焦点信息的在线加工研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.06.003

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 按照选项语义学理论,焦点的功能在于引出一个与焦点相关的对比语义项(简称对比项)集合。焦点选项理论有没有确切的心理基础,即焦点和对比项的实时加工机制,是本研究所关注的问题。本文从心理语言学视角出发,关注焦点自身的加工优势、对比项的加工机制、对比项的建构模型及不同焦点模态对焦点加工的影响等四个相关问题,结论表明焦点在自身语义深入加工的同时,能够更好地编码、理解和记忆对比项,焦点选项理论在实时加工过程中有确凿可信的证据。随着语用问题成为研究热点,焦点相关问题会越来越受到学界重视,未来研究应深入探讨焦点及对比项加工等一系列问题,特别是其神经认知机制。

关键词: 焦点, 焦点对比项, 焦点敏感算子

Abstract: According to the Alternative Semantics, focus is associated with the presence of a focus alternative set. Whether the presence of focus alternatives has any psychological reality, namely the online processing of focus and its alternatives, is the question addressed here. From a psycholinguistic perspective, the study addresses the following four issues: 1) the processing of foci itself, 2) the processing of focus alternatives, 3) the construction model of focus alternatives, and 4) the processing of different focus markers. The study has demonstrated that the processing of focus brings a deeper encoding of the foci itself and enhances the accessibility of focus alternatives in terms of encoding, comprehension and memory. Further efforts are needed to study the real time issues concerning the processing of focus and alternatives, especially its neurocognitive mechanism.

中图分类号:

H319

汪玉霞, 常辉, 陈莉. 焦点信息的在线加工研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(06): 13-18.

WANG Yuxia, CHANG Hui, CHEN Li. The Online Processing of Focus Information[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(06): 13-18.

