,&nbsp;Garrett Smith,&nbsp;Shravan Vasishth","doi":"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104578","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>For decades, a major underlying assumption behind theories of sentence comprehension has been that the parser only entertains analyses that are grammatically consistent with all words encountered in the sentence so far. A dramatic challenge to this self-consistency assumption came from two self-paced reading experiments in English (Tabor et al. 2004). Using a syntactic and a syntactic–semantic manipulation, Tabor et al. (2004) found that participants read a string of words more slowly if the string could locally form a grammatical structure that is <em>un</em>grammatical given the preceding words. In the years since, such local coherence effects, and in particular syntactic local coherence effects, have generated much debate about the nature of human sentence parsing, and have become a central explanandum for psycholinguistic theories. Despite this attention, to our knowledge no one has directly attempted to replicate the claimed effects. Here, we present a large-sample replication attempt using the original Tabor et al. (2004) syntactic and syntactic–semantic local coherence design using two methods (self-paced reading and bidirectional self-paced reading). A Bayes factor analysis shows evidence <em>against</em> a large, immediate effect of syntactic local coherence in reading, and only anecdotal evidence for a syntactic–semantic local coherence effect, but only in bidirectional self-paced reading. In this paradigm, there are also large effects of local coherence on rereading, which may be due to error recovery mechanisms, and which do not affect all participants. Our results suggest that the original effect sizes, especially for the much-debated early syntactic local coherence effect, are likely to be overestimates due to low power in the original Tabor et al. (2004) study. An important implication for psycholinguistic theory is that the challenge to self-consistency posed by local coherence effects is not as strong as previously believed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16493,"journal":{"name":"Journal of memory and language","volume":"140 ","pages":"Article 104578"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do local coherence effects exist in English reduced relative clauses?\",\"authors\":\"Dario Paape ,&nbsp;Garrett Smith,&nbsp;Shravan Vasishth\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jml.2024.104578\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>For decades, a major underlying assumption behind theories of sentence comprehension has been that the parser only entertains analyses that are grammatically consistent with all words encountered in the sentence so far. A dramatic challenge to this self-consistency assumption came from two self-paced reading experiments in English (Tabor et al. 2004). Using a syntactic and a syntactic–semantic manipulation, Tabor et al. (2004) found that participants read a string of words more slowly if the string could locally form a grammatical structure that is <em>un</em>grammatical given the preceding words. In the years since, such local coherence effects, and in particular syntactic local coherence effects, have generated much debate about the nature of human sentence parsing, and have become a central explanandum for psycholinguistic theories. Despite this attention, to our knowledge no one has directly attempted to replicate the claimed effects. Here, we present a large-sample replication attempt using the original Tabor et al. (2004) syntactic and syntactic–semantic local coherence design using two methods (self-paced reading and bidirectional self-paced reading). A Bayes factor analysis shows evidence <em>against</em> a large, immediate effect of syntactic local coherence in reading, and only anecdotal evidence for a syntactic–semantic local coherence effect, but only in bidirectional self-paced reading. In this paradigm, there are also large effects of local coherence on rereading, which may be due to error recovery mechanisms, and which do not affect all participants. Our results suggest that the original effect sizes, especially for the much-debated early syntactic local coherence effect, are likely to be overestimates due to low power in the original Tabor et al. (2004) study. An important implication for psycholinguistic theory is that the challenge to self-consistency posed by local coherence effects is not as strong as previously believed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of memory and language\",\"volume\":\"140 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104578\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of memory and language\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000810\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of memory and language","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749596X24000810","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几十年来,句子理解理论背后的一个主要基本假设是,解析器只接受与迄今为止在句子中遇到的所有单词在语法上一致的分析。两个英语自定进度阅读实验(Tabor et al.)Tabor 等人(2004 年)利用句法和句法-语义操作发现,如果一串单词能在局部形成一种语法结构,而这种结构在前面的单词中是不符合语法的,那么参与者的阅读速度就会更慢。此后数年,这种局部连贯效应,尤其是句法局部连贯效应,引发了关于人类句子解析本质的大量讨论,并成为心理语言学理论的核心解释。尽管如此,据我们所知,还没有人直接尝试过复制这些效应。在此,我们使用 Tabor 等人(2004 年)最初的句法和句法-语义局部连贯设计,采用两种方法(自定进度阅读和双向自定进度阅读)进行了大样本复制尝试。贝叶斯因子分析结果表明,句法局部连贯在阅读中并没有产生巨大的直接效应,只有轶事证据表明句法-语义局部连贯产生了效应,但仅限于双向自定步调阅读。在这一范式中,局部连贯性对重读也有很大的影响,这可能是由于错误恢复机制造成的,而且并不影响所有参与者。我们的研究结果表明,最初的效应大小,尤其是备受争议的早期句法局部连贯效应,很可能是由于最初的 Tabor 等人(2004 年)研究中的低功率而被高估了。对心理语言学理论的一个重要影响是,局部连贯效应对自我一致性的挑战并不像以前认为的那样强烈。
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
Do local coherence effects exist in English reduced relative clauses?
For decades, a major underlying assumption behind theories of sentence comprehension has been that the parser only entertains analyses that are grammatically consistent with all words encountered in the sentence so far. A dramatic challenge to this self-consistency assumption came from two self-paced reading experiments in English (Tabor et al. 2004). Using a syntactic and a syntactic–semantic manipulation, Tabor et al. (2004) found that participants read a string of words more slowly if the string could locally form a grammatical structure that is ungrammatical given the preceding words. In the years since, such local coherence effects, and in particular syntactic local coherence effects, have generated much debate about the nature of human sentence parsing, and have become a central explanandum for psycholinguistic theories. Despite this attention, to our knowledge no one has directly attempted to replicate the claimed effects. Here, we present a large-sample replication attempt using the original Tabor et al. (2004) syntactic and syntactic–semantic local coherence design using two methods (self-paced reading and bidirectional self-paced reading). A Bayes factor analysis shows evidence against a large, immediate effect of syntactic local coherence in reading, and only anecdotal evidence for a syntactic–semantic local coherence effect, but only in bidirectional self-paced reading. In this paradigm, there are also large effects of local coherence on rereading, which may be due to error recovery mechanisms, and which do not affect all participants. Our results suggest that the original effect sizes, especially for the much-debated early syntactic local coherence effect, are likely to be overestimates due to low power in the original Tabor et al. (2004) study. An important implication for psycholinguistic theory is that the challenge to self-consistency posed by local coherence effects is not as strong as previously believed.
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
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
14.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
12.7 weeks
期刊介绍: Articles in the Journal of Memory and Language contribute to the formulation of scientific issues and theories in the areas of memory, language comprehension and production, and cognitive processes. Special emphasis is given to research articles that provide new theoretical insights based on a carefully laid empirical foundation. The journal generally favors articles that provide multiple experiments. In addition, significant theoretical papers without new experimental findings may be published. The Journal of Memory and Language is a valuable tool for cognitive scientists, including psychologists, linguists, and others interested in memory and learning, language, reading, and speech. Research Areas include: • Topics that illuminate aspects of memory or language processing • Linguistics • Neuropsychology.
期刊最新文献
Production increases both true and false recognition Protecting the innocent in eyewitness identification: An analysis of simultaneous and ranking lineups Electrophysiological correlates of incidental L2 word learning from dialogue Using the phenomenology of knowledge-based retrieval failures in younger and older adults to characterize proximity to retrieval success and identify a Zone of Proximal Retrieval Individual differences in time-based prospective memory: The roles of working memory and time monitoring
×
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