听力理解中句子处理的心理语言特性研究
|
摘要
众所周知，转瞬即逝是人们所说的话语的一个明显特征。然而尽管如此，听者可以很轻易地对所听到的句子进行语法结构的划分，确定词语间的语义关系，解决遇到的歧义问题并在句子本身字面意义的基础上进行推理和判断。
本文旨在探讨听力理解中句子处理的心理语言特性问题。主要回答有关听者如何破解句子的语法结构，找到句子的整体意思，并将其存储于记忆中的问题。本文所讨论的句子理解的三个阶段既参考了国内外研究者的理论和实践工作，又有作者本人在实验基础上的理解和分析。这三个阶段包括句法分析—分析句子的结构，语义解释—确定句子的意思，和意义表征—将意思以一定的形式存储在记忆中。
句子理解的第一步—句法分析是对其表层结构进行语法上的分类。换句话说，句法分析是判断句中词语间结构关系的过程。句法分析的结果是以树形图形式存在的句子内部语法关系的表征。
句法分析理论—复杂性派生理论，动词复杂性假设，成分和分句理解理论—解释了句法分析中遇到的心理困难并描述了分析机制的处理单位。复杂性派生理论认为句子的心理复杂性同其表层形式与深层结构之间的“转换”距离有关。动词复杂性假设认为听者依据句中出现的动词来获取有关句子结构的信息。当句中出现的是复杂动词而不是简单动词时，听者对句子的可能结构就不十分确定。成分和分句理解理论认为听者首先依据句中包含的成分进行结构划分。为了验证句子成分 （constituent） 在句子理解中的整体性，作者进行了四个实验：直觉判断，双耳听力，寻找单词和句子复述。
句法分析策略—首动词策略，起码连接策略，后封闭策略和功能线索词策略—用于识别句子中线性顺序和层次结构间所存在的间接关系。首动
词策略认为听者习惯将听到的第一个动词确定为句子主句的动词。听者将听到的句子与大脑中的典型图式比较。起码连接策略认为人们倾向于把新的项目连接到使用最少节点的短语标记中去。后封闭策略主要讨论当听力理解进行到分句之间时听者采取的处理方式。功能线索词策略认为句中的功能词暗示着一个新的成分的开始。这个策略依据的理论在于功能词是句子结构的重要线索。作者进行的音位监测的实验正是为了验证功能词在句子理解中的重要作用。
句子理解的第二步是语义解释。显然，句法表征只是句子处理的一部分，句子理解的本质是要获得句子的意思。这意味着听者要运用其语义知识判断迅速掠过耳边的词语间的语义关系。
在分析句子意思的过程中，听者需要解码句子的语义结构（比如各种语义角色），建立语义命题(通常的形式是谓词（主项）)，并且克服在处理否定句和被动句中遇到的问题。理解否定句和被动句通常要比理解其对应的肯定句和主动句有更大的难度。作者进行的判断真实值和图片确定的实验便证实了这一点。模块和互动理论是有关句子处理本质的两种对立观点。模块理论认为像句法解码这样的句子处理过程在认知上是孤立进行的。而互动理论认为句法和语义处理在句子理解过程中互相影响。这两种观点都得到了实验结果的支持。理解歧义句是句子语义处理中的另外一个问题。歧义为句子处理带来了特殊的问题。听者或许当即选择句子可能意思中的一个，或许将所有可能的意思都进行考虑，直到有足够的信息才去掉错误的选择。这反映了线性处理与平行处理两种观点。
句子理解的第三个阶段是在句法和语义处理之后，将句子的意思存储在记忆中的过程。在自然的话语中，句子一个接着另一个，所以我们不可能将它们都准确记忆。由于获得意思是句子处理的目的，所以听者通常将精力用于存储意思（将在记忆中存放一定时间）而不是表面的词语（很快
忘记了）。作者进行的多项选择的听力测验便证实了这一点。
如果句子从语用角度理解不是非常引人注意，或者距离句子说完已有一定时间间隔，存储在记忆中的将只有命题表征（表达句中思想的命题网络）。命题是句子理解过程中的重要处理单位。句子中的命题数量决定了句子理解的速度和意思表征的程度。作者进行的句子复述的实验便证实了这一点。
本文讨论的观点和假设大多数都通过以前的心理学家或者本文作者所作的实验得到了证实。有些实验可以直接揭示问题的答案，而有的实验只是试图间接地去解决问题。因为句子处理是一个复杂的心理过程，要想直接去测量听者大脑里的活动是很困难的。我们所能做的只是对于听者所作的反应（语言的或非语言的）进行分析并得出结论。最近通过可以测量脑波的电磁仪器，科学家们已为研究这一问题找到了新的突破口。
依据以上所得结论，作者提出以下关于提高听力水平的建议：（1）听者应该利用功能词对句子成分进行积极的划分，（2）利用句中的动词来推测其他的主项（Argument），（3）努力将句子放在语境中进行理解和（4）主动在大脑中构建命题模型。应当强调的是，这些建议的作用是有限的。听者不可能完全依靠这些建议就提高其听力水平，而应进行日复一日的刻苦训练。所以上面的建议仅仅是为了帮助听者有效地开展听力练习提出的。
As we all know, one of the most striking features of connected speech is the rapid rate at which it ordinarily arrives. In spite of that, listeners can with apparent ease segment the speech stream to isolate the “words”, decode the grammatical structure of the sentences, determine the semantic relations between the words, and perhaps resolve semantic ambiguities and draw logical inferences and implications that lie beyond the literal meanings of the sentences themselves at the rapid rate of normal speech.
