Taking on semantic commitments, II: Collective versus distributive readings.
Taking on semantic commitments, II: Collective versus distributive readings.
复制标题
承担语义承诺，II：集体阅读与分布式阅读。
DOI：
10.1016/s0010-0277(99)00002-5
复制
发表时间：
1999
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Rayner,K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frazier,L;Pacht,JM;Rayner,K
在早期的工作中，Frazier和Rayner(1990)为最小语义承诺(MSC)假设的加工原则提供了证据。在本研究中，我们使用MSC假设作为一个起点来解决何时将心理表征视为模糊的还是确定的和模棱两可的问题。在给定歧义表征的情况下，MSC假说预测处理器将致力于一种解释(语法歧义假说)。另一方面，给出一个单一的未指定的表征，MSC假说预测处理器将等待消除歧义的信息，然后才完全致力于解释(模糊性假说)。在一项旨在评估关于分布性表征的假设的实验中，参与者在阅读含有分布或集合谓词的句子时记录了他们的眼球运动，这些句子要么被前面的副词消除歧义，要么通过将消除歧义的副词推迟到谓词的末尾来保持局部歧义。研究结果表明，在局部不确定的情况下，歧义和分配性在首次通过时间、总时间和回归中的显著交互作用证明了语义承诺的存在。如果分配的困难只是反映了在遇到证据时假定分配运算符的困难，那么就不会有交互作用。因此，我们认为，分配/集体区分应被视为一个模棱两可的问题，而不是一个含糊不清的问题。在缺乏分布式阅读的证据的情况下，处理器在处理谓词的过程中(在我们后来的消歧示例中消除歧义之前)将自己委托给集体阅读。这些发现是与最近关于分配性表示的语言学工作有关的。
In earlier work, Frazier and Rayner (1990)provided evidence for a processing principle termed the Minimal Semantic Commitment (MSC)hypothesis. In the present study, we used the MSC hypothesis as a starting point in addressing the issue of when to treat mental representations as vague versus determinate and ambiguous. Given ambiguous representations, the MSC hypothesis predicts that the processor will commit to one interpretation (the grammatical ambiguity hypothesis). On the other hand, given a single underspecified representation, the MSC hypothesis predicts that the processor will await disambiguating information before fully committing to an interpretation (the vagueness hypothesis). In an experiment designed to evaluate these hypotheses with respect to the representation of distributivity, participants' eye movements were recorded as they read sentences containing distributive or collective predicates that were either disambiguated by a preceding adverb or left locally ambiguous by delaying the disambiguating adverb until the end of the predicate. The results suggested that a semantic commitment is made in locally indeterminate cases as evidenced by a significant interaction of ambiguity and distributivity in first pass times, total times, and regressions. If the difficulty of distributives simply reflected the difficulty of postulating a distributive operator when evidence warranting it is encountered, then no interaction would be expected. Hence we argue that the distributive/collective distinction is treated as a matter of ambiguity rather than as one of vagueness. In the absence of evidence for a distributive reading, the processor commits itself to a collective reading sometime during the processing of the predicate (before the disambiguation in our late disambiguation examples). The findings are discussed in relation to recent linguistic work on the representation of distributivity.