) 中国人民大学心理学系, 北京 100872
收稿日期:2019-04-26出版日期:2020-03-25发布日期:2020-01-18通讯作者:张清芳E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn基金资助:* 北京市社会科学基金重点项目(16YYA006);国家自然科学基金面上项目(31471074);中国人民大学科学研究基金项目(中央高校基本科研业务费专项)(18XNLG28);中国人民大学心理系科学研究基金(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助)项目资助Syntactic structure and verb overlap influence the syntactic priming effect in Mandarin spoken sentence production
YU Zhou, ZHANG Qingfang() Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
Received:2019-04-26Online:2020-03-25Published:2020-01-18Contact:ZHANG Qingfang E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 研究中采用启动范式和图片描述任务, 利用句法选择比率和句子产生潜伏期的两个指标, 考察了启动句句法结构、动词是否相同和延时对汉语口语句子产生中句法启动效应的影响。结果发现在选择比率上, 句法结构产生的启动效应随延时变化保持稳定, 由启动句和目标句动词相同导致的启动效应的提高量(词汇增强效应)快速衰退, 首次为句子产生过程的句法选择阶段和计划阶段提供了证据。在句子产生潜伏期上, 仅发现启动句和目标句句法结构相同时缩短了句子产生潜伏期, 这可能是由于启动句句法结构激活水平的提高, 使得说话者在目标句产生的句法计划和选择阶段都更快引起的。选择阶段的加工影响句法选择比率, 而选择阶段和计划阶段共同影响了句子产生的潜伏期, 实验结果支持了两阶段竞争理论的观点。
图/表 9
表1实验关键材料示例
 |
表1实验关键材料示例
| |
图1每个试次的各个刺激呈现顺序和时间
图1每个试次的各个刺激呈现顺序和时间
图2不同启动条件下产生不同句法结构的比例
图2不同启动条件下产生不同句法结构的比例表2实验1以句法选择比率为因变量的LMEM的固定效应
| 自变量 | β | SE | Wald Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | -9.20 | 1.27 | -7.25 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同 | 2.66 | 0.49 | 5.38 | <0.001 |
| 启动类型 | 5.93 | 0.86 | 6.91 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同×启动类型 | -2.02 | 0.29 | -6.88 | <0.001 |
表2实验1以句法选择比率为因变量的LMEM的固定效应
| 自变量 | β | SE | Wald Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | -9.20 | 1.27 | -7.25 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同 | 2.66 | 0.49 | 5.38 | <0.001 |
| 启动类型 | 5.93 | 0.86 | 6.91 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同×启动类型 | -2.02 | 0.29 | -6.88 | <0.001 |
表3实验2不同启动条件下产生DO的比率
| 启动条件 | 延时0 | 延时2 | 延时6 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 动词同 | 动词异 | 动词同 | 动词异 | 动词同 | 动词异 | |
| DO | 0.72 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| PO | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.37 |
表3实验2不同启动条件下产生DO的比率
| 启动条件 | 延时0 | 延时2 | 延时6 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 动词同 | 动词异 | 动词同 | 动词异 | 动词同 | 动词异 | |
| DO | 0.72 | 0.38 | 0.50 | 0.42 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| PO | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.37 |
表4实验2以句法选择为因变量的LEME的固定效应
| 自变量 | β | SE | Wald Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | -4.79 | 0.67 | -7.13 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同 | 1.45 | 0.33 | 4.34 | <0.001 |
| 启动类型 | 3.25 | 0.34 | 9.54 | <0.001 |
| 延时 | 0.85 | 0.19 | 4.56 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同×延时 | -0.36 | 0.11 | -3.18 | 0.001 |
| 延时×启动类型 | -0.64 | 0.11 | -5.75 | <0.001 |
| 启动类型×动词是否相同 | -1.18 | 0.15 | -7.72 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同×延时× 启动类型 | 0.26 | 0.06 | 4.03 | <0.001 |
表4实验2以句法选择为因变量的LEME的固定效应
| 自变量 | β | SE | Wald Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | -4.79 | 0.67 | -7.13 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同 | 1.45 | 0.33 | 4.34 | <0.001 |
| 启动类型 | 3.25 | 0.34 | 9.54 | <0.001 |
| 延时 | 0.85 | 0.19 | 4.56 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同×延时 | -0.36 | 0.11 | -3.18 | 0.001 |
| 延时×启动类型 | -0.64 | 0.11 | -5.75 | <0.001 |
| 启动类型×动词是否相同 | -1.18 | 0.15 | -7.72 | <0.001 |
| 动词是否相同×延时× 启动类型 | 0.26 | 0.06 | 4.03 | <0.001 |
图3词汇增强效应和句法启动效应随延时变化的趋势
图3词汇增强效应和句法启动效应随延时变化的趋势表5实验2以句子产生潜伏期为因变量的混合效应模型的固定效应
| 自变量 | β | SE | df | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | 1592.71 | 239.89 | 461.20 | 6.64 | <0.001 |
| 句法重复 | 251.57 | 146.69 | 424.20 | 1.72 | 0.09 |
| 延时 | 167.77 | 63.52 | 424.20 | 2.64 | 0.009 |
| 动词是否相同 | 277.90 | 146.69 | 424.20 | 1.89 | 0.06 |
| 句法重复×延时 | -98.51 | 40.17 | 424.20 | -2.45 | 0.01 |
| 句法重复×动词是否相同 | -180.27 | 92.78 | 424.20 | -1.94 | 0.05 |
| 延时×动词是否相同 | -109.35 | 40.17 | 424.20 | -2.72 | 0.007 |
| 句法重复×延时×动词是否相同 | 69.72 | 25.41 | 424.20 | 2.74 | 0.006 |
表5实验2以句子产生潜伏期为因变量的混合效应模型的固定效应
| 自变量 | β | SE | df | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | 1592.71 | 239.89 | 461.20 | 6.64 | <0.001 |
| 句法重复 | 251.57 | 146.69 | 424.20 | 1.72 | 0.09 |
| 延时 | 167.77 | 63.52 | 424.20 | 2.64 | 0.009 |
| 动词是否相同 | 277.90 | 146.69 | 424.20 | 1.89 | 0.06 |
| 句法重复×延时 | -98.51 | 40.17 | 424.20 | -2.45 | 0.01 |
| 句法重复×动词是否相同 | -180.27 | 92.78 | 424.20 | -1.94 | 0.05 |
| 延时×动词是否相同 | -109.35 | 40.17 | 424.20 | -2.72 | 0.007 |
| 句法重复×延时×动词是否相同 | 69.72 | 25.41 | 424.20 | 2.74 | 0.006 |
图4实验2中延时、动词是否相同和句法重复对句子产生潜伏期的影响
图4实验2中延时、动词是否相同和句法重复对句子产生潜伏期的影响参考文献 32
| [1] | Barr D. J., Levy R., Scheepers C., & Tily H. J . (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255-278. |
| [2] | Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., & Walker S . (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. ArXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823. |
