Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/134079
題名: 以眼動追蹤技術探討閱讀中文把字句與被字句的處理歷程
The online processing of Bǎ/Bèi construction in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from eye movements of sentence reading
作者: 蔡旭容
Tsai, Hsu-Jung
貢獻者: 蔡介立
Tsai, Jie-Li
蔡旭容
Tsai, Hsu-Jung
關鍵詞: 把字句
被字句
眼動閱讀
施事者優先
有生性
日期: 2021
上傳時間: 2-Mar-2021
摘要: 以競爭模型為基礎的許多研究顯示,語意是中文重要的語言線索,幫助讀者指派語意角色給句中論元,達到語意理解的目的。論元擴展依存模型則描繪出語意關係建立的時序,指出語意角色指派的歷程存在於論元之間,在不同階段使用不同語意線索建立出句子的整體語意。\n過去的研究發現,在處理「名詞—名詞—動詞」句型時,與處理一般簡單句「名詞—動詞—名詞」句型時不同,採用的是「受事者優先」偏好;此外,相對於介詞「被」,「把」對其後的論元名詞具生命性與否的約束強度較弱。然而,近年有研究指出,在處理和「名詞—名詞—動詞」同為動詞在後結構的把字句和被字句時,「施事者優先」的偏好仍然存在,且中文讀者在處理這兩種句式時有相似的眼動表現。因此本論文將透過兩個眼動閱讀實驗,操弄句首論元有生性、句式和介詞後論元有生性,探討這些因素對「施事者優先」偏好的影響,以及對介詞後論元有生性的約束情形。\n實驗結果顯示,在閱讀把字句時,效率優於被字句,且句首論元的有生性不影響把字句的閱讀處理效率。此外,句首論元為生命體時會對被字句產生干擾,顯示符合典型施事特徵的生命體將會強化「施事者優先」的預期。介詞後論元的有生性並不影響把字句與被字句的閱讀處理效率,顯示當介詞提早將論元的語意角色確立後,介詞後論元的有生性對眼動表現沒有影響。整體而言,中文句子的閱讀處理符合擴展論元依存模型,「施事者優先」則是中文讀者的語意角色指派偏好。
參考文獻: 參考文獻\n中央研究院(2017)。中研院現代漢語平衡語料庫4.0,網址:http://asbc.iis.sinica.edu.tw,檢索年月:2020年7月。\n王力(1984)。王力文集第一卷:中國語法理論。山東:山東教育出版社。\n朱德熙(1982)。語法講義。北京:商務印書館。\n吳靜蘭(2007)。角色指稱語法簡介。語言暨語言學,8(1),5-70。\n呂叔湘(1999)。現代漢語八百詞增訂本。北京:商務印書館。\n柯華葳、陳明蕾與廖家寧(2005)。詞頻、詞彙類型與眼球運動型態:來自篇章閱讀的證據。中華心理學刊,47(4),381-398。doi:10.6129/CJP.2005.4704.06\n張伯江(2000)。論“把”字句的句式語義。語言研究,1,28-40。\n張伯江(2001)。被字句和把字句的對稱與不對稱。中國語文,6,519-524。\n張伯江(2002)。施事角色的語用屬性。中國語文,6, 483-574。\n張伯江(2007)。施事和受事的語義語用特徵及其在句式中的實現(博士論文)。復旦大學,上海。\n張育慈(2017)。語義及句法對西班牙語及中文母語人士在中文理解的影響(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,台北市。\n湯廷池(1986)。國語語法與功用解釋:兼談國語與英語功用語法的對比分析。師大學報,31,437-469。\n劉月華、潘文娛與故韡(2007)。實用現代漢語語法(增訂本)。北京:商務印書館。\n蔡介立(2000)。從眼動控制探討中文閱讀的線索處理歷程:應用眼動誘發呈現技術之系列研究(博士論文)。國立政治大學,台北市。\n蔡介立、顏妙璇與汪勁安(2005)。眼球移動測量即在中文閱讀研究之應用。應用心理研究,28, 91-104。\n繆小春、陳國鵬與應厚昌(1984)。詞序和詞義在漢語語句理解中的作用再探。心理科學,6,1-7。\nBader, M. M., Michael. (1999). Subject-Object Ambiguities in German Embedded Clauses: An Across-the-Board Comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28(2), 121-143.\nBates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01\nBates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. Macwhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157-193). London and New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.\nBates, E., & Macwhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing, 3, 73-112.\nBates, E., McNew, S., Macwhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11, 245-299.\nBencini, G. M., Pozzan, L., Biundo, R., McGeown, W. J., Valian, V. V., Venneri, A., & Semenza, C. (2011). Language-specific effects in Alzheimer’s disease: Subject omission in Italian and English. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(1), 25-40.\nBever, T. G. (1974). The ascent of the specious, or there’s a lot we don’t know about mirrors. In D. Cohen (Ed.), Explaining linguistic phenomena (pp. 173-200). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.\nBock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 47-67.\nBornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787-821. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787\nBranigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172-189. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003\nChao, Y. R. (1968). A grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.\nComrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago press.\nCooper, R. M. (1974). The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: A new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 173-200.\nFillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (pp. 1-88). London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.\nFoley, W. A., & Van Valin, J. R. D. (1977). On the organization of "subject" properties in universal grammar. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 3, 293-320. doi:10.3765/bls.v3i0.3297\nFrazier, L., & Flores D’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28(3), 331-344. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90037-5\nGerwien, J. (2019). The interpretation and prediction of event participants in Mandarin verb-final active and passive sentences. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 3(2), 257-283. doi:10.1007/s41809-019-00049-x\nGerwien, J., & Xi, K. (2017). Predicting object states in Mandarin Chinese- insights from the bǎ-construction. In Poster presented at the 30th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing, March 30–April 1.\nGibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1-76.\nGibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & O. O`Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium (pp. 95-126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press\nGorell, P. (1996). Parsing theory and phrase-order variation in German V2 clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25(1), 135-156.\nGrewe, T., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Zysset, S., Wiese, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity. Neuroimage, 35(1), 343-352. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.045\nHemforth, B., Konieczny, L., Scheepers, C., & Strube, G. (1998). Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution In German. Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective,31, 293-312\nHolcomb, P. J., & Neville, S. A. C. J. (1992). Visual and Auditory Sentence Processing: A Developmental Analysis Using Event-Related Brain Potentials. Developmental Neuropsychology, 8(2-3), 203-241.\nHuang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children`s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4). doi:10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.002\nInhoff, A. W., & Liu, W. (1998). The perceptual span and oculomotor activity during the reading of Chinese sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 20-34.\nInhoff, A. W., & Radach, R. (1998). Definition and computation of oculomotor measures in the study of cognitive processes. In G. Underwood (Ed.), Eye guidance in reading and scene perception (pp. 29-53). Oxford: Elsevier\nKeenan, E. (1976). Towards a universal definition of “subject”. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics: Subject and Topic (pp. 303–333). New York: Acadamic Press.\nLaPolla, R. J. (1993). Arguments against ‘subject’ and ‘direct Object’ as Viable Concepts in Chinese. Chung Yang Yen Chiu Yuan Li Shih Yu Yen Yen Chiu So Chi K`an /Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology Academia Sinica, 63(4). 1-35.\nLaPolla, R. J. (1995). Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word order in discourse(pp. 297-329). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.\nLaPolla, R. J. (2009). Chinese as a topic-comment (not topic- prominent and not SVO) language. In J. Xing (Ed.), Studies of Chinese Linguistics: Functional Approaches (pp. 9-22). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.\nLee, M.-W. (2004). Another Look at the Role of Empty Categories in Sentence Processing (and Grammar). Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(1), 51-73.\nLi, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1974). An explanation of word order change SVO→SOV. Foundations of Language, 12(2), 201-214.\nLi, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar (Vol. 3). Berkley: University of California Press.\nLi, P., Bates, E., Liu, H., & Macwhinney, B. (1992). Cues as functional constraints on sentence processing in Chinese. Language processing in Chinese, 90, 207-234.\nLi, P., Bates, E., & Macwhinney, B. (1993). Processing a language without inflection: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 169-192.\nLi, X.-Q., Zhao, H.-Y., Zheng, Y.-Y., & Yang, Y.-F. (2015). Two-stage interaction between word order and noun animacy during online thematic processing of sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(5), 555-573. doi:10.1080/23273798.2014.954590\nMacWhinney, B. (1978). The Acquisition of Morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 43(1/2), 1-123.\nMacwhinney, B., Bach, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 127-150. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(84)90093-8\nMacWhinney, B., Pléh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 178-209. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(85)90007-6\nMcDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003a). Eye movements reveal the\non-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological\nScience, 14, 648–652.\nMcDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003b). Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research, 43, 1735–1751.