潮汕话-普通话双言者的词汇习得年龄效应

采用潮汕话-普通话双言者为被试, 通过3个实验, 考察了词汇习得年龄效应。实验1采用汉字命名和图片命名范式, 证实了在双言者的两种语言中都存在词汇习得年龄效应。实验2和实验3分别采用语义范畴判断及声母监控任务, 在语义层面及语音层面检验了双言者的两种语言的词汇习得年龄效应的特点。结果表明, 在语义任务上发现了词汇习得年龄效应, 在语音任务上未发现。整个研究表明, 语义在汉语词汇习得年龄效应产生中具有重要作用, 支持了语义假设。     

安庆话-普通话双言者的语义表征初探毐

为探究安庆话-普通话双言者的语义表征形式,文章采用E-prime编制两个实验程序,即文字-图片和文字-文字语义判断任务,对30名大学生进行任务测试,比较安庆话和普通话两种语言的任务反应时的差异。结果表明,语言的种类、转换类别、文字类别三者的主效应显著,且存在交互作用。可见,语言的种类、转换类别、文字类别这三种因素均会对双言者的认知加工产生影响;普通话-安庆话双言者的言语系统的形式层和概念层的联结方式存在差异。     

熟练潮-普双言者的语义通达机制:来自通道比较的证据

采用跨语言启动的范畴判断范式,通过2个实验,考察了熟练潮-普双言者在听觉通道内和听-视跨通道条件下的语义通达机制。结果发现,无论是以潮州话词语为启动词,还是以普通话词语为启动词,当词对具有高语义相关时,启动词均对目标词产生了显著的跨语言启动效应;在听觉通道内,两种语言之间的启动量无差异,而在听-视跨通道条件下,L2对L1的启动量显著大于L1对L2的启动量。这些结果表明,熟练潮-普双言者共享语义(概念)表征,词汇表征既相互独立又互相联系,L1与L2的词汇均能直接通达语义表征,但其联系强度及其相互之间的词汇表征联系强度均存在通道差异性。整个研究结果支持Kroll等人的修正分级模型。     

非熟练潮-粤双言者的语义通达：来自听觉词加工的证据

采用听觉跨语言启动的语义判断范式, 考察非熟练潮-粤双言者的两种方言之间的语义通达方式。结果发现, 无论是以潮语词为启动词, 还是以粤语词为启动词, 当二者具有翻译关系时, 启动词均促进对目标词的识别, 但L1对L2的启动量比L2对L1的启动量大。当启动词与目标词具有语义联想关系时, 启动词亦能促进对目标词的识别, 但L1→L2与L2→L1的启动量差异不显著。整个研究表明, 非熟练潮-粤双言者的两种方言的词汇独立表征, 语义共享表征; 第二方言的词汇能够直接通达语义表征, 不需要以第一方言的词汇为中介, 但双言的词汇表征与语义表征的联结强度仍然存在着不对称性。     

吃亏是福：择“值”选项而获真利

主流决策理论认为人们当遵从个人利益最大化原则, 基于“价” (value)做选择—— 挑选能直接给自己带来最大获益的选项。但决策者实际上经常会基于“值” (worth)做选择—— 挑选令自己当下吃亏或损失的选项, 并认为“值得”。为探索选择吃亏的选项究竟“值”在何处, 研究1利用情境实验操纵“基于‘值’选择”, 发现选择表面吃亏的“值”选项反而能给个体带来更大的延迟获益。研究2a采用归纳法, 确定了吃亏选项会在“惠、善、义、法” 4个潜在维度上被决策者赋予更大的“值”; 研究2b利用测量4个潜在维度的情境测验, 以销售群体的销售绩效和主观幸福感为真实获益的衡量指标, 验证了“基于‘值’选择”与现实生活中的物质和精神获益间存在正向的线性预测关系。研究首次为中国文化中的“吃亏是福”提供了实证证据的支持, 揭示诱使人们选择吃亏选项的是“后福”—— 赋在潜在维度上的延迟获益。     

类别型状态不确定独立否定句的加工机制：来自眼动实验的证据

探讨类别型状态不确定独立否定句(如“裙子不是蓝色的”)的动态表征过程。实验1和实验2分别仅给被试提供“与事件备择选项一致的图片” (红色裙子)和“含有否定标签的与事件否定状态一致的图片” (含有否定标签的蓝色裙子); 实验3同时提供以上两种选项。结果发现：3个实验中被试在早期均对“与事件否定状态一致的图片”注视概率更高, 在晚期阶段, 实验1仅对“与事件备择选项一致的图片” 注视概率更高, 实验2和实验3均仅对“含有否定标签的与事件否定状态一致的图片”注视概率更高, 并且选择为事件的最终状态; 实验4的评定结果表明, 当被试有充裕时间完成任务时, 37名评定者中有30名选择“与事件备择选项一致的图片”为事件的最终状态。4个实验的结果为锚激活与限制满足模型和抑制假设提供了进一步证据。     