The aim of this thesis is to explore the psycholinguistic nature of sentence processing in listening comprehension. It tries to answer the question of how listeners rapidly decipher the structure of sentences, gain access to meaning of the sentence as a whole and store that meaning in memory. This thesis presents a three-stage process by referring to the theoretical and empirical work done by previous researchers while retaining the author’s own creative thinking and analysis. The three stages include parsing – analyzing the structure, interpretation – determining the meaning and representation – storing the information in the memory in a certain form.
A first step in the process of understanding a sentence is to assign elements of its surface structure to linguistic categories, a procedure known as parsing. In other words, parsing is to process or compute the relationships between the lexical items in a sentence. The result of parsing is an internal representation of the linguistic relationships within a sentence, usually in the form of a tree structure or phrase marker.
Parsing theories – Derivational Theory of Complexity, Verb Complexity Hypothesis, Constituent and Clausing Comprehension Theory, are the
assumptions which attempt to account for the psychological difficulties found during parsing process and to describe the processing units of the parsing mechanism. The Derivational Theory of Complexity assumes that the psychological complexity of a sentence was related to the transformational “distance” between the underlying and surface forms of the sentence. Verb Complexity Hypothesis assumes that the listeners gain access to information about the kinds of sentence structures in which the verb can appear and they are less certain about the kind of sentence structure he/she is hearing when the sentence contains the complex verb than when it uses the simpler verb. The Constituent and Clausing Theory supports the idea that listeners first segment sentences according to the constituents they contain. Four experiments were carried out by the author in order to test the conceptual unity of constituents and they are Intuitive Judgments of Sentence Structure, Dichotic Listening, Probe Latency Study and Sentence Recall.
Parsing strategies, Initial Verb Strategy, Minimal Attachment Strategy and Late Closure Strategy, Function Cue Word Strategy, are patterns or trends in identifying the indirect relation that exists between linear sequence and hierarchical organization in the sentence. According to the Initial Verb Strategy, listeners tend to assume that the first verb they hear is going to be the verb of the main clause of the sentence. The listener tests an input sequence for the goodness of fit it offers with certain canonical schemas such as ‘Actor…Action…(object)’. Minimal Attachment strategy states that we prefer attaching new items into the phrase marker being constructed using the fewest syntactic nodes consistent with the rule of the language and Late Closure strategy focuses on the way in which listeners determine the sentence structure
when they have reached a major clause boundary. Function Cue Word strategy states that function words in a sentence (like a and the) usually indicate the beginning of a new constituent. Using phoneme-monitoring technique, a mini-experiment was carried out by the author to find out how the existence of function words affects listeners’ comprehension process.
