期刊文献+

形态表征的分支方向与结构性歧义词的解读偏向 被引量:1

Branching directions of morphological representation and the interpretation bias of structurally ambiguous words
原文传递
导出
摘要 英语形态结构的分支方向凌乱复杂,而结构性歧义词清楚地展示了词汇内部形态层级结构与词汇语义间的对应关系。本研究调查了中国英语学习者对un-V-a-ble格式结构性歧义词的形态表征和歧义解读特点。结果显示:两方面均存在强烈的右分支偏向,歧义解读过程遵循顺序通达模型。整体解读能力与英语水平呈正相关,但始终达不到母语者水平,因为中国英语学习者的形态表征系统不完善,制约了形态分析与计算的灵活性和多向性。 The branching direction of English morphology is rather messy. However, structurally ambiguous words clearly illustrate the correspondence between different hierarchical structures of their internal morphological components and different lexical semantics. The present study investigates the features of Chinese EFL learners' morphological representation and interpretation of the structurally ambiguous words. The results show that they hold a strong right-branching bias in both morphological representations and interpretations of ambiguity, which follows the Ordered-Access Model. Chinese EFL learners' interpretation ability is positively correlated to the general TL proficiency, but it never becomes native-like due to their incomplete morphological representation system, which in turn constrains their flexibility and multi-directionality in morphological parsing and computing.
作者 韩百敬 薛芬
出处 《外语教学与研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第5期728-737,801,共10页 Foreign Language Teaching and Research
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

  • 1Berg, T. 2003. Right-branching in English derivational morphology [J]. English Language and Linguistics 7: 279-307.
  • 2de Almeida, R. & G. Libben. 2005. Changing morphological structures: The effect of sen-tence context on the interpretation of structurally ambiguous English trimorphemic Words [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 20: 373-394.
  • 3Duffy, S. , R. Morris & K. Rayner. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 429-446.
  • 4Klinge, A. 1997. Modality, and morphology: The case of -able [A]. In C. Bache & A.Klinge (eds.?. Sounds, Structures and Senses [C]. Odense , Odense University Press. 171-187.
  • 5Libben, G. 2003. Morphological parsing and morphological structure [A]. In A. Egbert & D. Sandra Ceds.). Reading Complex Words [C]. Amsterdam: Kluwer. 221-239.
  • 6Libben, G. 2006. Getting at psychological reality: On- and off-line tasks in the investigation of hierarchical morphological structure [A]. In G. Wiebe, G. Libben, T. Priestly, R. Smyth&H. S. Wang Ceds.). Phonology, Morphology, and the Empir-ical Imperative: Papers in Honour of Bruce L. Derwing [C]. Taipei: Crane Publishing. 235-255.
  • 7Lieber, R. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics [M]. Cambridge: CUP.
  • 8Lucas, M. 1987. Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence context [J]. Language and Speech 30: 25-46.
  • 9Pollatsek , A. , D. Drieghe, L. Stockall & R. de Almeida. 2010. The interpretation of am-biguous trimorphemic words in sentence context [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17: 88-94.
  • 10Rayner, K., K. Binder & S. Duffy. 1999. Contextual strength and the subordinate bias effect: Comment on Martin, Vu, Kellas, and Metcalf [J]. Quarterly Journal of Exper-imental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology 52: 841-852.

二级参考文献14

  • 1陈新仁.词汇阻遏现象的顺应性阐释[J].外语学刊,2007(1):80-86. 被引量:41
  • 2Chwilla, D. & H. Kolk. 2003. Event-related potential and reaction time evidence for inhibition between alternative meanings of ambiguous words [J]. Brain and Language 86: 167-192.
  • 3Duffy, S., R. Morris & K. Rayner. 1988. Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 27: 429-446.
  • 4Elston-Guttler, K. &A. Friederici. 2005. Native and L2 processing of homonyms in sentential context [J].Journal of Memory and Language 52: 256- 283.
  • 5Frenck-Mestre, C. & P. Prince. 1997. Second language autonomy [J]. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 481-501.
  • 6Gernsbacher, M. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building[M].Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • 7Glucksberg, S., R. Kreuz&S. Rho. 1986. Context can constrain lexical access: Implications for models of language comprehension [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology : Learning, Memory, and Cognition 12: 323-335.
  • 8Love, T., E. Maas&D. Swinney. 2003. The influence of language exposure on lexical and syntactic language processing [J].Experimental Psychology 50 : 204-216.
  • 9Lucas, M. 1987. Frequency effects on the processing of ambiguous words in sentence context [J]. Language and Speech 30: 25-46.
  • 10Simpson, G. & G. Kellas. 1989. Dynamic contextual processes and lexical access [A]. In D. Gorfein (ed.). Resolving Semantic Ambiguity [C]. New York: Springer. 40-56.

共引文献47

同被引文献4

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部