中文阅读中的预视效应与词切分*

通过眼动随动显示技术操作注视点右侧文字的掩蔽范围和掩蔽单元，考察中文阅读的预视效应和词切分现象。研究包括两项实验。实验一以词为单元掩蔽注视点右侧的文字，发现词 n 右侧文本掩蔽(条件1)、词n+1右侧文本掩蔽(条件2)和词n+1掩蔽(条件3)均显著影响总阅读时间。其中，条件2剥夺了词n+1以右文字的预视加工，同时提供了词n+1的右侧边界线索，结果导致总阅读时间增加，并减少基于单词的平均凝视时间和再注视概率。实验二采用与实验一相同的处理方式，以不提供词边界的双字为单元掩蔽注视点右侧文字，结果发现掩蔽条件对阅读的影响程度甚于实验一，条件2基于词的平均凝视时间显著高于控制条件。综合两个实验的结果可见，中文读者能够切分出注视点右侧的第一个词汇，并以词为单元识别词n和词n+1处的汉字，在注视词n的时间内可加工到词n+2处的文字。

Preview Benefits and Word Segmentations When Reading Chinese

Recently, a number of studies have confirmed that Chinese readers could obtain linguistic information from word n+1 when it was in parafoveal vision. However, there was no confirmation that Chinese readers could obtain preview benefits from word n+2 (Yan, et. al., 2009; Yang, et. al., 2009; Yen, et. al., 2009; Rayner, et. al., 2003). The preview benefit effects received in a boundary paradigm could not exclude the effects of word segmentation. Therefore, there is no evidence that Chinese readers process the meaning of word n+1 by the word unit. Two experiments were conducted using a new eye-movement contingent display technology to clarify the confusion in the present study. The Chinese sentences used in both experiments consisted of 7 to 10 two-character words. There were four treatments of Chinese sentences in Experiment 1. Namely, as the nth word was fixated, (1) the words located to the right were all masked by a series of “※””, (2) the words located to the right of the n+1th word were all masked by a series of “※””, (3) only the n+1th word was masked by two masks of “※””, or (4) no words were masked as a baseline comparison (the control). Among the treatments, the first and third provided the cues of word n segmentation, and the second treatment provided information of word n+1 segmentation. Moreover, the first treatment was deprived of the preview benefit effects from word n+1 and n+2, the second treatment was deprived of the preview benefit effects from word n+2, and the third treatment was deprived of the preview benefit effects from n+1. An eye-movement apparatus was used, and eye-motion indices were measured. The effects on the total reading time, mean fixation duration, mean gaze duration, probability of refixation and word skipping were significant (p<0.05). The differences among the second and third treatments and the control for these indices showed significant preview effects on word n+1 and n+2. The mean gaze duration in the second treatment was observed to be less than the control, although the total reading time increased. However, we cannot exclude the effect of the mask paradigm itself, which influenced the patterns of eye movements and affected the results of Experiment 1. Therefore, a second experiment was conducted. Experiment 2 adopted similar treatments as Experiment 1, but the two adjacent characters that did not belong to a word were masked together. The manipulations did not provide cues to facilitate word segmentation. Consequently, all the masked treatments in Experiment 2 influenced the total reading and fixation times more significantly than those in Experiment 1. The mean gaze duration in the second treatment was greater than the control, which was an opposite result to that of Experiment 1. The patterns of eye movements in Experiment 2 differed from those in Experiment 1. Thus, the results obtained in Experiment 1 were not because of the influence of the mask paradigm. Because the second treatment in Experiment 1 emphasized the boundary of word n+1, the differences in the eye movement patterns between this condition and the control revealed that the beneficial effects from the text in word n+1 were based on the word unit. Thus, the data from the current experiment better fit with the theoretical assumptions of parallel processing models in reading.