汉语阅读中主观词加工的眼动研究

发布时间：2018-01-28 09:02

  本文关键词： 汉语阅读 加工单元 主观词 中央凹加工 副中央凹加工　出处：《天津师范大学》2016年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：拼音文字系统中,由于词与词之间存在空格,词被认为是基本信息加工单元,然而汉语书写系统的词与词之间不存在空格等明显的边界信息,而且汉语读者的词意识模糊。那么汉语阅读过程中,读者以什么为基本信息加工单元?大量研究对此进行了探讨,但结论莫衷一是。闫国利,张兰兰,孙莎莎和白学军(2013)提出了主观词的概念,认为主观词才是汉语阅读的基本信息加工单元。这一概念更贴近基本信息加工单元这种灵活性和多样性的本质,但是主观词作为基本信息加工单元的心理现实性及其加工情况并未在自然阅读中得到非常充分的证实,本文通过三个研究系统考察自然阅读中主观词的加工机制。研究一利用相对亮度的方法操纵切分方式,检验主观词切分对句子阅读的影响。实验分为两个阶段,第一阶段,学期初要求被试将实验材料中的句子切分成单个的词,以获得每位被试的主观词。第二阶段,学期末要求部分被试阅读实验材料,同时记录眼动数据。在眼动实验过程中,采用相对亮度的切分的方式(即字体颜色黑白相间)标记边界,共四种：字切分,词切分,主观词切分以及无切分条件。主观词切分条件,是按照第一阶段被试切分的结果进行设置的,每个被试阅读到的主观词都是自己划分出来的,因此被试之间是不同的。结果发现,主观词呈现条件下,向右眼跳幅度和平均眼跳幅度显著长于字呈现条件下的眼跳长度,但在阅读时间上并没有发现显著的差异。随后,我们选择了大多数被试划分为一个词的四字主观词进行局部分析,发现目标词组在主观词切分条件下首次注视时间和凝视时间显著快于字切分条件下的加工时间。根据研究一的结果,主观词可能存在不同的类别,其加工方式可能也存在差异,有些主观词可以作为整体得到加工,而有些则仍然是作为两个部分得到加工的。因此,根据Liu等人(2013)的研究结果和主观词的一致性概率(一致性概率=(认为多词组合是词的被试数量/所有被试的数量)×100%),将其分为：清晰主观词(80%以上的读者认为是一个词的多词组合和双字词,双字词已得到大量研究的证实,清晰主观词特指前者)和模糊主观词(读者对于是不是一个词不能达成一致的词组,认为是一个词的人数百分比在50%左右)研究二主要探讨清晰主观词和模糊主观词的加工,包含了三个实验(实验2-4)。实验2检验清晰主观词的加工优势。选取由两个词组成的清晰四字主观词以及与之相匹配的两个边界清晰的双字词,将其放入相同的句子框架中,要求被试阅读句子,随后比较两类词加工的异同。结果发现,相比于非主观词,清晰主观词的整词加工更快,首词和尾词的加工也存在显著优势。实验3考察模糊主观词是否存在加工优势。选取由两个双字词组成的模糊主观词,并将其嵌入到句子中,记录被试阅读句子时的眼动轨迹。阅读任务完成后要求被试将阅读过的句子切分成单个的词,根据被试在模糊主观词上的切分情况,分为切分组(认为模糊主观词是两个词的被试)和未切分组(认为模糊主观词是一个词的被试),然后检验两组被试在加工主观词时是否存在差异。结果显示,不论是阅读时间相关指标和再注视上,两组被试都没有显著差异。出现这一结果的原因可能有两个：一是被试。有些被试在进行词切分任务时,切分单元并不固定。有时属于切分组,而有时属于未切分组,可能造成了结果的不稳定。二是模糊主观词本身就不能作为整体得到加工。为进一步确定模糊主观词是否存在加工优势,实验4选取了三类四字组合,分别形成清晰主观词、模糊主观词和非主观词,同时选择两组被试：倾向于将四字组合看作一个词的被试和倾向于将四字组合看成是两个词的被试,比较两组被试在阅读三类四字组合时的眼动特征。结果发现,清晰主观词的注视时间显著短于模糊主观词和非主观词,注视次数更少,再注视比率更低,而模糊主观词和非主观词之间无显著差异。首词和尾词分析显示,清晰主观词首词的总注视时间显著短于清晰主观词和非主观词,尾词上的注视时间同样更短,注视次数更少,跳读率更高。但在所有的分析上均为出现组别差异。该结果表明,清晰主观词存在加工优势,而模糊主观词仍然作为两个部分得到加工。研究二表明,清晰主观词存在加工优势,那么主观词组成成分加工的方式是怎样的?研究三将回答这一问题,为清晰主观词的整体加工提供进一步的证据,包含实验5。实验采用边界范式考察了清晰主观词的副中央凹加工情况。比较清晰主观词和非主观词在相同预视和假词预视条件下的加工情况。结果发现,清晰主观词的首词上出现了显著的副中央凹-中央凹效应,尾词上则出现了显著的预视效应。这一结果说明清晰主观词包含的成分词是平行加工的,清晰主观词的识别是通过整体加工通道完成的,因此为清晰主观词作为基本信息加工单元提供了进一步的证据。综上所述,清晰主观词为整体加工,其成分词是平行加工,因此清晰主观词可以作为中文阅读中的基本信息加工单元。而对于模糊主观词,则可能仍然以词为单位得到识别,不能归入基本信息加工单元之中。
[Abstract]:Alphabetic writing system, due to the presence of spaces between the words, the word is considered to be the basic information processing unit, but there are not obvious boundary information spaces between words in Chinese writing system, and Chinese readers. So Chinese word confusion in the process of reading, readers what is the basic information processing unit of a large number of? This research was discussed, but the conclusion. Zhang Lanlan, unable to agree on which is right Yan Guo Li, sun Sasa and Bai Xuejun (2013) put forward the concept of subjective words, believing that the subjective word is the basic unit of information processing in Chinese reading. The nature of this concept is more close to the basic information processing unit of the flexibility and diversity, but the word as a subjective psychology the reality of the basic information processing unit and its processing in natural reading are not fully confirmed, through three research survey of natural reading master system The concept of word processing mechanism. Research on a method by using the relative brightness control segmentation, to test the influence of word segmentation on subjective sentence reading. The experiment was divided into two stages, the first stage, the beginning of the semester required subjects to the experimental materials in the sentence into a single word, to obtain each participant's subjective words second. At the end of the semester, some subjects read the experimental materials, simultaneous recording of eye movement data. In the eye during the experiment, the relative brightness segmentation way (i.e. font color, black and white) mark boundary, a total of four types: word segmentation, word segmentation, word segmentation and segmentation free subjective conditions. The subjective condition is the word segmentation. The first stage is set according to the segmentation results, each participant read the subjective words themselves are separated, so the subjects is different. The results showed that the subjective word presentation conditions, to the right eye jump range And the average saccade amplitude was significantly longer than the characters under the condition of saccade length, but found no significant difference in reading time. Then, we chose the majority of subjects are divided into a word four words words subjective local analysis, found that the processing time of target phrases in the subjective word segmentation under the condition of first fixation duration and gaze the time was faster than the word segmentation conditions. According to the results, the subjective word may have different categories, the process may also exist differences, some subjective words can be regarded as a whole process, while others are still as two parts