中国EFL学习者在句子语境中消解词汇歧义的认知模式

论文摘要

自然语言有一个很有趣的现象,很多的词都是歧义的,即有多个词义,但学习者在语境中能够毫不困难地理解这些词。这种现象背后的认知机制引起了心理语言学的广泛关注。词汇歧义,根据理论语言学的解释,可以分为同形异义、隐喻多义和转喻多义等多种歧义词。但是心理语言学的研究主要在同形异义词上,并且产生了用来解释词汇歧义的五个颇有争议的模型。隐喻多义和转喻多义没有收到应有的重视,而本文认为,一个歧义消解理论应该能够解释不同的歧义现象。另外,词汇歧义在母语中得到了大量的研究,而在二语或外语环境下的研究不多,并且有些结果相互矛盾。本文选择中国英语学习者作为研究对象,从词汇语义表征形成与发展的角度,探讨了在词汇表征建构的不同阶段、词汇多义不同纬度(三种歧义词)的通达特征。这种发展性的研究,其目的是了解同形异义词、隐喻多义词和转喻多义词在不同表征强度下的不同的通达模式。进而揭示通达与表征状态的关系。本文提出了四个研究问题:1)中国英语学习者在句子语境中对三类歧义词的词义通达模式有何区别?2)中国英语学习者在句子语境中对三类歧义词与语境不一致的词义的抑制机制有何区别?3)中国英语学习者对三类歧义词的表征是否反映了他们的歧义消解模式?4)语言水平如何影响中国英语学习者的歧义消解过程?本文设计了三个实验来回答上述四个研究问题。实验一的主要目的是考察不同水平的中国英语学习者在句子语境中选择与语境相一致的词义的认知过程,采用了语义启动范式下的词汇判断任务。实验二的目的是揭示不同水平的中国英语学习者抑制与语境不一致的词义的认知机制,使用了一个在线的语义适合度判断任务。实验三调查了不同水平的中国英语学习者的三类歧义词的表征变化趋势,其目的是探究学习者的通达机制和表征模式之间的关系。实验三运用了问卷调查。这三个实验的结果表明:1)中国英语学习者在句子语境中对三类歧义词的歧义消解过程是一个两步过程。第一步,歧义词的与语境一致和不一致的词义都被激活;第二步,歧义词的与语境一致的词义被选择,与语境不一致的词义被抑制。2)中国英语学习者对三类歧义词的词义通达都遵循相同的模式,即顺序通达模式。主要词义先通达,次要词义后通达。但高水平学习者对三类歧义词的词义通达的时间点要早于低水平的学习者。3)三类歧义词的后激活过程一抑制机制彼此不同。就高水平的学习者而言,对同形异义词与语境不一致词义抑制的时间点早于隐喻多义词和转喻多义词;对隐喻多义词与语境不一致的词义的抑制的时间点早于转喻多义词;4)中国英语学习者对三类歧义词的表征是一个发展的模型。无论是高水平还是低水平的学习者,同形异义词、隐喻多义词和转喻多义词构成一个连续体。在这个连续体上,低水平学习者的隐喻多义表征靠近转喻多义词,而高水平的学习者的隐喻多义表征处于中间。就不同的歧义词而言,多义性表征不是在所有纬度上都表现为独立性表征,只有在同形异义和隐喻多义的纬度上才出现独立表征的特性,在转喻多义这个纬度上,语义的独立性不是随语言水平的提高而增强,而是相反。本文的研究丰富了词汇歧义消解理论,对进一步从事二语词汇歧义消解的过程研究也有借鉴作用。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Chapter One Introduction
• 1.1 Research Orientation
• 1.2 Definition of Lexical Ambiguity
• 1.3 Rationale for the Study
• 1.4 Research Questions
• 1.5 Contents of the Thesis
• Chapter Two Previous Studies of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution:General Issues
• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 Meaning Representation
• 2.2.1 Hierarchical Network Models
• 2.2.2 Activation Spreading Models
• 2.2.3 Distributed Memory Model
• 2.3 Word Recognition and Lexical Access
• 2.3.1 The Search Model
• 2.3.2 The Logogen Model
• 2.3.3 The Cohort Model
• 2.3.4 Factors Influencing Lexical Access
• 2.4 Semantic Priming
• 2.5 Second Language Lexicon
• 2.6 Summary
• Chapter Three Previous Studies of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution:Theoretical Models and Empirical Evidence
• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.2 Previous Studies of Homonymy Processing in L1
• 3.2.1 Fodor's Modularity Hypothesis
• 3.2.2 Five Models of Homonymy Processing in L1
• 3.2.2.1 Exhaustive Access Model
• 3.2.2.2 Selective Access Model
• 3.2.2.3 Ordered Access Model
• 3.2.2.4 Reordered Access Model
• 3.2.2.5 Context-Sensitive Model
• 3.2.2.6 Comments on the Five Models of Homonymy Processing
• 3.3 Previous Studies of Suppression Mechanism in Homonymy Processing
• 3.4 Previous Studies of Homonymy Processing in L2
• 3.5 Previous Studies of Polysemy Processing in L1
• 3.5.1 Representation of Polysemous Words
• 3.5.1.1 The Core Sense Storage Model
• 3.5.1.2 The Multiple-Senses Storage Model
• 3.5.1.3 The Separate-Storage Model
• 3.5.2.Previous Studies of Polysemy Effects
• 3.5.3 Processing of Polysemy in L1
• 3.6 Previous Studies of Polysemy Processing in L2
• 3.7 Comments on the Previous Studies of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution
• 3.8 Summary
• Chapter Four Previous Studies of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution:Experimental Tasks
