汉语等级形容词标量蕴涵的认知加工

IF 0.5 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Pragmatics & Cognition Pub Date : 2017-12-31 DOI:10.1075/PC.17036.LIU
Si Liu, Yi Yang
{"title":"汉语等级形容词标量蕴涵的认知加工","authors":"Si Liu, Yi Yang","doi":"10.1075/PC.17036.LIU","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In previous research comparing the Context-driven Model with the Default Model of meaning processing, the former was preferred. It predicts that contexts play an exclusively decisive role in meaning processing, whereas the latter holds that the inference of literal meaning generally goes through, unless it is subsequently defaulted or cancelled by the context it is associated with. The Standardization Model, which we added to our experiments, highlights that implicatures are figured out from standardized forms typically based on the mutual background belief and speaker’s intention. We tested whether Chinese people’s processing of the gradable adjective scale conformed more to the Context-driven Model, the Default Model, or the Standardization Model. The results demonstrated that the Standardization Model is the most acceptable among the three. The findings of this study, which is the first study using the experimental paradigm on Chinese gradable adjectives, highlighted a need for further studies to investigate the same questions with different languages and cultures.","PeriodicalId":45741,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics & Cognition","volume":"24 1","pages":"373-403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive processing of scalar implicatures with Chinese gradable adjectives\",\"authors\":\"Si Liu, Yi Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/PC.17036.LIU\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In previous research comparing the Context-driven Model with the Default Model of meaning processing, the former was preferred. It predicts that contexts play an exclusively decisive role in meaning processing, whereas the latter holds that the inference of literal meaning generally goes through, unless it is subsequently defaulted or cancelled by the context it is associated with. The Standardization Model, which we added to our experiments, highlights that implicatures are figured out from standardized forms typically based on the mutual background belief and speaker’s intention. We tested whether Chinese people’s processing of the gradable adjective scale conformed more to the Context-driven Model, the Default Model, or the Standardization Model. The results demonstrated that the Standardization Model is the most acceptable among the three. The findings of this study, which is the first study using the experimental paradigm on Chinese gradable adjectives, highlighted a need for further studies to investigate the same questions with different languages and cultures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pragmatics & Cognition\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"373-403\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pragmatics & Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/PC.17036.LIU\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/PC.17036.LIU","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在以往的研究中,将上下文驱动模型与默认意义处理模型进行比较,前者更为可取。它预测上下文在意义处理中起着决定性的作用,而后者则认为,除非随后被与其相关的上下文默认或取消,否则对字面意义的推理通常会进行。我们在实验中添加的标准化模型强调,含义是从标准化的形式中计算出来的,通常基于相互的背景信念和说话者的意图。我们测试了中国人对可分级形容词量表的处理是否更符合上下文驱动模型、默认模型或标准化模型。结果表明,标准化模型是三者中最可接受的。这项研究是第一次使用实验范式对汉语可分级形容词进行研究,它的发现强调了需要进一步研究不同语言和文化下的相同问题。
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
Cognitive processing of scalar implicatures with Chinese gradable adjectives
Abstract In previous research comparing the Context-driven Model with the Default Model of meaning processing, the former was preferred. It predicts that contexts play an exclusively decisive role in meaning processing, whereas the latter holds that the inference of literal meaning generally goes through, unless it is subsequently defaulted or cancelled by the context it is associated with. The Standardization Model, which we added to our experiments, highlights that implicatures are figured out from standardized forms typically based on the mutual background belief and speaker’s intention. We tested whether Chinese people’s processing of the gradable adjective scale conformed more to the Context-driven Model, the Default Model, or the Standardization Model. The results demonstrated that the Standardization Model is the most acceptable among the three. The findings of this study, which is the first study using the experimental paradigm on Chinese gradable adjectives, highlighted a need for further studies to investigate the same questions with different languages and cultures.
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
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Recalling presupposed information Too big to bind? Non-standard uses of hybrid evaluatives and the echoic view Linguistic and pragmatic ways of committing oneself The annotative dual-clause juxtaposition construction in Japanese
×
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