汉语委婉语识解机制的ERP研究
发布时间：2018-09-11 06:58
【摘要】：委婉语现象十分普遍,应用领域广泛。从十六世纪开始,国内外许多学者对委婉语做了大量研究。学者们主要从定义、历史文化背景、社会心理、分类、构成方式、语用、认知、英汉对比等角度,对委婉语做了详细深入研究。前人的研究成果丰硕,极具参考价值,但是也有不足之处,如重复现象较普遍,研究问题不深入等;国外有学者就委婉语做过实证研究,但都是英文材料,且仅局限于英语国家。廖巧云(2015)提出“内涵外延关联传承模型”理论,已有文章用ERP技术,从汉语反语、转喻、隐喻、双关、夸张等角度,来验证汉语语义修辞识解机制的“内涵外延关联传承模型”,证明了这些汉语修辞的识解过程存在“可能性特征提取的心理现实性”,但是还没有文章从汉语委婉修辞的角度对该理论进行论证。本文研究问题为:汉语委婉语识解过程中是否存在“可能性特征提取的心理现实性”?本文将利用ERP技术来探讨汉语委婉修辞的识解机制并为其提供证据。本实验采用单因素三水平被试内设计(关键句类型:委婉句、直义句和无关句),精心选取30组句子作为实验材料,其中两组为练习材料,选取24名四川外国语大学研究生作为被试。实验过程为:首先呈现语境句,然后呈现关键句(委婉句、直义句或者无关句),随后呈现关键词,被试要判断关键词真假,最后呈现陈述句,被试要判断该陈述句与语境句和关键句的意思是否相符。本实验在四川外国语大学外语学习认知神经实验室完成。使用E-prime2.0软件对实验材料和过程进行设计编程,用Neruoscan4.5和Syn Amps2对行为数据和脑电数据进行采集,最后使用SPSS16.0对ERP数据进行重复测量方差分析,配对样本T检验等统计分析。本实验研究结果如下:(1)测探词的反应时在无关句条件下最长,平均值为1052.53毫秒,其次为委婉句,平均值为915.69毫秒,探测词在直义句条件下的反应时最短,平均值为906.14毫秒;直义句与委婉句条件下探测词真假判断的反应时差异不显著[t(18)=.110,p=.915.05];直义句与无关句条件下探测词真假判断的反应时差异显著[t(18)=-1.185,p=.041.05];委婉句与无关句条件下探测词真假判断的反应时差异显著[t(18)=-1.325,p=.028.05]。(2)N100和N400的平均波幅:无关句条件下探测词真假判断引起的N100和N400平均波幅最大,其次为委婉句,最后为直义句,两两对比差异显著;P200的平均波幅:直义句条件下探测词真假判断引起的P200平均波幅最大,其次为委婉句,最后为无关句,两两对比差异显著。(3)委婉句和直义句条件下探测词真假判断引发的N100波幅在右中央区差异显著[t(18)=-2.331,p=.040.05];直义句和无关句条件下探测词真假判断引发的N100波幅在左顶区[t(18)=2.837,p=.016.05]和中部顶区[t(18)=2.393,p=.036.05]差异显著。(4)委婉句和无关句条件下探测词真假判断引发的P200波幅在右顶区差异显著[t(18)=3.024,p=.012.05];直义句和无关句条件下探测词真假判断引发的P200波幅在左中央区[t(18)=2.573,p=.026.05]、中部中央区[t(18)=2.579,p=.026.05]、右额区[t(18)=2.564,p=.026.05]、右顶区[t(18)=3.383,p=.006.05]、中部顶区[t(18)=3.493,p=.005.05]以及中部额区[t(18)=2.411,p=.035.05]差异显著。(5)直义句和无关句条件下探测词真假判断引发的N400波幅在左中央区[t(18)=2.227,p=.048.05]差异显著。(6)常用委婉表达已经成为一种常规表达,他们的识解过程与直义表达差异已经不显著了,因为直义表达不常见,人们反而会觉得奇怪。本研究得出以下结论:汉语委婉语的识解促进了对探测词真假的判断,并存在“可能性特征提取”的过程。本研究为汉语委婉语的识解存在“可能性特征提取”的过程提供了证据,从委婉语角度验证并支持廖巧云(2015)提出的修辞话语识解框架,即内涵外延关联-传承模型。
[Abstract]:Since the sixteenth century, many scholars at home and abroad have done a lot of research on euphemism, mainly from the perspectives of definition, historical and cultural background, social psychology, classification, composition, pragmatics, cognition, English-Chinese comparison and so on. Liao Qiaoyun (2015) put forward the theory of "connotation-extension-relevance-inheritance model". Some articles have used ERP technology, from Chinese irony to Chinese irony, to turn it into English. From the perspectives of metaphor, metaphor, pun and exaggeration, this paper tries to verify the "connotation-extension-relevance-inheritance model" of the Chinese semantic rhetoric interpretation mechanism, and proves that there is a "psychological reality of possibilistic feature extraction" in the process of Chinese rhetoric interpretation. However, no article has demonstrated this theory from the perspective of Chinese euphemism. In this study, 30 groups of Chinese euphemisms were carefully selected by using a single factor and three-level design (key sentence types: euphemism, direct sentences and irrelevant sentences). Sentences were used as experimental materials. Twenty-four postgraduates from Sichuan Foreign Studies University were selected as subjects. The experiment was conducted by presenting contextual sentences first, then key sentences (euphemism, literal sentences or irrelevant sentences), and then key words. Subjects were asked to judge whether the key words were true or false, and