熟练粤语-普通话双言者听觉词的语言表征*

以熟练粤语-普通话双言者为被试, 考察粤语-普通话双言者对听觉词的语言表征。实验1呈现粤语和普通话同形异音的词, 实验2呈现粤语和普通话异形异音的词, 要求被试做语义决定。结果发现, 粤语-普通话双言者对听觉词的语言表征类似于双语者, 即普通话和粤语的语义共同表征, 词汇分别表征。所以如此, 是由粤语的特点和它与普通话的关系决定的。     

中文阅读中副中央凹与中央凹相互影响的眼动实验

采用眼动轨迹记录法结合边界呈现的实验范式, 当注视点越过特定位置时, 预视字则变为另一目标字, 从而保证预视字只呈现在副中央凹区域。实验1自变量为预视字频率, 预视字与目标字均与当前句子具有语义连贯性。实验发现, 当预视字是低频时, 中央凹的首次注视时间和凝视时间更短。实验2在预视字与当前句子语义不连贯的情况下进一步探讨预视字的字频对中央凹加工的效应。实验发现, 预视字是高频时, 中央凹的首次注视时间和凝视时间更短。然而在以区域作为数据分析的单位时, 副中央凹-中央凹效应仅在首次注视时间上呈现显著。上述结果表明, 副中央凹的词汇属性会对中央凹的加工产生一定的影响, 但这种影响比较微弱, 该结果为阅读加工理论中的并行加工理论提供了一定的支持。     

中国人的内隐辩证自我：基于内隐联想测验(IAT)的测量

作为一种文化构念, 朴素辩证从文化与认知的角度诠释了中国人基于民众理论的思维方式。本研究首次采用内隐联想测验（IAT）的方法测量内隐层面朴素辩证概念与自我以及自我相近概念在东方被试认知中的联结, 探讨东方人内隐层面的辩证自我。文章通过2个IAT实验发现, 中国人将“我”和辩证思维词汇归为一类, 将“非我”和线性思维归为一类时反应速度更快; 且他们将“朋友”和辩证思维词汇归为一类, 将“敌人”和线性思维词汇归为一类时反应速度更快。这表明在内隐层面上, 东方人确实将辩证概念与自我以及自我相近概念联系得更为紧密。     

先入观念对情绪感染力的调节——以教学活动为例

从以往意识性情绪感染的研究中可以推断出, 情绪感染可以被后继的“观念”所调节, 这种观念可以被无意识提取, 那么情绪感染能不能被“先入观念”所调节呢, 即观念先于情绪感染而存在并对情绪感染的最终效果产生影响。实验情境以教学活动为例, 采用被试内设计, 通过实验前的指导语引导学生树立两种教师评价--“权威”教师(积极的先入观念)和“新手”教师(消极的先入观念), 然后给学生播放两位教师的三类教学视频--中性情绪、积极情绪、消极情绪的朗诵视频, 使用BioNeuro八通道生物反馈仪记录学生在观看视频时的生理指标, 每段视频播放后, 要求学生完成《教师课堂情绪感染力评价问卷(学生用)》。实验结果表明, 学生在观看“权威”教师视频时, 其注意力水平不受教师情绪效价的影响, 学生对“权威”教师均能保持较高的“专注”状态, 从而提高了“权威”教师的积极情绪感染力(易感性调节), 而对“新手”教师的“专注”程度较低, 从而削弱了“新手”教师的积极情绪感染力(免疫性调节)。“新手”教师的消极情绪感染力(倦怠)比“权威”教师的消极情绪感染力更强, 这与学生对“权威”教师的消极情绪进行“合理化”解释有关, 从而免疫了“权威”教师的消极情绪感染力。问卷调查结果也表明, 学生对“权威”教师的情绪感染力评价(无论是中性、积极或消极视频)要极其显著好于对“新手”教师的评价。由此说明, 先入观念对情绪感染的调节方式有两种：“专注”和“合理化”, 调节的结果也有两种：“易感性”与“免疫性”。     

How linguistic and cultural forces shape conceptions of time: English and Mandarin time in 3D

