How Natural are Conceptual Anaphors?
How Natural are Conceptual Anaphors?
复制标题
概念照应词有多自然？
DOI：
10.1080/01690969208409387
复制
发表时间：
1992
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cain,Kate
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oakhill,Jane;Garnham,Alan;Gernsbacher,MortonAnn;Cain,Kate
本文报道了三个关于“概念”回指解释的实验。这些指喻没有明确的语言先行词，而是根据上下文构建的。例如，如果有人说“我需要一把刀。”你把它们放在哪里？，他们的意思是“我猜你家里有刀”。在第一个实验中，受试者认为包含三种不同类型的概念类比的句子与包含“语言正确”先行词的句子（例如“我需要一把熨头”）一样自然。你把它放在哪里？)，而且比那些既没有合理的概念前提也没有合理的语言前提的词更自然。在第二个（自定节奏的）实验中，受试者判断这对句子中的第二个句子是否为第一个句子的合理延续，并测量做出这些判断的时间。我们发现，在第一个实验中被评为更自然的句子中，可接受性判断较高，判断时间较低。前两个实验表明，概念隐喻是很容易理解的。然而，他们并没有表明这样的暗喻是毫无困难地处理的。因此，在第三个实验中，我们比较了概念指喻（“plate…them”）和与其匹配的复数指喻，其前词是明确的（“some plate…them”）。不同类型的指代结果是不同的：在一种情况下（指代集体集合的代词），概念代词后面跟着复数代词比明确的复数形式更容易。对于其他两种类型（对泛型和隐含多个项目的引用），显式复数比其概念对应物理解得更快。
This paper reports three experiments on the interpretation of “conceptual” anaphors. These are anaphors that do not have an explicit linguistic antecedent, but one constructed from context. For instance, if one says “I need a knife. Where do you keepthem?”,themmeans something like “the knives that I presume you have in your house”. In the first experiment, subjects rated sentences containing conceptual anaphors, of three different types, to be as natural as ones with a “linguistically correct” antecedent (e.g. “I need an iron. Where do you keep it?”), and as more natural than ones with neither a plausible conceptual antecedent nor a plausible linguistic one. In a second (self-paced) experiment, subjects judged whether the second sentence in such pairs was a sensible continuation from the first, and the time to make these judgements was measured. We found that acceptability judgements were high, and judgement times low, in just those sentences that were rated as more natural in the first experiment. These first two experiments showed that conceptual anaphors are quite easily understood. However, they did not show that such anaphors are processed without difficulty. In the third experiment, we therefore compared conceptual anaphors (“plate … them”) with matched plural anaphors whose antecedents were explicit (“some plates … them”). The results were different for different types of anaphor: in one case (pronouns that referred to collective sets), the conceptual version followed by a plural pronoun was easier than the explicit plural version. For the other two types (references to generics and to implied multiple items), the explicit plurals were understood more rapidly than their conceptual counterparts.