then declarative sentences were presented. This experiment was carried out in the Cognitive Neurology Laboratory of Foreign Language Learning, Sichuan Foreign Language University. The experimental materials and procedures were designed and programmed with E-prime 2.0 software. Neruoscan 4.5 and Syn Amps 2 were used to collect behavior data and EEG data, and SPSS16.0 was used to collect ERP data. The results of this experiment are as follows: (1) The response time of detective words is the longest under the condition of irrelevant sentences, with an average of 1052.53 ms, followed by euphemism, with an average of 915.69 Ms. The response time of detective words is the shortest under the condition of direct sentences, with an average of 906.14 Ms. There was no significant difference in the reaction time of detecting words'true and false judgments under euphemism conditions [t (18) = 110, P =. 915.05]; there was significant difference in the reaction time of detecting words' true and false judgments under direct meaning and irrelevant sentences [t (18) = - 1.185, P =. 041.05]; there was significant difference in the reaction time of detecting words'true and false judgments between euphemism and irrelevant sentences [t (18) = - 1.325, P =. 028.05]. (2) N100 and N40. Average amplitude of 0: the average amplitude of N100 and N400 is the largest under the condition of irrelevant sentences, followed by euphemism, and finally direct sentences, the difference between the two is significant; the average amplitude of P200 is the largest under the condition of direct sentences, followed by euphemism, and finally irrelevant sentences. The difference was significant. (3) The N100 amplitude caused by the detection of true and false words in euphemism and literal sentences was significantly different in the right central region [t (18) = - 2.331, P =. 040.05]; the N100 amplitude caused by the detection of true and false words in literal and irrelevant sentences was significantly different in the left top region [t (18) = 2.837, P =. 016.05] and the middle top region [t (18) = 2.393, P =. 036.05]. There was a significant difference in the amplitude of P200 between euphemisms and irrelevant sentences [t (18) = 3.024, P =.012.05]; the amplitude of P200 caused by detective verbs was in the left central region [t (18) = 2.573, P =.026.05], the central region [t (18) = 2.579, P =.026.05], and the right frontal region [t (18) = 2.564, P =.026.05]. There were significant differences in the right parietal region [t (18) = 3.383, P =.006.05], the middle parietal region [t (18) = 3.493, P =.005.05] and the central frontal region [t (18) = 2.411, P =.035.05]. (5) The N400 amplitude triggered by the true and false judgment of the probing words in the direct and irrelevant sentences was significantly different in the left central region [t (18) = 2.227, P =.048.05]. This study concludes that the understanding of Chinese euphemisms promotes the judgment of the truth and falsehood of the detected words, and there is a process of "possibilistic feature extraction". The process of possibilistic feature extraction provides evidence to verify and support the rhetorical discourse interpretation framework proposed by Liao Qiaoyun (2015) from the perspective of euphemism.