The second stage in understanding a sentence is interpretation. Obviously, syntac
本文旨在探讨听力理解中句子处理的心理语言特性问题。主要回答有关听者如何破解句子的语法结构，找到句子的整体意思，并将其存储于记忆中的问题。本文所讨论的句子理解的三个阶段既参考了国内外研究者的理论和实践工作，又有作者本人在实验基础上的理解和分析。这三个阶段包括句法分析—分析句子的结构，语义解释—确定句子的意思，和意义表征—将意思以一定的形式存储在记忆中。
句子理解的第一步—句法分析是对其表层结构进行语法上的分类。换句话说，句法分析是判断句中词语间结构关系的过程。句法分析的结果是以树形图形式存在的句子内部语法关系的表征。
句法分析理论—复杂性派生理论，动词复杂性假设，成分和分句理解理论—解释了句法分析中遇到的心理困难并描述了分析机制的处理单位。复杂性派生理论认为句子的心理复杂性同其表层形式与深层结构之间的“转换”距离有关。动词复杂性假设认为听者依据句中出现的动词来获取有关句子结构的信息。当句中出现的是复杂动词而不是简单动词时，听者对句子的可能结构就不十分确定。成分和分句理解理论认为听者首先依据句中包含的成分进行结构划分。为了验证句子成分 （constituent） 在句子理解中的整体性，作者进行了四个实验：直觉判断，双耳听力，寻找单词和句子复述。
句法分析策略—首动词策略，起码连接策略，后封闭策略和功能线索词策略—用于识别句子中线性顺序和层次结构间所存在的间接关系。首动
词策略认为听者习惯将听到的第一个动词确定为句子主句的动词。听者将听到的句子与大脑中的典型图式比较。起码连接策略认为人们倾向于把新的项目连接到使用最少节点的短语标记中去。后封闭策略主要讨论当听力理解进行到分句之间时听者采取的处理方式。功能线索词策略认为句中的功能词暗示着一个新的成分的开始。这个策略依据的理论在于功能词是句子结构的重要线索。作者进行的音位监测的实验正是为了验证功能词在句子理解中的重要作用。
句子理解的第二步是语义解释。显然，句法表征只是句子处理的一部分，句子理解的本质是要获得句子的意思。这意味着听者要运用其语义知识判断迅速掠过耳边的词语间的语义关系。
在分析句子意思的过程中，听者需要解码句子的语义结构（比如各种语义角色），建立语义命题(通常的形式是谓词（主项）)，并且克服在处理否定句和被动句中遇到的问题。理解否定句和被动句通常要比理解其对应的肯定句和主动句有更大的难度。作者进行的判断真实值和图片确定的实验便证实了这一点。模块和互动理论是有关句子处理本质的两种对立观点。模块理论认为像句法解码这样的句子处理过程在认知上是孤立进行的。而互动理论认为句法和语义处理在句子理解过程中互相影响。这两种观点都得到了实验结果的支持。理解歧义句是句子语义处理中的另外一个问题。歧义为句子处理带来了特殊的问题。听者或许当即选择句子可能意思中的一个，或许将所有可能的意思都进行考虑，直到有足够的信息才去掉错误的选择。这反映了线性处理与平行处理两种观点。
句子理解的第三个阶段是在句法和语义处理之后，将句子的意思存储在记忆中的过程。在自然的话语中，句子一个接着另一个，所以我们不可能将它们都准确记忆。由于获得意思是句子处理的目的，所以听者通常将精力用于存储意思（将在记忆中存放一定时间）而不是表面的词语（很快
忘记了）。作者进行的多项选择的听力测验便证实了这一点。
如果句子从语用角度理解不是非常引人注意，或者距离句子说完已有一定时间间隔，存储在记忆中的将只有命题表征（表达句中思想的命题网络）。命题是句子理解过程中的重要处理单位。句子中的命题数量决定了句子理解的速度和意思表征的程度。作者进行的句子复述的实验便证实了这一点。
本文讨论的观点和假设大多数都通过以前的心理学家或者本文作者所作的实验得到了证实。有些实验可以直接揭示问题的答案，而有的实验只是试图间接地去解决问题。因为句子处理是一个复杂的心理过程，要想直接去测量听者大脑里的活动是很困难的。我们所能做的只是对于听者所作的反应（语言的或非语言的）进行分析并得出结论。最近通过可以测量脑波的电磁仪器，科学家们已为研究这一问题找到了新的突破口。
依据以上所得结论，作者提出以下关于提高听力水平的建议：（1）听者应该利用功能词对句子成分进行积极的划分，（2）利用句中的动词来推测其他的主项（Argument），（3）努力将句子放在语境中进行理解和（4）主动在大脑中构建命题模型。应当强调的是，这些建议的作用是有限的。听者不可能完全依靠这些建议就提高其听力水平，而应进行日复一日的刻苦训练。所以上面的建议仅仅是为了帮助听者有效地开展听力练习提出的。
As we all know, one of the most striking features of connected speech is the rapid rate at which it ordinarily arrives. In spite of that, listeners can with apparent ease segment the speech stream to isolate the “words”, decode the grammatical structure of the sentences, determine the semantic relations between the words, and perhaps resolve semantic ambiguities and draw logical inferences and implications that lie beyond the literal meanings of the sentences themselves at the rapid rate of normal speech.