In this paper we examine how English and Mandarin speakers think about time, and we test how the patterns of thinking in the two groups relate to patterns in linguistic and cultural experience. In Mandarin, vertical spatial metaphors are used more frequently to talk about time than they are in English; English relies primarily on horizontal terms. We present results from two tasks comparing English and Mandarin speakers' temporal reasoning. The tasks measure how people spatialize time in three-dimensional space, including the sagittal (front/back), transverse (left/right), and vertical (up/down) axes. Results of Experiment 1 show that people automatically create spatial representations in the course of temporal reasoning, and these implicit spatializations differ in accordance with patterns in language, even in a non-linguistic task. Both groups showed evidence of a left-to-right representation of time, in accordance with writing direction, but only Mandarin speakers showed a vertical top-to-bottom pattern for time (congruent with vertical spatiotemporal metaphors in Mandarin). Results of Experiment 2 confirm and extend these findings, showing that bilinguals' representations of time depend on both long-term and proximal aspects of language experience. Participants who were more proficient in Mandarin were more likely to arrange time vertically (an effect of previous language experience). Further, bilinguals were more likely to arrange time vertically when they were tested in Mandarin than when they were tested in English (an effect of immediate linguistic context).     

普通话和粤语记忆中的语言依赖效应

通过两个实验考察普通话和粤语环境下的记忆语言依赖效应。实验1运用自传式回忆范式,考察语言环境对情境记忆提取的影响。结果表明,在普通话和粤语环境下,普通话-粤语双言被试的回忆体现了对语言环境的依赖。当回忆时的语言环境和事件发生时的语言环境相同时,获得了更多的同类记忆。实验2通过听觉方式呈现词,考察语音和语言表达方式对再认的影响。结果表明,普通话-粤语双言被试对用粤语方言表达的词反应时间短,误报率低,辨别力强,表明语音和语言表达方式是影响普通话-粤语双言被试记忆语言依赖效应的重要因素     

Both Earlier Times and the Future Are “Front”: The Distinction Between Time‐ and Ego‐Reference‐Points in Mandarin Speakers’ Temporal Representation

Mandarin speakers, like most other language speakers around the world, use spatial terms to talk about time. However, the direction of their mental temporal representation along the front‐back axis remains controversial because they use the spatial term “front” to refer to both earlier times (e.g., front‐year means “the year before last”) and the future (e.g., front‐road means “prospect”). Although the linguistic distinction between time‐ and ego‐reference‐point spatiotemporal metaphors in Mandarin suggests a promising clarification of the above controversy, there is little empirical evidence verifying this distinction. In this study, Mandarin speakers’ time‐ and ego‐reference‐point temporal representations on three axes (i.e., sagittal, lateral, and vertical) were separately examined through two tasks. In a time‐reference‐point task, Mandarin speakers judged whether the time point of the second picture was earlier or later than the time point of the first picture, while in an ego‐reference‐point task, they judged whether an event or phase had happened in the past or would happen in the future. The results indicate that Mandarin speakers construe an earlier‐times‐in‐front‐of‐later‐times temporal sequence and adopt the front‐to‐the‐future orientation.     

加工水平对普通话与粤语记忆语言依赖效应的影响

通过两个实验,考察了加工水平对普通话和粤语记忆语言依赖效应的影响。实验1考察了在有意学习中的记忆语言依赖效应。结果表明,测验的语言环境对再认有重要影响。被试在粤语测验环境下对学习过的韩国语词再认反应时短,误报率却低,辨别力强,“记得”反应占优势。实验2考察了无意学习中的记忆语言依赖效应。结果表明,被试在粤语测验环境下,对评定过的韩国语词再认反应时短,误报率却高,辨别力差,但“记得”反应占优势;但在普通话测验环境下,对评定过的韩国语词再认反应时长,误报率却低,辨别力强,“知道”和“猜测”反应增加。整个研究表明,记忆的语言依赖效应在有意学习和无意学习中都存在,但有不同的趋势,表明加工水平是影响普通话和粤语记忆语言依赖效应的重要变量     

Interpreting What Speakers Say and Implicate

The traditional view in pragmatic theory is that a distinction exists between what speakers say and what they mean, communicate, or implicate in context. For example, when uttering Jane has three children, a speaker might only say that "Jane has three children but may have more than three," but the speaker implicates that "Jane has exactly three children." Under this view, pragmatics plays only a small role in determining what speakers say and has a primary part in interpreting speaker's intended messages. My aim in this article is to challenge this view. I describe empirical work showing that pragmatics has a fundamental role in determining both what speakers say and implicate. Thus, when a speaker utters Jane has three children, enriched pragmatic information is used to infer that the speaker says "Jane has exactly three children" and that in specific contexts, the speaker can go on to express additional pragmatic meanings, such as "Jane is married" or "Jane is very busy because she has three children." I also describe work on the importance of complex pragmatic, metarepresentational reasoning in understanding irony and metaphor. Finally, I briefly discuss the relevance of these new developments in pragmatics for neurolinguistic research.     