【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】：2017
【分类号】：H136
本文编号：2235948
[Abstract]:Since the sixteenth century, many scholars at home and abroad have done a lot of research on euphemism, mainly from the perspectives of definition, historical and cultural background, social psychology, classification, composition, pragmatics, cognition, English-Chinese comparison and so on. Liao Qiaoyun (2015) put forward the theory of "connotation-extension-relevance-inheritance model". Some articles have used ERP technology, from Chinese irony to Chinese irony, to turn it into English. From the perspectives of metaphor, metaphor, pun and exaggeration, this paper tries to verify the "connotation-extension-relevance-inheritance model" of the Chinese semantic rhetoric interpretation mechanism, and proves that there is a "psychological reality of possibilistic feature extraction" in the process of Chinese rhetoric interpretation. However, no article has demonstrated this theory from the perspective of Chinese euphemism. In this study, 30 groups of Chinese euphemisms were carefully selected by using a single factor and three-level design (key sentence types: euphemism, direct sentences and irrelevant sentences). Sentences were used as experimental materials. Twenty-four postgraduates from Sichuan Foreign Studies University were selected as subjects. The experiment was conducted by presenting contextual sentences first, then key sentences (euphemism, literal sentences or irrelevant sentences), and then key words. Subjects were asked to judge whether the key words were true or false, and then declarative sentences were presented. This experiment was carried out in the Cognitive Neurology Laboratory of Foreign Language Learning, Sichuan Foreign Language University. The experimental materials and procedures were designed and programmed with E-prime 2.0 software. Neruoscan 4.5 and Syn Amps 2 were used to collect behavior data and EEG data, and SPSS16.0 was used to collect ERP data. The results of this experiment are as follows: (1) The response time of detective words is the longest under the condition of irrelevant sentences, with an average of 1052.53 ms, followed by euphemism, with an average of 915.69 Ms. The response time of detective words is the shortest under the condition of direct sentences, with an average of 906.14 Ms. There was no significant difference in the reaction time of detecting words'true and false judgments under euphemism conditions [t (18) = 110, P =. 915.05]; there was significant difference in the reaction time of detecting words' true and false judgments under direct meaning and irrelevant sentences [t (18) = - 1.185, P =. 041.05]; there was significant difference in the reaction time of detecting words'true and false judgments between euphemism and irrelevant sentences [t (18) = - 1.325, P =. 028.05]. (2) N100 and N40. Average amplitude of 0: the average amplitude of N100 and N400 is the largest under the condition of irrelevant sentences, followed by euphemism, and finally direct sentences, the difference between the two is significant; the average amplitude of P200 is the largest under the condition of direct sentences, followed by euphemism, and finally irrelevant sentences. The difference was significant. (3) The N100 amplitude caused by the detection of true and false words in euphemism and literal sentences was significantly different in the right central region [t (18) = - 2.331, P =. 040.05]; the N100 amplitude caused by the detection of true and false words in literal and irrelevant sentences was significantly different in the left top region [t (18) = 2.837, P =. 016.05] and the middle top region [t (18) = 2.393, P =. 036.05]. There was a significant difference in the amplitude of P200 between euphemisms and irrelevant sentences [t (18) = 3.024, P =.012.05]; the amplitude of P200 caused by detective verbs was in the left central region [t (18) = 2.573, P =.026.05], the central region [t (18) = 2.579, P =.026.05], and the right frontal region [t (18) = 2.564, P =.026.05]. There were significant differences in the right parietal region [t (18) = 3.383, P =.006.05], the middle parietal region [t (18) = 3.493, P =.005.05] and the central frontal region [t (18) = 2.411, P =.035.05]. (5) The N400 amplitude triggered by the true and false judgment of the probing words in the direct and irrelevant sentences was significantly different in the left central region [t (18) = 2.227, P =.048.05]. This study concludes that the understanding of Chinese euphemisms promotes the judgment of the truth and falsehood of the detected words, and there is a process of "possibilistic feature extraction". The process of possibilistic feature extraction provides evidence to verify and support the rhetorical discourse interpretation framework proposed by Liao Qiaoyun (2015) from the perspective of euphemism.
【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】：2017
【分类号】：H136
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 龙娟;;性别差异的社会调查——以委婉语的使用为例[J];海外英语;2015年12期
2 徐盛桓;;因果蕴涵与婉曲话语的生成[J];外语教学与研究;2015年03期
3 姚吉刚;;顺应论视角下的英汉委婉语对比研究[J];广东工业大学学报(社会科学版);2013年05期
4 黄丽君;;委婉表达的认知机制新解[J];当代外语研究;2010年12期
5 傅琳;;试论英语委婉语语用功能及语言等级[J];广东外语外贸大学学报;2008年05期
6 周福娟;汤定军;;英语委婉语概念的转喻认知理据[J];外语学刊;2008年05期
7 罗俊龙;邱江;怀章翠;张庆林;;句子加工水平上判断任务的脑机制[J];西南大学学报(自然科学版);2008年06期
8 邵军航;;委婉语的定义[J];黄石理工学院学报(人文社会科学版);2008年03期
9 袁秀凤;;人向着死亡的存在与语言——委婉禁忌语的最根本心理机制初探[J];外国语言文学;2006年03期
10 黎昌抱,吴锋针;英汉“死亡”委婉语对比研究[J];西安外国语学院学报;2005年01期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 刘倩;委婉表达新论[D];河南大学;2013年
相关硕士学位论文 前7条
1 乔tR;汉语转喻识解中可能性特征提取的ERPs研究[D];四川外国语大学;2016年
2 谭志鹏;基于ERPs技术的汉语双关修辞识解机制的实证研究[D];四川外国语大学;2016年
3 曹湘洁;汉语反语心物随附性主特征提取的ERPs研究[D];四川外国语大学;2016年
4 广露;基于ERPs的汉语实据因果句的认知加工机制研究[D];四川外国语大学;2015年
5 朱霞;假装理解的ERP研究[D];西南大学;2012年
6 王瑜;英语委婉语使用中性别差异的一项实证调查[D];安徽师范大学;2007年
7 张艳敏;论性别差异在中美大学生委婉语使用中的映射[D];东南大学;2006年
，本文编号：2235948
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenyilunwen/yuyanyishu/2235948.html
