母语和第二语言对量词范围歧义的处理

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-03-02 DOI:10.1177/02676583221079741
Eun Seon Chung, Jeong-Ah Shin
{"title":"母语和第二语言对量词范围歧义的处理","authors":"Eun Seon Chung, Jeong-Ah Shin","doi":"10.1177/02676583221079741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present study investigates native (L1) and second language (L2) processing of scope ambiguities in English sentences containing the universal quantifier every in subject NP and negation. Previous studies in L1 and L2 processing of scope ambiguities have found speakers to generally employ a ‘minimal effort’ principle that highly prefers the surface scope reading regardless of contextual support because accessing the inverse scope reading incurs significant processing cost. The present study compared L1 and L2 scope judgments and processing strategies of sentences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence and examined whether the two groups differ in their speed and manner of analysis. Thirty native English speakers and 42 Korean learners of English participated in a self-paced reading/interpretation task that has context (ambiguous vs. unambiguous) and scope reading (surface vs. inverse) as variables. The results revealed significant differences in scope endorsement rates with L2 learners arriving at the surface scope as the dominant reading and L1 learners’ judgments being highly dependent on contextual ambiguity. Moreover, L1 vs. L2 differences in processing strategies were found: L2 learners exhibited a strong tendency to arrive at the most economical interpretation while L1 speakers consulted detailed syntactic and semantic rules of computation.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity\",\"authors\":\"Eun Seon Chung, Jeong-Ah Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02676583221079741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present study investigates native (L1) and second language (L2) processing of scope ambiguities in English sentences containing the universal quantifier every in subject NP and negation. Previous studies in L1 and L2 processing of scope ambiguities have found speakers to generally employ a ‘minimal effort’ principle that highly prefers the surface scope reading regardless of contextual support because accessing the inverse scope reading incurs significant processing cost. The present study compared L1 and L2 scope judgments and processing strategies of sentences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence and examined whether the two groups differ in their speed and manner of analysis. Thirty native English speakers and 42 Korean learners of English participated in a self-paced reading/interpretation task that has context (ambiguous vs. unambiguous) and scope reading (surface vs. inverse) as variables. The results revealed significant differences in scope endorsement rates with L2 learners arriving at the surface scope as the dominant reading and L1 learners’ judgments being highly dependent on contextual ambiguity. Moreover, L1 vs. L2 differences in processing strategies were found: L2 learners exhibited a strong tendency to arrive at the most economical interpretation while L1 speakers consulted detailed syntactic and semantic rules of computation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221079741\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676583221079741","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

本研究探讨了母语(L1)和第二语言(L2)对含有普遍量词every的英语句子中主语NP和否定的范围歧义的加工。先前关于L1和L2范围歧义处理的研究发现,说话者通常采用“最小努力”原则,无论上下文支持如何,都高度倾向于表面范围阅读,因为访问反向范围阅读会产生显着的处理成本。本研究比较了“Every horse didn 't jump over The fence”等句子的第一语言和第二语言的范围判断和加工策略,考察了两组在分析速度和方式上是否存在差异。30名英语母语者和42名韩国英语学习者参与了一项以语境(模糊与明确)和范围阅读(表面与反向)为变量的自定节奏阅读/解释任务。结果显示,二语学习者以表层范围为主导阅读,而一语学习者的判断高度依赖语境歧义,两者在范围认同率上存在显著差异。此外,我们还发现了母语和二语在处理策略上的差异:二语学习者表现出强烈的倾向于达到最经济的解释,而母语使用者则会参考详细的句法和语义计算规则。
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
Native and second language processing of quantifier scope ambiguity
The present study investigates native (L1) and second language (L2) processing of scope ambiguities in English sentences containing the universal quantifier every in subject NP and negation. Previous studies in L1 and L2 processing of scope ambiguities have found speakers to generally employ a ‘minimal effort’ principle that highly prefers the surface scope reading regardless of contextual support because accessing the inverse scope reading incurs significant processing cost. The present study compared L1 and L2 scope judgments and processing strategies of sentences such as Every horse didn’t jump over the fence and examined whether the two groups differ in their speed and manner of analysis. Thirty native English speakers and 42 Korean learners of English participated in a self-paced reading/interpretation task that has context (ambiguous vs. unambiguous) and scope reading (surface vs. inverse) as variables. The results revealed significant differences in scope endorsement rates with L2 learners arriving at the surface scope as the dominant reading and L1 learners’ judgments being highly dependent on contextual ambiguity. Moreover, L1 vs. L2 differences in processing strategies were found: L2 learners exhibited a strong tendency to arrive at the most economical interpretation while L1 speakers consulted detailed syntactic and semantic rules of computation.
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
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