|題名: ||The Basic Units Processed in the Discourse-Based and Non-Discourse-Based Texts under the Constraints of Working Memory|
Dennis Dong-Bo Hsu
|貢獻者: ||萬依萍 博士|
Dr. I-PING WAN
Dennis Dong-Bo Hsu
|上傳時間: ||2009-09-14 12:59:07 (UTC+8)|
|摘要: ||當我們在處理語句的訊息時，即使接收到的訊息是處於一種模糊不清的狀態之下，我們仍然可以藉由語境或者是儲存在長期記憶中的知識表徵來幫助我們理解語句。然而，在可以被視為一般語句處理的篇章中以及去除儲存在長期記憶的知識表徵的非篇章段落中的基本的言語的處理單位，甚少被提及。在本文中，我們將探討在兩種韻律結構的篇章語句以及非篇章為主的言語基本處理單位為何。 接著，我們將用具有心理實證的語句基本單位檢視詞彙學派以及範疇學派在句法分析上所使用的初始單位，探討哪一個學派的句法分析同時具有理論性以及實證性的證據支持。此外，經由探究韻律結構、詞語分斷之間的互動，來檢驗語言以及句法的獨立性假說。更進一步的，我們比較男女之間，對於語句提取的效率是否存有差異。分別有六男、六女，共十二名的大學生參與這次的實驗。實驗的材料是由實驗者將兩種韻律結構的篇章以及非篇章的段落分別錄音之後，讓受試者對所聽到的語句，做斷詞的工作。我們使用分斷派典以及統計考驗，來驗證本文中提出的各個假說。結果發現，在相似於我們一般說話語句的篇章中，基本處理的言語單位是詞，而在去除韻律結構以及分篇章為主的段落中，處理的基本言語單位是音節。這樣的結果符合工作記憶模式的預測。另外，詞彙學派的句法分析得到了理論上及實證上的支持。構詞、音韻、句法、以及長期記憶中的知識表徵，應該被視為是一個整體，而非句法、語言是獨立於整個認知系統之外的。至少，在本文中，利用語句產生證據來看，是反駁這個觀點的。大體上，男女之間對於語句處理的基本單位是沒有差別的，但似乎女孩子在語句產出時，更依賴韻律結構存在的與否。作者在文中提出了社會語言學的解釋。由本文可以得知，在語句產出的證據看來，詞彙句法學派得到了理論上及實證上的支持。語言是和整個認知系統互動的一種機制。而男女在提取言語單位上的效率並無不同。|
It is widely accepted that the routine of the perceptual processing of ongoing speech can be comprehended even in a degraded quality through the aid of the context or real-world knowledge stored in LTM. However, the basic units processed in the discourse-based text that can be recognized as the normal sentential input and those processed in the non-discourse-based text which removes the contribution of the knowledge representation stored in LTM are not yet investigated. In this study the basic units processed in these two textual patterns were discovered. The basic unit processed in normal prosodic, discourse-based text was employed to resolve the controversy between lexicalists’ and categorical syntacticians’ primitives of syntactic analyses. In addition, purposes of the interaction between prosodic patterns, namely the prosodic pattern, prosody-free pattern and the syntactic segmentation were examined to testify the autonomy hypotheses whether they gain the support from the speech production. Furthermore, the retrieval efficiency between genders were analyzed as well to investigate whether different genders employed different retrieval efficiency in different textual and prosodic patterns. 12 undergraduate students, six male and six female students participated in the two experiments. Discourse-based texts with two prosodic patterns and non-discourse-based pattern were recorded in the auditory form to conduct the experiments. Segmentation paradigm and statistical analysis were used to make the production analyses. Results indicated that a word is the basic unit processed in the prosodic, discourse-based text while a syllable is the basic unit processed in the prosody-free discourse-based text and non-discourse-based text which confirms to the prediction of WM model. The evidence favors lexicalists’ primitive of syntactic analysis psychologically. The cooperation between morphology, syntax, phonology and knowledge representations in general cognitive system argues against the autonomy hypotheses. Language should be recognized as a submechanism embedded in the cognitive system. The results suggested that, in general, there was no difference between genders but it seemed that female subjects tended more to rely on phonological cues. A plausible sociolinguistic reason was proposed. The results suggest that lexicalists’ primitive for syntactic analysis has theoretical as well as psychological support. In speech production, language seems to interact with other cognitive mechanisms rather than isolate to form an independent, self-contained domain. No retrieval difference exists between genders.
