不同层次意义之间的认知心理学差异

IF 1.7 2区 文学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Language Sciences Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101583
Abduwali Rahman , Zhenqian Liu
{"title":"不同层次意义之间的认知心理学差异","authors":"Abduwali Rahman ,&nbsp;Zhenqian Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101583","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study is an attempt to investigate the psychological reality and cognitive priority of three layers of linguistic meaning—what is said, impliciture, and implicature. According to the literal-first serial processing model, what is said is psychologically real and is required to draw an impliciture and/or implicature. By contrast, the impliciture-by-default processing model argues that there is psychological reality for impliciture and implicature but not for what is said, and that impliciture has cognitive priority over the other two levels. Finally, the parallel processing model does not make a strong assumption about the temporal order of interpretation. A mouse-tracking experiment in a listening comprehension task was designed to test the predictions of the three accounts. It examined how participants grasp the three levels of meaning in two tests, one in which a preferred interpretation of an utterance (either with what is said, impliciture or implicature) is confirmed and another where this interpretation is negated. Results show that participants were consciously aware of each of the three meanings in both tests. Their comprehension was more accurate and faster when they were prompted for what is said and implicitures compared to implicatures in the confirmation test. But they were delayed in processing time for implicitures in the negation test. Furthermore, they exhibited different comprehension patterns across different impliciture and implicature types. Thus, the current study provides mixed evidence for the existing theories of linguistic meaning by failing to find strong support for any of them. By showing how to integrate the three traditional models, this study suggests a way forward that what is said has psychological reality and impliciture has a special cognitive status depending on the context and yet that pragmatic inferences may vary in degree across utterance types.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51592,"journal":{"name":"Language Sciences","volume":"100 ","pages":"Article 101583"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The cognitive psychological distinctions between levels of meaning\",\"authors\":\"Abduwali Rahman ,&nbsp;Zhenqian Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101583\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study is an attempt to investigate the psychological reality and cognitive priority of three layers of linguistic meaning—what is said, impliciture, and implicature. According to the literal-first serial processing model, what is said is psychologically real and is required to draw an impliciture and/or implicature. By contrast, the impliciture-by-default processing model argues that there is psychological reality for impliciture and implicature but not for what is said, and that impliciture has cognitive priority over the other two levels. Finally, the parallel processing model does not make a strong assumption about the temporal order of interpretation. A mouse-tracking experiment in a listening comprehension task was designed to test the predictions of the three accounts. It examined how participants grasp the three levels of meaning in two tests, one in which a preferred interpretation of an utterance (either with what is said, impliciture or implicature) is confirmed and another where this interpretation is negated. Results show that participants were consciously aware of each of the three meanings in both tests. Their comprehension was more accurate and faster when they were prompted for what is said and implicitures compared to implicatures in the confirmation test. But they were delayed in processing time for implicitures in the negation test. Furthermore, they exhibited different comprehension patterns across different impliciture and implicature types. Thus, the current study provides mixed evidence for the existing theories of linguistic meaning by failing to find strong support for any of them. By showing how to integrate the three traditional models, this study suggests a way forward that what is said has psychological reality and impliciture has a special cognitive status depending on the context and yet that pragmatic inferences may vary in degree across utterance types.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Language Sciences\",\"volume\":\"100 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101583\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Language Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000123000487\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000123000487","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在探讨言语意义、隐含意义和隐含意义这三层语言意义的心理现实性和认知优先性。根据字面优先的序列处理模型,所说的内容在心理上是真实的,并且需要绘制隐含和/或隐含。相比之下,默认内隐加工模型认为,对于内隐和内隐存在心理现实,但对于所说的内容不存在心理现实,并且内隐比其他两个层次具有认知优先权。最后,并行处理模型没有对解释的时间顺序做出强有力的假设。在听力理解任务中设计了一个鼠标跟踪实验来测试这三种说法的预测。它检查了参与者如何在两个测试中掌握三个层次的意义,其中一个是对话语的首选解释(无论是说什么,含意或含意)得到确认,另一个是否定这种解释。结果表明,在两个测试中,参与者都有意识地意识到这三种含义。与确认测试中的含义相比,当他们被提示说什么和隐含含义时,他们的理解更准确、更快。但在否定测验中,他们对内隐的处理时间有延迟。此外,他们在不同的内隐和内隐类型上表现出不同的理解模式。因此,目前的研究为现有的语言意义理论提供了混杂的证据,没有找到任何一个理论的有力支持。通过对这三种传统模式的整合,本研究提出了一种前进的方向,即言说具有心理现实性,隐含性根据语境具有特殊的认知地位,而语用推理在不同的话语类型中可能存在程度上的差异。
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
The cognitive psychological distinctions between levels of meaning

This study is an attempt to investigate the psychological reality and cognitive priority of three layers of linguistic meaning—what is said, impliciture, and implicature. According to the literal-first serial processing model, what is said is psychologically real and is required to draw an impliciture and/or implicature. By contrast, the impliciture-by-default processing model argues that there is psychological reality for impliciture and implicature but not for what is said, and that impliciture has cognitive priority over the other two levels. Finally, the parallel processing model does not make a strong assumption about the temporal order of interpretation. A mouse-tracking experiment in a listening comprehension task was designed to test the predictions of the three accounts. It examined how participants grasp the three levels of meaning in two tests, one in which a preferred interpretation of an utterance (either with what is said, impliciture or implicature) is confirmed and another where this interpretation is negated. Results show that participants were consciously aware of each of the three meanings in both tests. Their comprehension was more accurate and faster when they were prompted for what is said and implicitures compared to implicatures in the confirmation test. But they were delayed in processing time for implicitures in the negation test. Furthermore, they exhibited different comprehension patterns across different impliciture and implicature types. Thus, the current study provides mixed evidence for the existing theories of linguistic meaning by failing to find strong support for any of them. By showing how to integrate the three traditional models, this study suggests a way forward that what is said has psychological reality and impliciture has a special cognitive status depending on the context and yet that pragmatic inferences may vary in degree across utterance types.

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
Language Sciences
Language Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Language Sciences is a forum for debate, conducted so as to be of interest to the widest possible audience, on conceptual and theoretical issues in the various branches of general linguistics. The journal is also concerned with bringing to linguists attention current thinking about language within disciplines other than linguistics itself; relevant contributions from anthropologists, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists, among others, will be warmly received. In addition, the Editor is particularly keen to encourage the submission of essays on topics in the history and philosophy of language studies, and review articles discussing the import of significant recent works on language and linguistics.
期刊最新文献
Dependency distance minimization in discourse structure: universality and individuality compared with that in syntactic structure A study of visual path expressions in Mandarin Chinese from the perspective of motion event typology The etymology of opaque place names based on a cognitive and interdisciplinary method Third-way linguistics: generative and usage-based theories are both right Further semantic change of the derogatory sociomorpheme tái in Chinese gender-related Internet neologisms
×
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