The aim of this thesis is to explore the psycholinguistic nature of sentence processing in listening comprehension. It tries to answer the question of how listeners rapidly decipher the structure of sentences, gain access to meaning of the sentence as a whole and store that meaning in memory. This thesis presents a three-stage process by referring to the theoretical and empirical work done by previous researchers while retaining the author’s own creative thinking and analysis. The three stages include parsing – analyzing the structure, interpretation – determining the meaning and representation – storing the information in the memory in a certain form.
A first step in the process of understanding a sentence is to assign elements of its surface structure to linguistic categories, a procedure known as parsing. In other words, parsing is to process or compute the relationships between the lexical items in a sentence. The result of parsing is an internal representation of the linguistic relationships within a sentence, usually in the form of a tree structure or phrase marker.
Parsing theories – Derivational Theory of Complexity, Verb Complexity Hypothesis, Constituent and Clausing Comprehension Theory, are the
assumptions which attempt to account for the psychological difficulties found during parsing process and to describe the processing units of the parsing mechanism. The Derivational Theory of Complexity assumes that the psychological complexity of a sentence was related to the transformational “distance” between the underlying and surface forms of the sentence. Verb Complexity Hypothesis assumes that the listeners gain access to information about the kinds of sentence structures in which the verb can appear and they are less certain about the kind of sentence structure he/she is hearing when the sentence contains the complex verb than when it uses the simpler verb. The Constituent and Clausing Theory supports the idea that listeners first segment sentences according to the constituents they contain. Four experiments were carried out by the author in order to test the conceptual unity of constituents and they are Intuitive Judgments of Sentence Structure, Dichotic Listening, Probe Latency Study and Sentence Recall.
Parsing strategies, Initial Verb Strategy, Minimal Attachment Strategy and Late Closure Strategy, Function Cue Word Strategy, are patterns or trends in identifying the indirect relation that exists between linear sequence and hierarchical organization in the sentence. According to the Initial Verb Strategy, listeners tend to assume that the first verb they hear is going to be the verb of the main clause of the sentence. The listener tests an input sequence for the goodness of fit it offers with certain canonical schemas such as ‘Actor…Action…(object)’. Minimal Attachment strategy states that we prefer attaching new items into the phrase marker being constructed using the fewest syntactic nodes consistent with the rule of the language and Late Closure strategy focuses on the way in which listeners determine the sentence structure
when they have reached a major clause boundary. Function Cue Word strategy states that function words in a sentence (like a and the) usually indicate the beginning of a new constituent. Using phoneme-monitoring technique, a mini-experiment was carried out by the author to find out how the existence of function words affects listeners’ comprehension process.
The second stage in understanding a sentence is interpretation. Obviously, syntac
引文
1.Anderson, J. R. & Bower, G. H. Human Associative Memory. Washington, D. C.: V. H. Winston. 1973.
2.Anderson, J. R. Language, Memory and Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1976.
3.Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Freeman. 2000.
4.Becker, C. A. Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies, Memory and Cognition. 1980. 8, 493-512.
5.Bever, T. The Logical and Extrinsic Sources of Modularity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1992.
6.Bever, T. G. The cognitive basic for linguistic structures. In Hayes (ed.) 1970.
7.Bever, T. G., Garrett, M. F. & Hurtig, R. The interaction of perceptual processes and ambiguous sentences. Memory and Cognition, 1, 277-286. 1973.
8.Bever, T. G., Sanz, M. & Townsend, D. The emperor’s psycholinguistics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1998.
9.Blasko, D. C. & Connine, C. M. Effects of familiarity and aptness on the processing of metaphor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1993.19, 295-308
10.Bransford, J. D. Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and Remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 1979.
11.Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A. Garrod, S. & Rayner, K. Parsing in discourse:
Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language. 1992.31, 293-314.
12.Cairns, H. S. & Kamerman, J. Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1975.14, 170-179.
13.Carroll, D. W. Psychology of Language. New York: Brooks/Cole. 1999.
14.Clark, H. & Lucy, P. Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1975.14, 56-72.
15.Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1977.
16.Connine, C., Blasko, D. & Wang, J. Vertical similarity and spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences and the role of sentence context, Perception and Psychophysics. 1994. 56, 624-636.
17.Conrad, R. Speech and reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by Eye. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1972:205-240.
