语义分解性在惯用语理解中的作用
|
摘要
惯用语是比喻性语言的一种。语义分解性的作用是惯用语理解机制争论的焦点。通过语义启动任务,探究了汉语动宾结构的惯用语和偏正结构的惯用语的意义理解模式,揭示语义分解性在短的SOA(300ms)和长的SOA(800ms)下的作用。结果发现,语义分解性独立地影响惯用语的意义激活:当SOA短时,语义高分解的两类惯用语均表现出显著的字面义激活效应;当SOA长时,语义低分解的偏正结构的惯用语的意义激活的正确率优势明显。同时,两类惯用语的语义分解性不同导致了语义激活启动效应的差异:当SOA短时,语义低分解的动宾结构的惯用语存在两种意义的激活效应,语义高分解的动宾结构的惯用语和偏正结构的惯用语存在字面义的激活效应;当SOA长时,语义低分解的动宾结构的惯用语存在两种意义的激活效应,语义高分解的偏正结构的惯用语存在比喻义的激活效应。研究证实语义分解性在惯用语加工早期即发挥作用,在加工晚期,语义高分解的动宾结构的惯用语的多种意义同时激活削弱了两种意义的启动优势。整个研究结果支持惯用语理解的混合表征模型和层级显性意义假说。
Idiomatic expressions are widely used as one of figurative languages when people sensed that idiom contained more than its surface meaning. For a long time, researchers have done a lot of work studying the mechanism of processing idioms, and two models were proposed: noncompositional model and compositional model. Those two models, however, can only explain one aspect of processing idioms. Therefore, hybrid model (Cutting & Bock, 1997) came into being in explaning how people process idioms: top-down process and bottom-up process co-exist. Compositionality was introduced in psycholinguistics by Gibbs and his colleagues (Gibbs, Nayak, & Cutting, 1989), and later developed into the so-called idiom semantic decomposition hypothesis, which made great contribution to generating hybrid model. According to this view, idioms are at least partly decomposable, and speakers have shared intuitions about how the meanings of the parts contribute to the idiomatic meaning. The degree of analyzability determines the access of idioms’ figarative meaning. During recent years, semantic analyzability has become very popular among psycholinguists, and the claims of the idiom semantic decomposition hypothesis are now widely accepted (Libben & Titone, 2008). Some questions remain unsettled, however, including: (1) whether semantic decomposability affects understanding idioms independently; (2) if so, how semantic decomposability affects it; (3) whether semantic decomposition hypothesis is suitable in processing Chinese modifier-noun structure; (4) which model can be applied in accessing Chinese three-character idioms.The present study tried to answer those questions by exploring semantic priming task to investigate how Chinese three-character idioms with verb-object structure and with modifier-noun structure were processed. We intended to reveal the role semantic decomposability played in processing idioms in early (SOA=300ms in Experiment 1) and later (SOA=800ms in Experiment 2) period. The results showed that semantic decomposability affected semantic activation independently. In early period, as to high decomposable idioms with verb-object structure and with modifier-noun structure, we found significant activation in their literal meanings; on the other hand, in later period, as to low decomposable idioms with modifier-noun structure, we found significant accuracy in activating literal and figurative meanings. The results also showed that the degree of semantic decomposability resulted in different effects of semantic priming. In early period, as to low decomposable idioms with verb-object structure, we found significant activation in both literal and figurative meanings, and we found activation in literal meanings when idioms with verb-object structure and with modifier-noun structure were high decomposable. In later period, significant activation in both literal and figurative meanings was found in low decomposable idioms with verb-object structure. But significant activation in figurative meanings was only found in high decomposable idioms with modifier-noun structure. These results supported the notion that semantic decomposability plays a role in processing idioms in early period; while in later period, as to high decomposable idioms with verb-object structure, the simultaneous activation of literal and figuratvie meanings weakens the advantage of semantic priming. So we made conclusions that (1) semantic decomposability independently affects understanding idioms; (2) figurative meanings are activated more easily when idioms are low semantic decomposable; whereas literal meanings tend to be easily activated when idioms are high semantic decomposable; (3) the privilege of activation in literal meaning exists in processing idioms. All those results partly support the Graded Salience Hypothesis and hybrid hypothesis.