processing. Therefore, according to Liu et al (2013) consistency the probability of the research results and subjective words (consistent probability (= that multi word is the word combination of the number of participants / the number of all the participants) * 100%), will be divided into: clear subjective term (more than 80% readers. For the combination of multi word of a word and double word double word has been proved by many researches, clear subjective term refers the former) and fuzzy subjective words (a word is the number of readers that the percentage is about 50% for is not a word can not reach an agreement on two phrases, mainly discusses the subjective clear) words and fuzzy subjective word processing, contains three experiments (Experiment 2-4). Experiment 2 clearly subjective inspection processing advantages of words. Selected from the two words of the four character words and clear subjective words two boundary matching with the clear, put it into the framework of the same sentence. The subjects are asked to read the sentence, then compare the similarities and differences of the two word processing. The results showed that compared to non subjective words, word processing clear subjective words faster, first and last word word processing also has a significant advantage. Experiment 3 investigated whether the subjective fuzzy word processing. Potential. Fuzzy subjective word consists of two words, and embedded into the sentence, subjects were recorded reading eye movement trajectory sentences. Read after the completion of the task required subjects will read the sentences into a single word, according to the subjects in the fuzzy segmentation situation on subjective words, divided into cut the packet (think fuzzy subjective term is two words, subjects) and uncut packet (think fuzzy subjective word is a word, subjects) and to test the two groups of subjects in the subjective word processing whether there are differences. Results show that both the reading time and again as the injection related indicators, two subjects have no significant difference. The reasons for this result may have two: one is the subjects. Some participants in the word segmentation task, the segmentation unit is not fixed. Sometimes cut packets, and sometimes are not cut packet, may lead to unstable results. Two is fuzzy The subjective word itself is not as a whole has been processing. To further confirm the existence of subjective fuzzy word processing advantages, the 4 selected three kinds of four characters, forming a clear subjective words, subjective words and non subjective words fuzzy, and two groups of participants: four words tend to be regarded as a combination of words try and tend to be four words as a combination of two words of the subjects were compared between the two groups in the three kinds of reading eye movement characteristics of four character combinations. It is found that the clear subjective term fixation time was significantly shorter than that of fuzzy subjective words and non subjective words, fixation times less, then at a lower rate, and no significant difference between the subjective fuzzy words and non subjective words. First and last word word analysis showed that the total fixation time and clear subjective word poem was significantly shorter in the clear subjective words and non subjective words, words at the same time the tail is shorter, less number of fixation, skip The rate is higher. But in all of the analysis are the differences between the groups. The results show that there exists a clear advantage, processing subjective words and fuzzy subjective words still as the two part processing. Study two showed that there is a clear advantage of subjective word processing, then the composition of subjective word processing is to study three? To answer this question, provide further evidence for the overall processing of clear subjective experiment 5., including the boundary clear subjective word paradigm to examine the parafoveal processing. Processing relatively clear subjective words and non subjective words in the same pre and pseudo words preview condition. The results showed that the parafoveal foveal effect was clearly the subjective word poem, tail words appeared in the preview effect significantly. These results show that the composition of word clear subjective word contained in the parallel processing, clear the main Recognition is accomplished through the whole view of the word processing channel, so as to clear the subjective words as the basic information processing unit provides further evidence. To sum up, clear subjective words as the overall processing, the segmentation is parallel processing, so clear subjective words can be regarded as the basic information processing unit Chinese reading. For fuzzy subjective words still, it may be identified with the word as the unit, in the basic unit of information processing can not be classified.