18.Coulson, S., King, J. & Kutas, M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1998. 13, 21-58.
19.Crain, S. & Steedman, M. On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In P. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen& A. M. Zwicky (Eds.) Natural Language Parsing: Psychological Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press. 1985:320-358
20.Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C., The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 1986. 25, 348-368
21.Fodor, J. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1983.
22.Fodor, J. The mind doesn’t work that way -- The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2000.
23.Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. & Bever, T. G. Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psycholinguistics. 1968. 3, 453-461.
24.Forster, K. I. Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp.27-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1979.
25.Foss, D. J. & Hakes, D. T. Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to the Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1978.
26.Foss, D. J. & Jenkins, C. J. Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1973.12, 577-589.
27.Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 1978. 6, 291-235.
28.Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive psychology. 1982.14, 178-210.
29.Frazier, L. Sentence processing: review In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and
Performance, Vol, XII. The psychology of Reading (pp.559-586). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. 1987.
30.Frazier, L. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1995. 24, 437-468.
31.Garman, M. Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990.
32.Garrett, M. F. Does ambiguity complicate the perception of sentences? In G. B. Flores d’Arcais and W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in Psycholinguistics. New York: American Elsevier. 1970:48-60.
33.Gleason, J. B. & Ratner, N. B. Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 1998.
34.Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review. 1990. 97, 3-18.
35.Glucksberg, S. Commentary on non-literal language: processing and use, Metaphorr and Symbolic Activity. 1995.10, 47-57.
36.Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. & Bookin, H. B. On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1982. 21, 85-98.
37.Goldman-Eisler, F. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York: Academic Press. 1968.
38.Gough, P. B. The verification of sentences: The effects of delay of evidence and sentence length. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1966. 5, 492-496.
39.Gough, P. B. The Structure of Language. In D. D.Duane and M. B. Rawson (Eds.). Reading, Perception and Language. Baltimore, Maryland: York
Press. 1975:15-37.
40.Hagoot, P., Brown, C. & Groothusen, J. The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Languagee and Cognitive Processes. 1993. 8, 439-484.
41.Hickok, G., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., Zurif, E. & Grimshaw, J. Modularity in locating wh-gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1992. 21, 547-563.
42.Holtgraves, T. Politeness and memory for the wording of remarks, Memory and Cognition. 1997. 25, 106-116.
43.Homes, V. M. & Foster, K. I. Perceptual Complexity and understanding sentence structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972. 11, 148-156.
44.Jackendoff, R. Fodorian Modularity and Representational Modularity. In Grodzinsky, Y., Shapiro, L. & Swinney, D’s Language and Brain. 2000.
45.Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell. 1999.
46.Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension, Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 1987.
47.Keenan, J. M., MacWhinney, B. & Mayhew, D. Pragmatics in memory: A study of natural conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1977. 16, 549-560.
48.Kess, J. F. Psycholinguistics: Psychology, Linguistics and the Study of Natural Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1992.
49.Kimball, J. P. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural
language. Cognition. 1973. 2, 15-47.
50.Kintsch, W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998.
51.Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science. 1980:207, 203-205.
52.Kutas, M. & Van Petten, C. Event-related potential studies of language. In P. K. Ackles, J. R. Jennings & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 1994.
53.Lackner, J. R. & Garrett, M. F. Resolving ambiguity: Effects of biasing context in the unattended ear. Cognition. 1972. 1, 359-372.
54.Lesgold, A. M. Pronominalization: A device for unifying sentences in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972. 11, 316-323.
55.Levelt, W. J. M. Formal grammarians in linguistics and psycholinguistics. Vol, 3: Psycholinguistic applications. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. 1974.
56.Levelt, W. J. M. A survey of studies in sentence perception In Levelt and Flores D’Arcais (eds.). 1978.
57.Loftus, E. F. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology. 1975. 7, 560-572.
58.MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution, Psychological Review. 1994. 101, 676-703.
59.Mackay, D. G. Mental diplopia: toward a model of speech perception at the semantic level. In Flores D’Arcais and Levelt (eds). 1970.
60.Mackay, D. G. The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech. Cognitive Psychology. 1970. 3, 210-227.
61.Marslen-Wilson, W. & Tyler, L. K. Against Modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing. MA: MIT Press. 1987:37-62
62.Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding, Cognition. 1980. 8, 1-71.
63.Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review. 1956. 63, 81-97.
64.Munte, T. F., Matzke, M. & Johannes, S. Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1997. 9, 318-329.
65.Neville, H. J., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, A. & Garret, M. F. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence form event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1991. 3, 151-165.