Idiomatic expressions are widely used as one of figurative languages when people sensed that idiom contained more than its surface meaning. For a long time, researchers have done a lot of work studying the mechanism of processing idioms, and two models were proposed: noncompositional model and compositional model. Those two models, however, can only explain one aspect of processing idioms. Therefore, hybrid model (Cutting & Bock, 1997) came into being in explaning how people process idioms: top-down process and bottom-up process co-exist. Compositionality was introduced in psycholinguistics by Gibbs and his colleagues (Gibbs, Nayak, & Cutting, 1989), and later developed into the so-called idiom semantic decomposition hypothesis, which made great contribution to generating hybrid model. According to this view, idioms are at least partly decomposable, and speakers have shared intuitions about how the meanings of the parts contribute to the idiomatic meaning. The degree of analyzability determines the access of idioms’ figarative meaning. During recent years, semantic analyzability has become very popular among psycholinguists, and the claims of the idiom semantic decomposition hypothesis are now widely accepted (Libben & Titone, 2008). Some questions remain unsettled, however, including: (1) whether semantic decomposability affects understanding idioms independently; (2) if so, how semantic decomposability affects it; (3) whether semantic decomposition hypothesis is suitable in processing Chinese modifier-noun structure; (4) which model can be applied in accessing Chinese three-character idioms.The present study tried to answer those questions by exploring semantic priming task to investigate how Chinese three-character idioms with verb-object structure and with modifier-noun structure were processed. We intended to reveal the role semantic decomposability played in processing idioms in early (SOA=300ms in Experiment 1) and later (SOA=800ms in Experiment 2) period. The results showed that semantic decomposability affected semantic activation independently. In early period, as to high decomposable idioms with verb-object structure and with modifier-noun structure, we found significant activation in their literal meanings; on the other hand, in later period, as to low decomposable idioms with modifier-noun structure, we found significant accuracy in activating literal and figurative meanings. The results also showed that the degree of semantic decomposability resulted in different effects of semantic priming. In early period, as to low decomposable idioms with verb-object structure, we found significant activation in both literal and figurative meanings, and we found activation in literal meanings when idioms with verb-object structure and with modifier-noun structure were high decomposable. In later period, significant activation in both literal and figurative meanings was found in low decomposable idioms with verb-object structure. But significant activation in figurative meanings was only found in high decomposable idioms with modifier-noun structure. These results supported the notion that semantic decomposability plays a role in processing idioms in early period; while in later period, as to high decomposable idioms with verb-object structure, the simultaneous activation of literal and figuratvie meanings weakens the advantage of semantic priming. So we made conclusions that (1) semantic decomposability independently affects understanding idioms; (2) figurative meanings are activated more easily when idioms are low semantic decomposable; whereas literal meanings tend to be easily activated when idioms are high semantic decomposable; (3) the privilege of activation in literal meaning exists in processing idioms. All those results partly support the Graded Salience Hypothesis and hybrid hypothesis.
引文
Anaki,D.,Faust,M.,&Kravetz,S.(1998).Cerebralhemispheric asymmetries in processing lexical metaphors.Neuropsychologia,36,353–362.
Arnon,I.,&Snider,N.(2010).More than words:Frequencyeffects for multi-word phrases.Journal of Memory andLanguage,62,67–82.
Bannard,C.,&Matthews,D.(2008).Stored word sequencesin language learning:The effect of familiarity on children’srepetition of fourword combinations.Psychological Science,19,241–248.
Beijing Language Institute.(1986).Modern Chinese frequencydictionary.Beijing:Beijing Language Institute Press.[北京语言学院语言教学研究所.(1986).现代汉语频率词典.北京:北京语言学院出版社.]
Cacciari,C.,&Tabossi,P.(1988).The comprehension ofidioms.Journal of Memory and Language,27,668–683.
Cain,K.,Towse,A.S.,&Knight,R.S.(2009).Thedevelopment of idiom comprehension:An investigation ofsemantic and contextual processing skills.Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology,102,280–298.
