|
Modern Linguistics 2022
从依存距离最小化看英语花园路径句暂时性歧义的形成
|
Abstract:
本文基于依存语法的框架,从依存距离最小化的角度探索英语花园路径句暂时性歧义的形成原因。利用已有的实验材料,运用计量的研究方法,将依存距离作为测量指标测算了花园路径句中产生暂时性歧义的部分和完整句子的平均依存距离。研究发现,暂时性歧义部分的平均依存距离通常小于整个句子的平均依存距离,证明人们在加工句子的过程中,总是倾向选择依存距离较短的句法结构,直到发现解读无法进行下去时,再重新进行分析,从而走入花园路径。研究结果再一次验证了依存距离最小化是人类语言的普遍规律,这种认知机制能有效减轻工作记忆负担,是“省力原则”的重要体现。
Based on the framework of dependency grammar, this paper explores the reasons for the formation of temporary ambiguity in English garden path sentences from the perspective of dependency distance minimization. Using the available experimental materials, the average dependency distances of the parts of garden path sentences that produce temporary ambiguity and complete sentences were measured using the econometric research method with dependency distance as a measure. The average dependency distance of the temporarily ambiguous part is usually smaller than the average dependency distance of the whole sentence, which proves that people always tend to choose the syntactic structure with shorter dependency distance in processing the sentence, until they find that the interpretation cannot proceed, and then re-analyze it, thus going into the garden path. The results confirm that minimizing the dependency distance minimization (DDM) is a universal rule of human language, and this cognitive mechanism can effectively reduce the burden of working memory, which is an important manifestation of “the principle of least effort”.
[1] | Bever, T.G. (1970) The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structures. In: Hayes, J.R., Ed., Cognition and the Development of Language, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 279-352. |
[2] | 晏小琴. 英语花园路径句加工的定性研究[J]. 外国语言文学, 2008(1): 39-45. |
[3] | 顾琦一, 程秀苹. 中国英语学习者的花园路径句理解——与工作记忆容量和语言水平的相关研究[J]. 现代外语, 2010, 33(3): 297-304+330. |
[4] | 蒋祖康. “花园路径现象”研究综述[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2000(4): 246-252+320. |
[5] | 黄碧蓉. 幽默话语“花园路径现象”的关联论阐释[J]. 外语研究, 2007(6): 25-29. |
[6] | Rah, A. and Adone, D. (2010) Processing of the Reduced Relative Clause versus Main Verb Ambiguity in L2 Learners at Different Proficiency Levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 79-109.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310999026X |
[7] | 卢华萍, 吴明军. 不同句法结构对二语花园路径句重新分析的影响研究[J]. 现代外语, 2021(2): 233-245. |
[8] | Frazier, L. (1987) Sentence Processing: A Tutorial Review. In: Coltheart, M., Ed., Attention and Performance XII: The Psychology of Reading, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, 559-586. |
[9] | Kimball, J. (1973) Seven Principles of Surface Structure Parsing in Natural Language. Cognition, 2, 15-47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(72)90028-5 |
[10] | 赵怿怡, 刘海涛. 歧义结构理解中的依存距离最小化倾向[J]. 计算机工程与应用, 2014, 50(6): 7-10. |
[11] | 刘海涛, 林燕妮. 大数据时代语言研究的方法和趋向[J]. 新疆师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2018(1): 72-83. |
[12] | 李辉, 刘海涛. 基于句法标注语料库的汉语儿童三词句习得研究[J]. 语言文字应用, 2017(1): 107-116. |
[13] | 刘海涛. 依存语法的理论与实践[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2009. |
[14] | 王琳. 汉英语码转换的句法变异问题探索——基于树库的动词句法配价分析[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2014(5): 47-53. |
[15] | Liu, H.T. (2008) Dependency Distance as a Metric of Language Comprehension Difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science, 9, 159-191. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159 |
[16] | 蒋跃, 范璐, 王余蓝. 基于依存树库的翻译语言句法特征研究[J]. 外语教学, 2021(3): 41-46. |
[17] | 梁君英, 刘海涛. 语言学的交叉学科研究:语言普遍性、人类认知、大数据[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2016, 2(1): 108-118. |
[18] | Futrell, R., Mahowald, K. and Gibson, E. (2015) Large-Scale Evidence of Dependency Length Minimization in 37 Languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 10336-10341.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112 |
[19] | 陆前, 刘海涛. 依存距离分布有规律吗?[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2016, 2(4): 63-76. |
[20] | 徐春山, 梁君英. 依存距离最小化是人类语言的普遍规律吗?[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2015, 1(6): 197-199. |
[21] | 王嘉颖. 新世纪国外“花园幽径句”研究综述[J]. 绍兴文理学院学报(哲学社会科学), 2012(6): 71-75. |
[22] | 杜家利, 于屏方. 中国英语学习者花园幽径句错位效应强度研究: 计算语言学视角[J]. 中文信息学报, 2016(6): 100-116. |