• 4.1 Introduction
• 4.2 Experimental Techniques
• 4.2.1 Ambiguity Detection Method
• 4.2.2 Processing Complexity Tasks
• 4.2.2.1 Phoneme-Monitoring Paradigm
• 4.2.2.2 Eye-Movement Techniques
• 4.2.3 Priming Paradigm
• 4.2.3.1 Cross-modal Priming Paradigm
• 4.2.3.2 Semantic Priming in Sentential Context
• 4.3 The Nature of Sentential Context
• 4.4 The SOA Conditions
• 4.5 Comments on the Experimental Tasks
• 4.6 Summary
• Chapter Five Theoretical Background,Research Questions and Hypotheses
• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Theoretical Background
• 5.2.1 Ambiguous Words in Mind:Linguistic Models
• 5.2.1.1 Criteria to Distinguish Homonymy from Polysemy
• 5.2.1.2 Linguistic Models of Ambiguous Representation
• 5.2.1.3 An Alternative Model of Ambiguous Representation
• 5.2.2 Disambiguation of Lexical Ambiguity:Psycholinguistic Models
• 5.2.2.1 Psycholinguistic Models
• 5.2.2.2 Comments on the Psycholinguistic Models
• 5.3 Research Questions
• 5.4 Hypotheses
• 5.5 Experimental Design and Predictions
• 5.5.1 Experiment One
• 5.5.2 Experiment Two
• 5.5.3 Experiment Three
• 5.6 Summary
• Chapter Six Experiment 1:Selecting Contextually Appropriate Meanings
• 6.1 Introduction
• 6.2 Preparatory Studies
• 6.2.1 Preparatory Study Ⅰ
• 6.2.2 Preparatory Study Ⅱ
• 6.2.3 Preparatory Study Ⅲ
• 6.3 Experiment One
• 6.3.1 Hypothesis,Design and Predictions
• 6.3.2 Participants
• 6.3.3 Materials
• 6.3.4 Procedure
• 6.3.5 Results
• 6.3.5.1 Data Trimming
• 6.3.5.2 Theoretical Relevance of Data Analysis
• 6.3.5.3 RT Analysis
• 6.3.6 Discussion
• 6.4 Summary
• Chapter Seven Experiment 2:Suppressing Contextually Inappropriate Meanings
• 7.1 Introduction
• 7.2 Experiment Two
• 7.2.1 Hypothesis,Design and Predictions
• 7.2.2 Participants
• 7.2.3 Material
• 7.2.4 Procedure
• 7.2.5 Results
• 7.2.5.1 RT Analysis
• 7.2.5.2 PC Analysis
• 7.2.6 Discussion
• 7.3 Summary
• Chapter Eight Experiment Three:Representation of English Lexicai Ambiguity
• 8.1 Introduction
• 8.2 Experiment Three
• 8.2.1 Hypothesis,Design and Predictions
• 8.2.2 Participants
• 8.2.3 Materials
• 8.2.4 Procedure
• 8.2.5 Results
• 8.2.6 Discussion
• 8.3 Summary
• Chapter Nine General Discussions
• 9.1 Introduction
• 9.2 Discussion of Lexical Ambiguity Resolution Theories
• 9.2.1 L2 Processing of Homographs:The Ordered-Access Model
• 9.2.2 L2 Processing of Metonymic Polysemy:Specified,not Underspecified
• 9.2.3 Comparison of the Processing of Different Ambiguous Words
• 9.3 L2 Lexical Ambiguity Resolution and Reading Comprehension
• 9.4 Summary
• Chapter Ten Conclusions,Limitations and Implications
• 10.1 Introduction
• 10.2 Conclusions
• 10.2.1 Conclusions about the Experiments
• 10.2.2 A Unified Picture for L2 Resolution of Lexical Ambiguity
• 10.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies
• 10.3.1 Limitations
• 10.3.2 Suggestions for Future Studies
• 10.4 Implications
• 10.4.1 Theoretical Implications
• 10.4.2 Pedagogical Implications
• 10.5 Summary
• Bibliography
• Acknowledgements
• Appendices
• Appendix A:Ambiguous Words for Judgment
• Appendix B:A Sample of Materials Used in Preparatory Study Ⅱ
• Appendix C:Dominance and Familiarity of the Ambiguous Meanings
• Appendix D:Primes with Sentential Contexts and Their Targets
• Appendix E:The Sense Relatedness Questionnaire