Callies,S.,&Butcher,K.(2007).Processing of idiomaticexpressions:Evidence for a new hybrid view.Metaphor&Symbol,22,79–108.
Cie licka,A.B.,&Heredia,R.R.(2011).Hemisphericasymmetries in processing L1and L2idioms:Effects ofsalience and context.Brain&Language,116,136–150.
Chiarello,C.,Liu,S.,Shears,C.,Quan,N.,&Kacinik,N.(2003).Priming of strong semantic relations in the left andright visual fields:A time-course investigation.Neuropsychologia,41,721–732.
Cutting,J.C.,&Tabossi,P.(1997).That’s the way the cookiebounces:Syntactic and semantic components ofexperimentally elicited idiom blends.Memory&Cognition,25,57–71.
Faust,M.,&Kahana,A.(2002).Priming summation in thecerebral hemispheres:Evidence from semanticallyconvergent and semantically divergent primes.Neuropsychologia,40,892–901.
Faust,M.,&Mashal,N.(2007).The role of the right cerebralhemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressionstaken from poetry:A divided visual field study.Neuropsychologia,45,860–870.
Gibbs,R.W.Jr,Bogdanovich,J.M.,Sykes,J.R.,&Barr,D.J.(1997).Metaphor in idiom comprehension.Journal ofMemory and Language,37,141–154.
Gibbs,R.W.Jr,Nayak,N.P.,Bolton,J.L.,&Keppel,M.E.(1989).Speakers’assumptions about the lexical flexibilityof idioms.Memory&Cognition,17,58–68.
Gibbs,R.W.Jr,Nayak,N.P.,&Cutting,C.(1989).How tokick the bucket and not decompose:Analyzability andidiom processing.Journal of Memory&Language,28,576–593.
Giora,R.(1997).Understanding figurative and literallanguage:The graded salience hypothesis.CognitiveLinguistics,8,183–206.
Glucksberg,S.,Brown,M.,&McGlone,M.S.(1993).Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessedduring idiom comprehension.Memory&Cognition,21,711–719.
Gu,B.Y.,&Miao,X.C.(1995).Research of Chinese idiom.Acta Psychologica Sinica,27,15–19.[顾蓓晔,缪小春.(1995).汉语习语理解研究.心理学报,27,15–19.]
Hamblin,J.L.,&Gibbs,R.W.Jr.(1999).Why you can’t kickthe bucket as you slowly die:Verbs in idiomcomprehension.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,28,2539.
Kacinik,N.A.,&Chiarello,C.(2007).Understandingmetaphors:Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved?Brain and Language,100,188207.
Keysar,B.,&Bly,B.M.(1999).Swimming against thecurrent:Do idioms reflect conceptual structure.Journal ofPragmatics,31,1559–1578.
Konopka,A.E.,&Bock,J.K.(2009).Lexical or syntacticcontrol of sentence formulation?Structural generalizationsfrom idiom production.Cognitive Psychology,58,68–101.
Li,X.J.(2001).Modern Chinese idioms standard ditionary.Changchun:Changchun Press.[李行健.(2001).现代汉语惯用语规范词典.长春:长春出版社.]
Libben,M.R.,&Titone,D.A.(2008).The multideterminednature of idiom processing.Memory&Cognition,36,1103–1121.
Liu,Y.Y.,Li,P.,Shu,H.,Zhang,Q.R.,&Chen,L.(2010).Structure and meaning in Chinese:An ERP study of idioms.Journal of Neurolinguistics,23,615–630.
Ma,L.J.,&Zhang,J.J.(2011).Semantic attributes and theirinterrelationship of Chinese three-character idioms.AppliedLinguistics,(1),64–72.[马利军,张积家.(2011).汉语三字格惯用语的语义性质及其关系.语言文字应用,(1),64–72.]
Ma,L.J.,Zhang,J.Y.,&Zhang,J.J.(2010).The multiplepsychological mechanisms of idiomatic phrases processing.Advances in Psychological Science,18,553–559.[马利军,张静宇,张积家.(2010).惯用语理解的多种心理机制.心理科学进展,18,553–559.]