参考文献

Almor, A.& P.Eimas. 2008. Focus and noun phrase anaphors in spoken language comprehension [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(2): 201-225.
Beaver, D.& B. Clark. 2008. Sense and Sensitivity: How Focus Determines Meaning [M].Oxford: Blackwell.
Birch, S.L.& S.M. Garnsey. 1995. The effect of focus on memory for words in sentences [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 34:232-267.
Birch, S.L.& K. Rayner. 2010. Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading [J]. Memory & Cognition 38(6): 740-752.
Blok, P.I.& K. Eberle. 1999. What is the alternative? The computation of focus alternatives from lexical and sortal information [A]. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 105-119.
Braun, B.& L. Tagliapietra. 2010. The role of contrastive intonation contours in the retrieval of contextual alternatives [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 25:1024-1043.
Bredart, S.& K. Modolo. 1988. Moses strikes again: Focalization effect on a semantic illusion [J]. Acta Psychologica 67:135-144.
Byram, M., E. Kaiser & M.L. Zubizarreta.2011. Focus facilitation and non-associative sets [A]. In R. Artstein, M. Core, D. Devault, K. Georgila, E. Kaiser & A. Stent (eds.). SemDial 2011: Proceedings of the 15^thWorkshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue [C]. Los Angeles.94-102.
Byram, M.,E. Kaiser & M. Zubizarreta 2013. Focus inhibits Free Associates[R].Columbia, South California: Proceedings of the 26^th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
Carlson, K., C. Clifton & L. Frazier.2009. Nonlocal effects of prosodic boundaries [J]. Memory and Cognition 37: 1014-1025.
Chen, L., X. Li & Y. Yang. 2012. Focus, newness and their combination: processing of information structure in discourse [J/OL]. [2016-09-30]. PloS One 7(8):e42533.
Cowles, H.W., M. Walenski & R. Kluender. 2007. Linguistic and cognitive prominence in anaphora resolution: Topic, Contrastive Focus, and Pronouns [J]. Topoi 26:3-18.
Culter, A.& J. Fodor. 1979. Semantic focus and sentence comprehension [J]. Cognition 7(1):49-59.
Erickson, T.D.& M.E. Mattson. 1981. From words to meaning: a semantic illusion [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 20:540-551.
Fauconnier, G. 1975. Pragmatic scales and logical structure [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 6:353-375.
Filik, R., K. Paterson & S. Liversedge. 2005. Parsing with focus particles in context: eye movements during the processing of relative clause ambiguities [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 53: 473-495.
Filik, R., K. Paterson & S. Liversedge. 2009. The influence of only and even on online semantic interpretation [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16(4): 678-683.
Fraundorf, S.H., D.G. Watson & A.S. Benjamin.2010. Recognition memory reveals just how CONTRASTIVE contrastive accenting really is [J]. Journal of Memory and Language63: 367-386.
Fraundorf, S.H., A.S. Benjamin & D.G. Watson.2013. What happened (and what did not): Discourse constraints on encoding of plausible alternatives [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 69:196-227.
Foraker, S.& B. McElree. 2007. The role of prominence in pronoun resolution: Active versus passive representations [J]. Journal of Memory & Language 56:357-383.
Gotzner, N., K. Spalek & I. Wartenburger. 2013a. How focus particles like ‘only' hamper the rejection of contrastive alternatives [R]. Columbia, South California:Proceedings of the 26^th Conference on Human Sentence Processing.
Gotzner, N., K. Spalek & I. Wartenburger.2013b. How pitch accents and focus particles affect the recognition of contextual alternatives [R].Berlin: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2013).
Gundel, J.K. 1999. On different kinds of focus [A]. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.).Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.293-305.
Horn, L.R. 1989. A natural history of negation[M]. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Husband, E.M. & F. Ferreira. 2012. Generating contrastive alternatives: Activation and suppression mechanisms[R]. New York, NY: Proceedings of the 25^th CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference.
Kay, P. 1990. Even [J]. Linguistics & Philosophy13:59-111.
Klin, C.M., K.M. Weingartner,A.E.Guzman & W.H. Levine. 2004. Reader's sensitivity to linguistic cues in narratives: how salience influences anaphor resolution [J]. Memory & Cognition 32:511-522.
Kim, C.,C. Gunlogson, M. Tanenhaus & J. R. Runner. 2015. Context-driven expectations about focus alternatives [J]. Cognition 139: 28-49.
König, E. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective [M]. London: Routledge.
Krifka, M. 2007. Basic notions of information structure [A]. In C. Fery, G. Fanselow & M. Krifka (eds.).Interdisciplinary Studies of Information Structure 6 [C]. Postdam: Universita?tsverlag Potsdam. 13-56.
Kristensen, L.B., L. Wang, K.M.Petersson & P. Hagoort.2013. The interface between language and attention: Prosodic focus marking recruits a general attention network in spoken language comprehension [J]. Cerebral Cortex 23:1836-1848.
Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational Phonology [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, E.Y.& D. Watson. 2011. Effects of pitch accents in attachment ambiguity resolution[J]. Language and Cognitive Process 26(2):262-297.
Moravcsik, J.E.& A.F. Healy. 1998. Effect of syntactic role and syntactic prominence on letter detection [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5:96-100.
Paterson, K., S. Liversedge,R. Filik, B. Juhasz, S. White & K. Rayner. 2007. Focus identification during sentence comprehension: evidence from eye movements [J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(10):1423-1445.
Rooth, M. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation [J]. Natural Language Semantics(1): 75-116.
Sanford, A.J.S., A.J. Sanford, J. Molle & C. Emmott.2006. Shallow processing and attention capture in written and spoken discourse [J]. Discourse Processes 42:109-130.
Sanford, A.J.S.,J. Price & A.J. Sanford. 2010. Enhancement and suppression effects resulting from information structure in sentence [J]. Memory & Cognition 37(6):880-888.
Schafer, A., J. Carter, C. Clifton & L. Frazier. 1996. Focus in relative clause construal [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes11(1/2):135-163.
Schafer, A., K. Carlson, C. Clifton & L. Frazier. 2000. Focus and the interpretation of pitch accent: disambiguation embedded questions[J]. Language and Speech 43(1):75-105.
Spalek, K., N. Gotzner & I. Wartenburger. 2014. Not only the apples: Focus sensitive particles improve memory for information-structural alternatives[J]. Journal of Memory and Language 70:68-84.
Steedman, M. 2000. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface[J]. Linguistic Inquiry 31:649-689.
Sturt, P., A. J. Sanford,A. Stewart & E. Dawydiak. 2004. Linguistic focus and good-enough representations: An application of the change-detection paradigm[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11: 882-888.
Van Deemter, K. 1999. Contrastive stress, contrariety, and focus[A]. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (eds.).Focus: Linguistic, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-16.
Wang, L., P. Hagoort & Y. Yang. 2009. Semantic illusion depends on information structure: ERP evidence[J]. Brain Research 1282:50-56.
Wang, L., M.Bastiaansen, Y. Yang & P. Hagoort. 2011. The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect[J]. Neuropsychologia49(5): 813-820.
Wang, L., M.Bastiaansen,Y. Yang & P. Hagoort. 2012. Information structure influences depth of syntactic processing: Event-related potential evidence for the Chomsky illusion [J/OL].[2016-10-09]. PLoS One 7(10): e47917.
Ward, P.& P. Sturt. 2007. Linguistic focus and memory: An eye movement study [J]. Memory & Cognition 35:73-86.
Zwaan, R.A.& G.A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory [J]. Psychological Bulletin 123:162-185.
陈莉. 2016.现代汉语否定词的句法语义研究 [M]. 上海:学林出版社.
袁毓林.2008.反预期、递进关系和语用尺度的类型——“甚至”和“反而”的语义功能比较 [J]. 当代语言学10(2):109-121.

[1]	徐斌. 高校外语课程思政中的国家意识培育[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	苗兴伟. 新文科背景下师范类院校外语专业人才培养体系建设[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	屈文生. 新文科理念下的新时代高等外语教育意象——以“大外语”等命题为中心[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	常辉. 新文科背景下上海交通大学英语专业改革与人才培养探索[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	纪秀明, 曾春葙. 新文科视域下外语学科改革的几个平衡点与适度性问题[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	徐鹰, 毕宇, 章雅青. 《词汇和专门用途英语研究:定量和定性视角》评介[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	郭鸿杰, 张达球, 丁冬. 一体三通,融创合一:新文科背景下财经类高校外语人才培养模式创新[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	潘海英, 刘淑玲. 新文科建设背景下大学外语课程创新发展的若干思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	马炳军, 常辉. 汉语二语句法加工研究:理论与实验[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	陶继芬. POA“读说”模式英语口语课堂教学设计[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	李建波, 张格堃. 文化观念和文学典籍交相辉映——《文化观念流变中的英国文学典籍研究》评述[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	田秘, 赵永峰. 概念整合理论的批评认知语言学阐释——以“the *ly challenged”委婉构式为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	杨港, 彭楠. 数字时代高校外语教材研究的自传式叙事范式[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	黄立鹤. 多模态范式与后疫情时代的外语教学[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	郑咏滟. 后疫情时代的多语研究:反思与展望[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.