\nMetzner, P., Von Der Malsburg, T., Vasishth, S., & Rösler, F. (2017). The importance of reading naturally: Evidence from combined recordings of eye movements and electric brain potentials. Cognitive Science, 41, 1232-1263. doi:10.1111/cogs.12384\nMiao, X., & Zhu, M. (1992). Language Development in Chinese Children. In C. Hsuan Chih & T. Ovid J.L. (Eds.), Language processing in Chinese (pp. 237-276). Amsterdam: Elsevier science publishers\nMichael, E. B., Keller, T. A., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (2001). fMRI investigation of sentence comprehension by eye and by ear: modality fingerprints on cognitive processes. Human Brain Mapping, 13(4), 239-252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.103\nPenolazzi, B., De Vincenzi, M., Angrilli, A., & Job, R. (2005). Processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity in Italian "who"-questions: a study with event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 377(2), 91-96. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.11.074\nPhilipp, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Bisang, W., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 105(2), 112-133. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.005\nRayner, K. (1977). Visual attention in reading: Eye movements reflect cognitive processes. Memory & Cognition, 5(4), 443-448.\nRayner, K. (1998). Eye Movementsin Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 372-422.\nRayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506. doi:10.1080/17470210902816461\nRichardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Spivey, M. J. (2007). Eye movements in language and cognition: a brief introduction. In G.-M. M., M. I., C. S., & S. M. J. (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 323-344). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.\nSchlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Krems, J. (2000). The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing (Vol. 24, pp. 65-93). Dordrecht: Springer.\nSun, C.-F., & Givón, T. (1985). On the so-called sov word order in Mandarin Chinese: a quantified text study and its implications. Language, 61(2), 329-351.\nTai, J. H. (1973). Chinese as a SOV language. Chicago Linguistic Society, 9, 659-671.\nTzeng, C.-C. (2005). Cultural representations of the passive voice and the Mandarin Bei-construction in L1 and L2 corpora. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 15(2), 89-101.\nVan Valin, J. R. D. (1981). Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language, 5(3), 361-394.\nVan Valin, J. R. D. (1999). Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface. Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics, 2, 373-389.\nVan Valin, J. R. D. (2005). A Summary of Role and Reference Grammar. Retrieved from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~rrgpage/rrg/RRGsummary.pdf\nVan Valin, J. R. D., & LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\nWang, L. (2011). The influence of animacy and context on word order processing: Neurophysiological evidence from Mandarin Chinese. (Doctoral dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences Leipzig).\nWang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Bickel, B., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7-8), 1180-1226. doi:10.1080/01690960802159937\nWang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Philipp, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2012). The role of animacy in online argument interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. In M. Lamers & P. d. Swart (Eds.), Case, word, order and prominence (pp. 91-119). Dordrecht: Springer\nYan, G., Tian, H., Bai, X., & Rayner, K. (2006). The effect of word and character frequency on the eye movements of Chinese readers. British Journal of Psychology, 97(2), 259-268. doi:10.1348/000712605X70066\nYang, H.-M., & McConkie, G. W. (1999). Reading Chinese: Some basic eye-movement characteristics. In J. Wang, A. W. Inhoff, & H. C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 207-222). New Jersey: Erlbaum.\nZang, C., Fu, Y., Bai, X., Yan, G., & Liversedge, S. P. (2018). Investigating word length effects in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1831-1841.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
106161003
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1061610031
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
003101.pdf3.04 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.