Nenonen,M.,Niemi,J.,&Laine,M.(2002).Representationand processing of idioms:Evidence from aphasia.Journalof Neurolinguistics,15,43–58.
Nippold,M.A.,Martin,S.A.,&Erskine,B.J.(1988b).Proverb comprehension in context:A developmental studywith children and adolescents.Journal of Speech andHearing Research,31,19–28.
Nunberg,G.,Sag,I.,&Wasow,T.(1994).Idioms.Language,70,491–538.
Peterson,R.R.,&Burgess,C.(1993).Syntactic and semanticprocessing during idiom comprehension:Neurolinguisticand psycholinguistic dissociations.In C.Cacciari&P.Tabossi(Eds.),Idioms:Processing,Structure,andInterpretation(pp.201–226).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Shi,H.J.(2007).The study on the Chinese tri-syllable idioms.Unpublished master’s dissertation,Shanghai NormalUniversity.[史海菊.(2007).现代汉语三音节惯用语问题研究.硕士学位论文,上海师范大学.]
She,X.J.,Song,G.,&Zhang,B.Y.(2000).The effects ofpredictability and semantic bias in idiom comprehension.Acta Psychologica Sinica,32,203–209.[佘贤君,宋歌,张必隐.(2000).预测性、语义倾向性对惯用语理解的影响.心理学报,32,203–209.]
Smolka,E.,Rabanus,S.,&R sler,F.(2003).Processingverbs in German idioms:Evidence against theconfiguration hypothesis.Metaphor and Symbol,22,213–231.
Sprenger,S.A.,Levelt,W.J.M.,&Kempen,G.(2006).Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases.Journal of Memory&Language,54,161–184.
Su,X.L.(2008).An analysis of the grade in the lexicalizationof the three-syllable idioms in mandarin Chinese.LanguageTeaching and Linguistic Studies,(5),62–69.[苏向丽.(2008).现代汉语惯用语的词汇化等级分析.语言教学与研究,(5),62–69.]
Tabossi,P.,Fanari,R.,&Wolf,K.(2005).Spoken idiomrecognition:Meaning retrieval and word expectancy.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,34,465–495.
Tabossi,P.,Fanari,R.,&Wolf,K.(2008).Processingidiomatic expressions:Effects of semantic compositionality.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,&Cognition,34,313–327.
Tabossi,P.,Fanari,R.,&Wolf,K.(2009).Why are idiomsrecognized fast?Memory&Cognition,37,529–540.
Tabossi,P.,Wolf,K.,&Koterle,S.(2009).Idiom syntax:Idiomatic or principled?Journal of Memory and Language,61,77–96.
Titone,D.A.,&Connine,C.M.(1994).Descriptive norms for171idiomatic expressions:Familiarity,compositionality,predictability,and literality.Metaphor&Symbolic Activity,9,247–270.
Titone,D.A.,&Connine,C.M.(1999).On the compositionaland noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions.Journal of Pragmatics,31,1655–1674.
Vulchanova,M.,Vulchanova,V.,&Stankova,M.(2011).Idiom comprehension in the first language:Adevelopmental study.Vigo International Journal of AppliedLinguistics,(8),207–234.
Zhang,J.J.,&Shi,Y.C.(2009).The production mechanismof Chinese idioms.Acta Psychologica Sinica,41,659–675.[张积家,石艳彩.(2009).汉语惯用语的产生机制.心理学报,41,659–675.]
Zhou,H.M.(1990).Chinese idioms dictionary.Beijing:TheCommercial Press.[周宏溟.(1990).汉语惯用语词典.北京:商务印书馆.]
Arnon,I.,&Snider,N.(2010).More than words:Frequencyeffects for multi-word phrases.Journal of Memory andLanguage,62,67–82.
Bannard,C.,&Matthews,D.(2008).Stored word sequencesin language learning:The effect of familiarity on children’srepetition of fourword combinations.Psychological Science,19,241–248.
Beijing Language Institute.(1986).Modern Chinese frequencydictionary.Beijing:Beijing Language Institute Press.[北京语言学院语言教学研究所.(1986).现代汉语频率词典.北京:北京语言学院出版社.]