66.Norman, D. A. & Rumelhart, D. E. Explorations in Cognition, San Francisco: Freeman. 1975.
67.Onifer, W. & Swinney, D. A. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias, Memory and Cognition. 1981. 9, 225-236.
68.Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory. 1975. 25, 45-53.
69.Ortony, A., Schellert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E. & Antos, Interpreting
metaphors and idioms: some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1978. 17, 465-477
70.Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language. 1992. 31, 785-806.
71.Perrig, W. & Kintsch, W. Propositional and situational representations of text. Journal of Memory and Language. 1985. 24, 503-518.
72.Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 1990. 29, 633-654.
73.Potter, M. C. Very short-term conceptual memory, Memory and Cognition. 1993. 21, 156-161.
74.Rohrman, N. L. & Gough, P. B. Forewarning, meaning and semantic decision latency, Psychonomic Science. 1967. 9, 217-218.
75.Sabol, M. A. & DeRosa, D. V. Semantic encoding of isolated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 1976. 2, 58-68.
76.Sachs, Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse, Perception and Psychophysics. 1967.
77.Searle, J. R. Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: CUP. 1979.
78.Seidenberg, M., Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J. & Bienkowski, M. Automatic access to the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing, Cognitive Psychology. 1982. 14, 483-537
79.Slobin, D. I. Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1966. 5, 219-227
80.Stine, E. A. L. On-line processing of written text by younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 1990. 5, 68-78.
81.Stine, E. A. L., Wingfield, A. & Poon, L. W. How much and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language by older adults, Psychology and Aging. 1986. 86, 303-311.
82.Swinney, D., Shapiro, L. & Grodzinsky, Y. Language and the Brain. San Diego: Academic Press. 2000.
83.Swinney, D., Zurif, E., Prather, P. & Love, T. Neurological distribution of processing resources underlying language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1996. 8, 174-184.
84.Taraban, R. & McClelland, J.L. Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language. 1988. 27, 597, 632.
85.Thorndyke, P. W. Cognitive Structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology. 1977. 9, 77-110.
86.Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. The comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1994. 20, 1126-1138.
87.Trueswell, J. & Kim, A. How to prune a garden-path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language. 1998. 39, 102-123.
88.Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 1994. 33, 285-318.
89.Tyler, L. K. & Wessels, J. Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from naming latency data, Perception and Psychophysics. 1985. 38, 217-222.
90.Verbrugge, R. R. & McCarrell, N. S. Metaphoric comprehension: studies in reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology. 1977. 9, 494-533.
91.Wanner, E. On remembering, forgetting, and understanding sentences. The Hague: Mouton. 1974.
92.Wingfield, A., Tun, P. A. & Rosen, M. J. Age differences in veridical and reconstructive recall of syntactically and randomly segmented speech. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1995. 50, 257-266.
93.桂诗春. 实验心理语言学纲要：语言的感知，理解和产生， 长沙：湖南教育出版社. 1991.
94.桂诗春. 新编心理语言学，上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2000.
2.Anderson, J. R. Language, Memory and Thought, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1976.
3.Anderson, J. R. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Freeman. 2000.
4.Becker, C. A. Semantic context effects in visual word recognition: An analysis of semantic strategies, Memory and Cognition. 1980. 8, 493-512.
5.Bever, T. The Logical and Extrinsic Sources of Modularity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1992.
6.Bever, T. G. The cognitive basic for linguistic structures. In Hayes (ed.) 1970.
7.Bever, T. G., Garrett, M. F. & Hurtig, R. The interaction of perceptual processes and ambiguous sentences. Memory and Cognition, 1, 277-286. 1973.
8.Bever, T. G., Sanz, M. & Townsend, D. The emperor’s psycholinguistics. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1998.
9.Blasko, D. C. & Connine, C. M. Effects of familiarity and aptness on the processing of metaphor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1993.19, 295-308
10.Bransford, J. D. Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and Remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 1979.
11.Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A. Garrod, S. & Rayner, K. Parsing in discourse:
Context effects and their limits. Journal of Memory and Language. 1992.31, 293-314.
12.Cairns, H. S. & Kamerman, J. Lexical information processing during sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1975.14, 170-179.
13.Carroll, D. W. Psychology of Language. New York: Brooks/Cole. 1999.
14.Clark, H. & Lucy, P. Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1975.14, 56-72.
15.Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. Psychology and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1977.