汉语时间-空间隐喻加工垂直偏向性的稳固性

前人的研究发现,汉语时间-空间隐喻的加工表现出一定的垂直偏向性。本文两个实验采用空间启动的范式,考察汉英双语者二语（英语）经验对汉语时间-空间隐喻加工偏向性的影响。实验1以中国内地汉英双语大学生为被试,结果发现,在垂直空间启动条件下,被试的反应时更快,垂直性时间问题的反应时最短,正确率最高,即表现出时间-空间隐喻加工的垂直偏向性,这说明英语经验未影响汉语时间-空间隐喻加工的垂直偏向性。实验2采用英语熟练程度更高,来自我国港、澳地区的汉英双语大学生为被试,得到了和实验1类似的结果。两个实验结果表明,对于非平衡的汉英双语者而言,英语经验并未对汉语母语时间-空间隐喻加工的偏向性产生影响,汉语时间-空间隐喻加工的垂直偏向性表现出相当程度的稳固性。     

Perceptual Processing of Mandarin Nasals by L1 and L2 Mandarin Speakers

Nasals are cross-linguistically susceptible to change, especially in the syllable final position. Acoustic reports on Mandarin nasal production have recently shown that the syllable-final distinction is frequently dropped. Few studies, however, have addressed the issue of perceptual processing in Mandarin nasals for L1 and L2 speakers of Mandarin Chinese. The current paper addressed to what extent and in what directions L1 and L2 speakers of Mandarin differed in perceiving Mandarin nasals. Possible variables, including the linguistic backgrounds (i.e. L1 vs. L2 speakers of Mandarin Chinese), the vocalic contexts (i.e. [i, ?, a, y, ua, u?, ia]) and the phonetic settings (i.e. syllable-initial vs. syllable-final), were discussed. Asymmetrical findings in the current investigation indicated limitations of speech learning theories developed from European languages in the context of Mandarin nasals. A tri-dimensional model was thus suggested for interpreting the cognitive mechanism in Mandarin nasal perception.     

Dichotic Perception of Mandarin Tones by Chinese and American Listeners

The dichotic perception of Mandarin tones by native and nonnative listeners was examined in order to investigate the lateralization of lexical tone. Twenty American listeners with no tone language background and 20 Chinese listeners were asked to identify dichotically presented tone pairs by identifying which tone they heard in each ear. For the Chinese listeners, 57% of the total errors occurred via the left ear, indicating a significant right ear advantage. However, the American listeners revealed no significant ear preference, with 48% of the errors attributable to the left ear. These results indicated that Mandarin tones are predominantly processed in the left hemisphere by native Mandarin speakers, whereas they are bilaterally processed by American English speakers with no prior tone experience. The results also suggest that the left hemisphere superiority for native Mandarin tone processing is similar to native processing of other tone languages.     

Additivity of semantic and phonological effects: Evidence from speech production in Mandarin

A number of previous studies using picture–word interference (PWI) tasks conducted with speakers of Western languages have demonstrated non-additive effects of semantic and form overlap between pictures and words, which may indicate underlying non-discrete processing stages in lexical retrieval. The present study used Mandarin speakers and presented Chinese characters as distractors. In two experiments, we crossed semantic relatedness with “pure” phonological (i.e., orthographically unrelated) relatedness and found statistically additive effects. In a third experiment, semantic relatedness was crossed with orthographic overlap (phonological overlap was avoided), and once again we found an additive pattern. The results are discussed with regard to possible cross-linguistic differences between Western and non-Western languages in terms of phonological encoding, as well as concerning the locus of relatedness effects in PWI tasks.     

Do English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently?

Time is a fundamental domain of experience. In this paper we ask whether aspects of language and culture affect how people think about this domain. Specifically, we consider whether English and Mandarin speakers think about time differently. We review all of the available evidence both for and against this hypothesis, and report new data that further support and refine it. The results demonstrate that English and Mandarin speakers do think about time differently. As predicted by patterns in language, Mandarin speakers are more likely than English speakers to think about time vertically (with earlier time-points above and later time-points below).