Cacciari,C.,&Tabossi,P.(1988).The comprehension ofidioms.Journal of Memory and Language,27,668–683.
Cain,K.,Towse,A.S.,&Knight,R.S.(2009).Thedevelopment of idiom comprehension:An investigation ofsemantic and contextual processing skills.Journal ofExperimental Child Psychology,102,280–298.
Callies,S.,&Butcher,K.(2007).Processing of idiomaticexpressions:Evidence for a new hybrid view.Metaphor&Symbol,22,79–108.
Cie licka,A.B.,&Heredia,R.R.(2011).Hemisphericasymmetries in processing L1and L2idioms:Effects ofsalience and context.Brain&Language,116,136–150.
Chiarello,C.,Liu,S.,Shears,C.,Quan,N.,&Kacinik,N.(2003).Priming of strong semantic relations in the left andright visual fields:A time-course investigation.Neuropsychologia,41,721–732.
Cutting,J.C.,&Tabossi,P.(1997).That’s the way the cookiebounces:Syntactic and semantic components ofexperimentally elicited idiom blends.Memory&Cognition,25,57–71.
Faust,M.,&Kahana,A.(2002).Priming summation in thecerebral hemispheres:Evidence from semanticallyconvergent and semantically divergent primes.Neuropsychologia,40,892–901.
Faust,M.,&Mashal,N.(2007).The role of the right cerebralhemisphere in processing novel metaphoric expressionstaken from poetry:A divided visual field study.Neuropsychologia,45,860–870.
Gibbs,R.W.Jr,Bogdanovich,J.M.,Sykes,J.R.,&Barr,D.J.(1997).Metaphor in idiom comprehension.Journal ofMemory and Language,37,141–154.
Gibbs,R.W.Jr,Nayak,N.P.,Bolton,J.L.,&Keppel,M.E.(1989).Speakers’assumptions about the lexical flexibilityof idioms.Memory&Cognition,17,58–68.
Gibbs,R.W.Jr,Nayak,N.P.,&Cutting,C.(1989).How tokick the bucket and not decompose:Analyzability andidiom processing.Journal of Memory&Language,28,576–593.
Giora,R.(1997).Understanding figurative and literallanguage:The graded salience hypothesis.CognitiveLinguistics,8,183–206.
Glucksberg,S.,Brown,M.,&McGlone,M.S.(1993).Conceptual metaphors are not automatically accessedduring idiom comprehension.Memory&Cognition,21,711–719.
Gu,B.Y.,&Miao,X.C.(1995).Research of Chinese idiom.Acta Psychologica Sinica,27,15–19.[顾蓓晔,缪小春.(1995).汉语习语理解研究.心理学报,27,15–19.]
Hamblin,J.L.,&Gibbs,R.W.Jr.(1999).Why you can’t kickthe bucket as you slowly die:Verbs in idiomcomprehension.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,28,2539.
Kacinik,N.A.,&Chiarello,C.(2007).Understandingmetaphors:Is the right hemisphere uniquely involved?Brain and Language,100,188207.
Keysar,B.,&Bly,B.M.(1999).Swimming against thecurrent:Do idioms reflect conceptual structure.Journal ofPragmatics,31,1559–1578.
Konopka,A.E.,&Bock,J.K.(2009).Lexical or syntacticcontrol of sentence formulation?Structural generalizationsfrom idiom production.Cognitive Psychology,58,68–101.
Li,X.J.(2001).Modern Chinese idioms standard ditionary.Changchun:Changchun Press.[李行健.(2001).现代汉语惯用语规范词典.长春:长春出版社.]
Libben,M.R.,&Titone,D.A.(2008).The multideterminednature of idiom processing.Memory&Cognition,36,1103–1121.
Liu,Y.Y.,Li,P.,Shu,H.,Zhang,Q.R.,&Chen,L.(2010).Structure and meaning in Chinese:An ERP study of idioms.Journal of Neurolinguistics,23,615–630.