16.Connine, C., Blasko, D. & Wang, J. Vertical similarity and spoken word recognition: Multiple lexical activation, individual differences and the role of sentence context, Perception and Psychophysics. 1994. 56, 624-636.
17.Conrad, R. Speech and reading. In J. F. Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by Eye. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 1972:205-240.
18.Coulson, S., King, J. & Kutas, M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes. 1998. 13, 21-58.
19.Crain, S. & Steedman, M. On not being led up the garden path: the use of context by the psychological syntax processor. In P. R. Dowty, L. Kartunnen& A. M. Zwicky (Eds.) Natural Language Parsing: Psychological Computational and Theoretical Perspectives. Cambridge
University Press. 1985:320-358
20.Ferreira, F. & Clifton, C., The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 1986. 25, 348-368
21.Fodor, J. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1983.
22.Fodor, J. The mind doesn’t work that way -- The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2000.
23.Fodor, J. A., Garrett, M. & Bever, T. G. Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity. Perception & Psycholinguistics. 1968. 3, 453-461.
24.Forster, K. I. Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp.27-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1979.
25.Foss, D. J. & Hakes, D. T. Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to the Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1978.
26.Foss, D. J. & Jenkins, C. J. Some effects of context on the comprehension of ambiguous sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1973.12, 577-589.
27.Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition. 1978. 6, 291-235.
28.Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive psychology. 1982.14, 178-210.
29.Frazier, L. Sentence processing: review In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and
Performance, Vol, XII. The psychology of Reading (pp.559-586). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum. 1987.
30.Frazier, L. Constraint satisfaction as a theory of sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1995. 24, 437-468.
31.Garman, M. Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990.
32.Garrett, M. F. Does ambiguity complicate the perception of sentences? In G. B. Flores d’Arcais and W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in Psycholinguistics. New York: American Elsevier. 1970:48-60.
33.Gleason, J. B. & Ratner, N. B. Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 1998.
34.Glucksberg, S. & Keysar, B. Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review. 1990. 97, 3-18.
35.Glucksberg, S. Commentary on non-literal language: processing and use, Metaphorr and Symbolic Activity. 1995.10, 47-57.
36.Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. & Bookin, H. B. On understanding non-literal speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1982. 21, 85-98.
37.Goldman-Eisler, F. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York: Academic Press. 1968.
38.Gough, P. B. The verification of sentences: The effects of delay of evidence and sentence length. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1966. 5, 492-496.
39.Gough, P. B. The Structure of Language. In D. D.Duane and M. B. Rawson (Eds.). Reading, Perception and Language. Baltimore, Maryland: York
Press. 1975:15-37.
40.Hagoot, P., Brown, C. & Groothusen, J. The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Languagee and Cognitive Processes. 1993. 8, 439-484.
41.Hickok, G., Canseco-Gonzalez, E., Zurif, E. & Grimshaw, J. Modularity in locating wh-gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 1992. 21, 547-563.
42.Holtgraves, T. Politeness and memory for the wording of remarks, Memory and Cognition. 1997. 25, 106-116.
43.Homes, V. M. & Foster, K. I. Perceptual Complexity and understanding sentence structure. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972. 11, 148-156.
44.Jackendoff, R. Fodorian Modularity and Representational Modularity. In Grodzinsky, Y., Shapiro, L. & Swinney, D’s Language and Brain. 2000.
45.Johnson, K. & Johnson, H. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell. 1999.
46.Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension, Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon. 1987.
47.Keenan, J. M., MacWhinney, B. & Mayhew, D. Pragmatics in memory: A study of natural conversation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1977. 16, 549-560.
48.Kess, J. F. Psycholinguistics: Psychology, Linguistics and the Study of Natural Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 1992.
49.Kimball, J. P. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural
language. Cognition. 1973. 2, 15-47.
50.Kintsch, W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1998.
51.Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic anomaly. Science. 1980:207, 203-205.
52.Kutas, M. & Van Petten, C. Event-related potential studies of language. In P. K. Ackles, J. R. Jennings & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysiology. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 1994.
53.Lackner, J. R. & Garrett, M. F. Resolving ambiguity: Effects of biasing context in the unattended ear. Cognition. 1972. 1, 359-372.
54.Lesgold, A. M. Pronominalization: A device for unifying sentences in memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1972. 11, 316-323.
55.Levelt, W. J. M. Formal grammarians in linguistics and psycholinguistics. Vol, 3: Psycholinguistic applications. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. 1974.
56.Levelt, W. J. M. A survey of studies in sentence perception In Levelt and Flores D’Arcais (eds.). 1978.
