不同类型汉语因果句加工的反应时研究

发布时间：2018-01-07 13:35

本文关键词：不同类型汉语因果句加工的反应时研究　出处：《四川外国语大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：因果关系是世界上事物之间最基本的关系之一,而因果句则是通过语言来表达这一关系的最常见的方式。尽管汉语因果句具有多种表达方式,但是最为典型的汉语因果句则是通过“因为……所以……”这一结构构成的。虽然大多语用学和认知语言学角度的理论研究对因果句进行了分类,但是它们都缺少实证的证据来证明不同类型的因果句在加工上存在差异。认知神经语言学角度的研究,几乎都没有涉及到不同类型因果句的加工在反应时上的差异,并且迄今还没有从这一角度研究汉语因果句的文章。廖巧云(2011)探讨了逻辑因果构式和实据因果构式的识解机理,但仍然没有实证的证据来支撑其提出的识解机理。因此,本研究试图研究三种不同类型的汉语因果句(逻辑因果句,无标识语的实据因果句和有标识语的实据因果句)的加工在反应时上的差异,并进一步验证廖巧云所提出的因果句的识解机理。本研究提出了两个研究问题:1)三种不同类型的汉语因果句(逻辑因果句,无标识语的实据因果句和有标识语的实据因果句)的加工在反应时上是否存在差异?2)廖巧云(2011)提出的因果句的识解机理是否合理?本研究采用行为实验的范式。实验材料由25组因果句构成,其中包含3组在正式实验前的练习模式中使用的材料。每一组因果句都包含一个逻辑因果句,一个无标识语的实据因果句,一个有标识语的实据因果句和一个假因果句。所有因果句的长度都被控制在14-20个字之间。30名来自四川外国语大学研究生院的硕士研究生参加了本次实验。在实验中,所有的句子都是随机呈现给被试。然后,在5000 ms后,句子将自动消失。紧接着,屏幕上将出现一个等级量表。被试被要求在看到等级量表后尽快根据该表做出相应的反应。被试需要判断所呈现的句子是否可以被接受,然后根据等级量表的提示按电脑键盘上相应的按键。本研究在对实验数据进行分析后,结果显示:(1)逻辑因果句和无标识语的实据因果句在加工反应时上存在显著差异(t=-2.912,p=0.008)。逻辑因果句的平均反应时(m=828.85 ms)比无标识语的实据因果句的平均反应时(m=1108.97 ms)要短得多。(2)无标识语的实据因果句和有标识语的实据因果句在加工反应时上存在显著差异(t=-2.212,p=0.031)。无标识语的实据因果句的平均反应时(m=1108.97 ms)比有标识语的实据因果句的平均反应时(m=730.42 ms)要长得多。(3)虽然逻辑因果句的平均反应时(m=828.85ms)比有标识语的实据因果句的平均反应时(m=730.42 ms)略长,但是根据配对样本t检验的结果(t=-0.791,p=0.264)来看,两种因果句在加工反应时上并没有显著的差异。根据实验的数据,本研究得出了如下两点结论:(1)三种不同类型的汉语因果句在加工反应时上存在差异。逻辑因果句的加工反应时比实据因果句的加工反应时短。但实据因果句中的标识语有利于对实据因果句的识解,因而能缩短实据因果句的加工反应时。(2)本研究结果证实了廖巧云(2011)提出的因果句的识解机理的合理性。
[Abstract]:The causal relationship is one of the most basic relations between things in the world, and the causal sentence is expressed by means of language. This relationship is the most common way. Although the Chinese sentence has a variety of causal expression, but the most typical Chinese sentence is through "because causality. So." constitute the structure. Although most of theoretical research on pragmatics and cognitive linguistics perspective classify the causal sentence, but they are lack of empirical evidence to show that different types of causal sentences in processing differences. Research on neuro cognitive linguistics, almost did not involve differences between different types of causal sentence processing on the reaction time, and yet from the Perspective of Chinese causal sentences articles. Liao Qiaoyun (2011) discusses the logic of causal constructions and causal evidence structure construal mechanism, but there is still no empirical evidence Support the construal mechanism. Therefore, this research attempts to study three different types of Chinese causal sentences (logical causal sentences, no signs of evidentiality and causal sentences signs evidence causal sentence) difference processing in the reaction time, and further verify the construal mechanism provided by causal sentences Liao Qiaoyun. This study proposes two research questions: 1) three different types of Chinese causal sentences (logical causal sentences, no signs of evidentiality and causal sentences signs evidence causal sentence) whether the reaction time of different processing? 2) Liao Qiaoyun (2011) proposed causal sentences the construal mechanism is reasonable? This study adopts behavioral experiment paradigm. Experimental material is composed of 25 groups of causal sentences which contain 3 groups, used in the first experiment practice mode of materials. Each group of causal sentence contains a causal sentence, a logo According to effect word, a logo and a false evidence of causal sentences. All causal sentences of causal sentences are controlled in length between the 14-20 word.30 from Sichuan foreign language university graduate school graduate students participated in the experiment. In the experiment, all the sentences are presented randomly to the subjects. Then, in 5000 ms, the sentence will automatically disappear. Then, will appear on the screen of a rating scale. The subjects were asked to see a scale as soon as possible according to the corresponding response table. The subjects need to determine whether the sentence can be accepted, then according to the rating table press the corresponding button on the computer keyboard. The results of this study show that in the analysis of the experimental data, (1): the logic of causal sentences and non causal evidence signs in processing reaction time has significant difference (t=-2.912, p=0.008). The logic of causal sentences The average response time (m=828.85 MS) than evidence of causal sentences mean reaction without signs when (m=1108.97 MS) is much shorter. (2) no signs of evidentiality and causal sentences signs evidence causation sentence in the processing reaction time there was significant difference (t=-2.212, p=0.031). No evidence of causal sentences the average response mark language (m=1108.97 MS) than when evidence of causal sentences average response signs when (m=730.42 MS) is much longer. (3) although the average reaction logic of causal sentences when (m=828.85ms) than the average response is evidence of causal sentence signs when (m=730.42 MS) slightly long, but according to the paired sample t test results (t=-0.791, p=0.264), two kinds of causation sentence in the processing reaction time did not significantly differ. According to the experimental data, this study draws the following conclusions: (1) three Chinese cause different types of sentences in the processing reaction time difference ISO. Logic processing reactions of causal sentences than the evidence processing reaction of causal sentences short. But the evidence in causal sentences logo is conducive to the evidence of causation sentence construal, which can shorten the processing time. The reaction confirms causal sentences (2) the results of this study confirmed that Liao Qiaoyun (2011) proposed a causal sentences the general solution of the rationality of mechanism.

【学位授予单位】：四川外国语大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：H146.3

【相似文献】