| [3] | Bernolet S., Collina S., & Hartsuiker R. J . (2016). The persistence of syntactic priming revisited. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 99-116. |
| [4] | Bernolet S., & Hartsuiker R. J . (2010). Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming? Cognition, 114(3), 455-461. |
| [5] | Bock K . (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18(3), 355-387. |
| [6] | Bock K . (1989). Closed-class immanence in sentence production. Cognition, 31(2), 163-186. |
| [7] | Bock K., & Levelt W. J. M . (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In: Gernsbacher, M. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 945-984. |
| [8] | Bock K., & Loebell H . (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition, 35(1), 1-39. |
| [9] | Branigan H. P., Pickering M. J., & Cleland A. A . (1999). Syntactic priming in written production: Evidence for rapid decay. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 635-640. |
| [10] | Cai Z. G., Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . (2012). Mapping concepts to syntax: Evidence from structural priming in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 833-849. |
| [11] | Cai Z. G., Pickering M. J., Yan H., & Branigan H. P . (2011). Lexical and syntactic representations in closely related languages: Evidence from Cantonese-Mandarin bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 65(4), 431-445. |
| [12] | Chang F., Dell G. S., & Bock K . (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113(2), 234-272. |
| [13] | Chang F., Dell G. S., Bock K., & Griffin Z. M . (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 217-230. |
| [14] | Ferreira V. S., & Bock K . (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognition Neuroscience, 21(7-8), 1011-1029. |
| [15] | Hardy S. M., Messenger K., & Maylor E. A . (2017). Aging and syntactic representations: Evidence of preserved syntactic priming and lexical boost. Psychology and Aging, 32(6), 588-596. |
| [16] | Hartsuiker R. J., Bernolet S., Schoonbaert S., Speybroeck S., & Vanderelst D . (2008). Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 214-238. |
| [17] | Huang J., Pickering M. J., Yang J., Wang S., & Branigan H. P . (2016). The independence of syntactic processing in Mandarin: Evidence from structural priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 81-98. |
| [18] | Jaeger T. F . (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434-446. |
| [19] | Kutas M., & Federmeier K. D . (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647. |
| [20] | Levelt W. J. M., & Kelter S . (1982). Surface form and memory in question answering. Cognitive Psychology, 14(1), 78-106. |
| [21] | Levelt W. J. M., Roelofs A., & Meyer A. S . (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-75. |
| [22] | Mahowald K., James A., Futrell R., & Gibson E . (2016). A meta-analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5-27. |
| [23] | Melinger A., & Dobel C . (2005). Lexically-driven syntactic priming. Cognition, 98(1), B11-B20. |
| [24] | Pickering M. J., & Branigan H. P . (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633-651. |
| [25] | Segaert K., Menenti L., Weber K., & Hagoort P . (2011). A paradox of syntactic priming: Why response tendencies show priming for passives, and response latencies show priming for actives. PloS One, 6(10), e24209. |
| [26] | Segaert K., Weber K., Cladder-Micus M., & Hagoort P . (2014). The influence of verb-bound syntactic preferences on the processing of syntactic structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5), 1448-1460. |
| [27] | Segaert K., Wheeldon L., & Hagoort P . (2016). Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 59-80. |
| [28] | Shao J . (2004). Semantic Grammar: A brief introduction. Journal of Jinan University (Humanities and Social Sciences), 26(1), 100-106. |
| [ 邵敬敏 . (2004). “语义语法”说略. 暨南学报(哲学社会科学版), 26(1), 100-106.] | |
| [29] | Xiao R., Mcenery T., & Qian Y . (2006). Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6(1), 109-149. |
| [30] | Yang C. L., Perfetti C. A., & Liu Y . (2010). Sentence integration processes: An ERP study of Chinese sentence comprehension with relative clauses. Brain and Language, 112(2), 85-100. |
| [31] | Yang J., & Zhang Y . (2007). Syntactic priming in sentence production. Advances in Psychological Science, 15(2), 288-294. |
| [ 杨洁, 张亚旭 . (2007). 句子产生中的句法启动. 心理科学进展, 15(2), 288-294.] | |
| [32] | Yang Q., & Zhang Q . (2015). Aging of speech production: Behavioral and neural mechanisms. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(12), 2072-2084. |
| [ 杨群, 张清芳 . (2015). 口语产生中的认知年老化及其神经机制. 心理科学进展, 23(12), 2072-2084.] |
相关文章 1
| [1] | 赵黎明;杨玉芳. 汉语口语句子产生的语法编码计划单元[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(6): 599-613. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4656