Ma,L.J.,&Zhang,J.J.(2011).Semantic attributes and theirinterrelationship of Chinese three-character idioms.AppliedLinguistics,(1),64–72.[马利军,张积家.(2011).汉语三字格惯用语的语义性质及其关系.语言文字应用,(1),64–72.]
Ma,L.J.,Zhang,J.Y.,&Zhang,J.J.(2010).The multiplepsychological mechanisms of idiomatic phrases processing.Advances in Psychological Science,18,553–559.[马利军,张静宇,张积家.(2010).惯用语理解的多种心理机制.心理科学进展,18,553–559.]
Nenonen,M.,Niemi,J.,&Laine,M.(2002).Representationand processing of idioms:Evidence from aphasia.Journalof Neurolinguistics,15,43–58.
Nippold,M.A.,Martin,S.A.,&Erskine,B.J.(1988b).Proverb comprehension in context:A developmental studywith children and adolescents.Journal of Speech andHearing Research,31,19–28.
Nunberg,G.,Sag,I.,&Wasow,T.(1994).Idioms.Language,70,491–538.
Peterson,R.R.,&Burgess,C.(1993).Syntactic and semanticprocessing during idiom comprehension:Neurolinguisticand psycholinguistic dissociations.In C.Cacciari&P.Tabossi(Eds.),Idioms:Processing,Structure,andInterpretation(pp.201–226).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associates.
Shi,H.J.(2007).The study on the Chinese tri-syllable idioms.Unpublished master’s dissertation,Shanghai NormalUniversity.[史海菊.(2007).现代汉语三音节惯用语问题研究.硕士学位论文,上海师范大学.]
She,X.J.,Song,G.,&Zhang,B.Y.(2000).The effects ofpredictability and semantic bias in idiom comprehension.Acta Psychologica Sinica,32,203–209.[佘贤君,宋歌,张必隐.(2000).预测性、语义倾向性对惯用语理解的影响.心理学报,32,203–209.]
Smolka,E.,Rabanus,S.,&R sler,F.(2003).Processingverbs in German idioms:Evidence against theconfiguration hypothesis.Metaphor and Symbol,22,213–231.
Sprenger,S.A.,Levelt,W.J.M.,&Kempen,G.(2006).Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases.Journal of Memory&Language,54,161–184.
Su,X.L.(2008).An analysis of the grade in the lexicalizationof the three-syllable idioms in mandarin Chinese.LanguageTeaching and Linguistic Studies,(5),62–69.[苏向丽.(2008).现代汉语惯用语的词汇化等级分析.语言教学与研究,(5),62–69.]
Tabossi,P.,Fanari,R.,&Wolf,K.(2005).Spoken idiomrecognition:Meaning retrieval and word expectancy.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,34,465–495.
Tabossi,P.,Fanari,R.,&Wolf,K.(2008).Processingidiomatic expressions:Effects of semantic compositionality.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,&Cognition,34,313–327.
Tabossi,P.,Fanari,R.,&Wolf,K.(2009).Why are idiomsrecognized fast?Memory&Cognition,37,529–540.
Tabossi,P.,Wolf,K.,&Koterle,S.(2009).Idiom syntax:Idiomatic or principled?Journal of Memory and Language,61,77–96.
Titone,D.A.,&Connine,C.M.(1994).Descriptive norms for171idiomatic expressions:Familiarity,compositionality,predictability,and literality.Metaphor&Symbolic Activity,9,247–270.
Titone,D.A.,&Connine,C.M.(1999).On the compositionaland noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions.Journal of Pragmatics,31,1655–1674.
Vulchanova,M.,Vulchanova,V.,&Stankova,M.(2011).Idiom comprehension in the first language:Adevelopmental study.Vigo International Journal of AppliedLinguistics,(8),207–234.
Zhang,J.J.,&Shi,Y.C.(2009).The production mechanismof Chinese idioms.Acta Psychologica Sinica,41,659–675.[张积家,石艳彩.(2009).汉语惯用语的产生机制.心理学报,41,659–675.]
Zhou,H.M.(1990).Chinese idioms dictionary.Beijing:TheCommercial Press.[周宏溟.(1990).汉语惯用语词典.北京:商务印书馆.]