【学位授予单位】：天津师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：B842

【相似文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前10条

1 刘正文;;对外汉语阅读教材的创新──评《中级汉语阅读教程》[J];世界汉语教学;2001年02期

2 王小潞;黄彬瑶;;眼动技术在汉语阅读研究中的应用?[J];科学中国人;2012年23期

3 古力加玛丽;浅谈如何培养民族学生的汉语阅读能力[J];新疆广播电视大学学报;2002年01期

4 王天星;汉语阅读中认知心理因素的分析及其作用[J];云南师范大学学报;2003年05期

5 吴文胜;汉语阅读中的“歧义”的魅力[J];安徽卫生职业技术学院学报;2004年04期

6 吕欣航;;留学生在汉语阅读中利用字形和语音信息的研究[J];云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版);2007年01期

7 周健;谢海燕;;留学生汉语阅读分词和语义提取能力研究[J];汉语学习;2007年02期

8 魏秀兰;;怎样提高民族学生的汉语阅读能力[J];时代文学(双月上半月);2008年02期

9 寇清华;;蒙古国学生汉语阅读焦虑原因论析[J];云南师范大学学报(对外汉语教学与研究版);2008年05期

10 何亚萍;;对外汉语阅读课的思考[J];安徽文学(下半月);2008年06期

中国重要会议论文全文数据库 前3条

1 顾俊娟;李兴珊;Simon P.Liversedge;;汉语阅读中的汉字位置加工[A];心理学与创新能力提升——第十六届全国心理学学术会议论文集[C];2013年

2 朱红;高松;;布朗族、傈僳族学生的颜色偏好及其对汉语阅读的影响[A];第十二届全国心理学学术大会论文摘要集[C];2009年

3 卫垌圻;毕鸿燕;;影响儿童汉语阅读获得的相关认知因素[A];第十一届全国心理学学术会议论文摘要集[C];2007年

中国博士学位论文全文数据库 前1条

1 何立媛;汉语阅读中主观词加工的眼动研究[D];天津师范大学;2016年

中国硕士学位论文全文数据库 前10条

1 胡洋;汉语高级阶段留学生课外汉语阅读调查研究[D];兰州大学;2015年

2 夏楠;《汉语阅读教程》第一册第二十三课教学设计[D];华中师范大学;2015年

3 张海燕;《经贸汉语阅读教程》中的词汇教学[D];华中师范大学;2015年

4 黄杰;澳大利亚初级水平华裔与非华裔学生汉语阅读焦虑研究[D];南京大学;2015年

5 詹许君;中级水平留学生汉语阅读自我效能感研究[D];暨南大学;2015年

6 徐洁;输入调整对汉语阅读中伴随性词汇学习的影响[D];华东师范大学;2016年

7 陈滢;初级水平留学生汉语阅读焦虑及策略相关性研究[D];华中科技大学;2014年

8 王丹丹;初级汉语阅读微技能教学方法研究[D];华中师范大学;2011年

9 何涛;对外汉语阅读教材研究[D];北京语言文化大学;2002年

10 刘莉;中亚留学生汉语阅读焦虑研究[D];新疆师范大学;2010年

，

本文编号：1470328