|參考文獻: ||Adams, A.M., & S.E. Gathercole. (1995). Phonological working memory and speech production in preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38 (2), 403-414.|
Adams, A. M., & S.E. Gathercole. (1996). Phonological working memory and spoken language development in you ng children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A (1), 216-233.
Atkinson, R. C., & R. M. Shiffrin. (1968). Human Memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence and J. T. Spence (Eds.) The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. II. New York: Academic Press. 89-195.
Baddeley, A. D.(1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Baddeley A. D. & G. J. Hitch. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.) The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 8, pp 47-90). New York: Academic Press.
Baddely, A. D., N. Thompson., & M. Buchanan. (1975). Word length and the structure of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 575-589.
Barrett, M. (1989). Early language development. In A. Slater & G. Bremner (Eds.), Infant development. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd.
Beckman, H. B. & R. M. Frankel. (1984). The effect of physician behaviour on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine, 101, 692-6.
Beebe-Center, J. G., M. S. Rogers., & D. N. O’Connell. (1955). Trasmission of information about sucrose and saline solutions through the sense of taste. Journal of Psychology, 39, 157-160.
Beech, C. M. (1991). The interpretation of prosodic patterns at points of syntactic structural ambiguity: Evidence for cue trading relations. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 644-663.
Blake, J. et al. (1994). The relationship between memory span and measures of imitative and spontaneous language complexity in preschool children. International Journal of Behavioural Development, 17 (1), 91-107.
Brown, R. A. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chomksy, Noam. (1957). Syntactic structures. Uanua Linguarum Series Minor 4. The Hague: Mouton.
Chomsky, Noam (1972). Language and mind. Enlarged edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Chomsky, Noam. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, Noam. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Craik, F. I. M., & R. S. Lockhart, (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal behavior, 20, 641-655.
Craik, F. I. M., & P. A. Masani, (1969). Age and Intelligence differences in coding and retrieval of word lists. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 315-319.
Craik, F.I.M., R.G. Morris., & M.L. Gick. (1990). Adult age differences in working memory. In G. Vallar, & T. Shallice (Eds.), Neuropsychological impairments of short-term memory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William (1995). Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71: 490-532.
Crystal, D. (1982). Profiling linguistic disability. London: Edward Arnold.
Crystal, D., P. Fletcher. , & M. Garman. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability: A procedure for assessment and remediation. London: Edward Arnold.
Dai, Xiang-lin. (1992). Chinese morphology and its interface with the syntax. Ohio State University dissertation. Ann Arbor: UMI.
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93 (3), 283-321.
Fodor, Jerry A. (1983). The Modality of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Frazier, L., & J. D. Fodor. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291-325.
Garner, W. R. (1953). An informational analysis of absolute judgments of loudness. Journal of Experimental Psychology., 46, 373-380.
Garrett, M. F., T. G. Bever., & J. Fodor. (1966). The active use of grammar in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 1, 30-32.
Gathercole, S. E. & A. D. Baddeley. (1993). Working Memory and language. LEA: UK.
Gleason, J. B. & N. B. Ratner. (1993). Psycholinguistics. Harcourt: USA.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds). Syntax and Semantics, Vol 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Hebb (1961). Distinctive features of learning in the higher animals. In J. F. Delafresnaye (Ed.), Brain mechanisms and learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hauson, M. D., N. Chomaky., & W. T. Fitch. (2002). The Faculty of Language: what is it, who has it, and how did evolve? Science, 298, 1569-1579.
Hopper, Paul J. (1988). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139-157.
Hsu Dong-bo. (2002). Working memory as a constraint on Chinsese sentential processing. Paper for the 10th International Conference on Cognitive Processing of Chinese and Related Asian Languages. December 9-11, NTU, Taipei.