57.Loftus, E. F. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology. 1975. 7, 560-572.
58.MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J. & Seidenberg, M. S. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution, Psychological Review. 1994. 101, 676-703.
59.Mackay, D. G. Mental diplopia: toward a model of speech perception at the semantic level. In Flores D’Arcais and Levelt (eds). 1970.
60.Mackay, D. G. The structure of words and syllables: Evidence from errors in speech. Cognitive Psychology. 1970. 3, 210-227.
61.Marslen-Wilson, W. & Tyler, L. K. Against Modularity. In J. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing. MA: MIT Press. 1987:37-62
62.Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. The temporal structure of spoken language understanding, Cognition. 1980. 8, 1-71.
63.Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review. 1956. 63, 81-97.
64.Munte, T. F., Matzke, M. & Johannes, S. Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1997. 9, 318-329.
65.Neville, H. J., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, A. & Garret, M. F. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence form event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1991. 3, 151-165.
66.Norman, D. A. & Rumelhart, D. E. Explorations in Cognition, San Francisco: Freeman. 1975.
67.Onifer, W. & Swinney, D. A. Accessing lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension: effects of frequency of meaning and contextual bias, Memory and Cognition. 1981. 9, 225-236.
68.Ortony, A. Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice. Educational Theory. 1975. 25, 45-53.
69.Ortony, A., Schellert, D. L., Reynolds, R. E. & Antos, Interpreting
metaphors and idioms: some effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1978. 17, 465-477
70.Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language. 1992. 31, 785-806.
71.Perrig, W. & Kintsch, W. Propositional and situational representations of text. Journal of Memory and Language. 1985. 24, 503-518.
72.Potter, M. C. & Lombardi, L. Regeneration in the short-term recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 1990. 29, 633-654.
73.Potter, M. C. Very short-term conceptual memory, Memory and Cognition. 1993. 21, 156-161.
74.Rohrman, N. L. & Gough, P. B. Forewarning, meaning and semantic decision latency, Psychonomic Science. 1967. 9, 217-218.
75.Sabol, M. A. & DeRosa, D. V. Semantic encoding of isolated words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory. 1976. 2, 58-68.
76.Sachs, Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse, Perception and Psychophysics. 1967.
77.Searle, J. R. Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: CUP. 1979.
78.Seidenberg, M., Tanenhaus, M., Leiman, J. & Bienkowski, M. Automatic access to the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing, Cognitive Psychology. 1982. 14, 483-537
79.Slobin, D. I. Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1966. 5, 219-227
80.Stine, E. A. L. On-line processing of written text by younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging. 1990. 5, 68-78.
81.Stine, E. A. L., Wingfield, A. & Poon, L. W. How much and how fast: Rapid processing of spoken language by older adults, Psychology and Aging. 1986. 86, 303-311.
82.Swinney, D., Shapiro, L. & Grodzinsky, Y. Language and the Brain. San Diego: Academic Press. 2000.
83.Swinney, D., Zurif, E., Prather, P. & Love, T. Neurological distribution of processing resources underlying language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1996. 8, 174-184.
84.Taraban, R. & McClelland, J.L. Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language. 1988. 27, 597, 632.
85.Thorndyke, P. W. Cognitive Structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology. 1977. 9, 77-110.
86.Titone, D. A. & Connine, C. M. The comprehension of idiomatic expressions: Effects of predictability and literality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1994. 20, 1126-1138.
87.Trueswell, J. & Kim, A. How to prune a garden-path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language. 1998. 39, 102-123.
88.Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Garnsey, S. M. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 1994. 33, 285-318.
89.Tyler, L. K. & Wessels, J. Is gating an on-line task? Evidence from naming latency data, Perception and Psychophysics. 1985. 38, 217-222.
90.Verbrugge, R. R. & McCarrell, N. S. Metaphoric comprehension: studies in reminding and resembling. Cognitive Psychology. 1977. 9, 494-533.
91.Wanner, E. On remembering, forgetting, and understanding sentences. The Hague: Mouton. 1974.
92.Wingfield, A., Tun, P. A. & Rosen, M. J. Age differences in veridical and reconstructive recall of syntactically and randomly segmented speech. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 1995. 50, 257-266.
93.桂诗春. 实验心理语言学纲要：语言的感知，理解和产生， 长沙：湖南教育出版社. 1991.
94.桂诗春. 新编心理语言学，上海：上海外语教育出版社. 2000.