Hulme, C., S. Maughan., & G. D. A. Brown. (1991). Memory for familiar and unfamiliar words: Evidence for a long-term memory contribution to short-term memory span. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 685-701.
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Katamba, F. (1993). Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klapp, S. T. (1976). Short-term memory as a response preparation state. Memory and Cognition, 4, 721-729.
Labov, William (1966). The linguistic variable as a structural unit. Washingrton Linguistics Review 3: 4-22.
Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. (1991). Cognitive versus generative linguistics: how commitments influence results. Language and Communication, 11, 53-62.
Langacker, R. W. (1987a). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
Li and Thompson. (2000). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Crane: Taipei.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marks, L. E., & G. A. Miller. (1964). The role of semantic and syntactic constraints in the memorization of English Sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 1-5.
Marslen-Wison, W. D. (1975). Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science, 189, 226-228.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & L. K. Tyler. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., & A. Welsh. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. New York: Harvard University Press.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
Morton. J. (1970). A functional model for memory. In D. A. Norman (Ed.), Models of human memory. New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, (1-2, Serial No. 149).
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998). Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Onifer, W., & D. Swinney, (1981). Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: Effects of frequency-of-meaning and contextual bias. Memory and Cognition, 9, 225-236.
Pollack, I. (1952). The information of elementary auditory displays. Journal of Acoustics., Soc. Amer., 24, 745-749.
Pollack, I., & J. M. Pickett. (1963). The intelligibility of excerpts from conversation. Language and Speech, 28, 165-171.
Potter, M. C. & L. Lombardi. (1990). Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 633-654.
Potter, M. C. (1993). Very short-term conceptual memory. Memory and Cognition, 21, 156-161.
Radford, R. (1998). Syntax---A minimalist introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salthouse, T.A. et al. (1989). Effects of adult age and working memory on reasoning and spatial abilities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 15, 507-516.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Cognitive Psychology. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swinney, D., (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.
Tang Ting-chi. (1993). Hanyu cifa jufa sanji. Taiwan: Student Bookstore.
Tang Ting-chi. (1995a). Hanyude ci: ciyude fenduan. Renwun ji shehuei xueke jiaoxu tongxun, Vol 6, 2, 95-117.
Tang Ting-chi. (1995b). The ‘Generalized’ X-bar conventions and word- formation typology. Renwen ji shehuei xueke jiaoxu tongxun, Vol 5, 1, 225-263.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1996). Hanyude ci: ziyouyu yu nianzhouyude huafen. Hanxu yanjiu, Vol 14, 2, 187-239.
Tang, Ting-chi. (1999). Hanya fuheci yanjiu. Hawen shijie, 91, 20-31.
Tannen, D. (1990a). Gender difference in topical coherence: creating involvement in best friends’ talk. Discourse Process, 13 (1), 73-90.
Tannen, D. (1990b). You just don’t understand. New York: William Morrow.
Ted, S., S. Joost, & S. Wibert. (Eds). (2001). Text representation: linguistic and psychological aspects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Van der Linden, M., S. Bregart., & A. Beerton. (1994). Age related differences in updating working memory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 145-152.
Waugh, N. C., & D. A. Norman. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89-104.
Wingfield, A., & B. Butterworth. (1984). Running memory for sentences and parts of sentences: Syntactic parsing as a control function in working memory. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wingfield, A. (1975). The intonation-syntax interaction: prosodic features in perceptual processing of sentences. In A. Cohen & S.G. Nooteboom (Eds.), Structure and process in speech perception. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Zheng, Li-ling (2001). The correlation studies between the subcomponents of working memory model and Mandarin Reading. MA thesis of Graduate Institute of Primary Education at National Tai-Tung Normal College. Unpblished
Zhou, Yu-Chin (周裕欽).(1999). The related research between working memory and Mandarin Reading (The linkage of the theory of working memory model and the capacity theory of comprehension). MA thesis of Graduate Institute of Primary Education at National Tai-Tung Normal College. Unpblished.