Subjectivity in language processing: Linguistic and psychological aspects of perspective-taking

人们的观点、品味和态度因人而异，而且是高度主观的。有许多反映主观态度的词，包括“有趣”、“可怕”和“不健康”等形容词。一个重要的问题是，这些主观词汇是基于谁的观点或观点——谁的观点认为某件事是可怕的、有趣的或不健康的。确定这些主观词汇反映的是谁的观点是很重要的。例如，考虑一个医生认为某个人不健康，而一个没有接受过医疗培训的朋友却表达了同样的观点。然而，确定一个主观形容词所依附的人的观点并不总是直截了当的。这个词出现的句子类型会影响它的意思。如果有人说“情况很可怕”，这个说话者通常会被解释为什么是“可怕”的仲裁者，但如果有人问朋友“情况令人恐惧吗？”然后观点就会转变，朋友对什么是可怕的看法也很重要。目前的项目旨在提高对人们如何理解主观词汇的理解，包括从一个人的角度到另一个人的角度的转变，以及基于语言和基于社会互动的因素如何影响这一点。这项研究可以为语言使用理论提供信息，也可以为干预措施的设计提供信息，以改善健康、法律和教育等环境下的沟通。理解语言与人们的个人意见/态度之间的关系，在处理由于态度分歧而导致的社会紧张局势时，以及在非典型人群中进行主观观点采取的调查时，也可能是相关的。本研究将有助于我们理解主观换位思考及其与语言的关系。本研究采用线上和线下两种实验方法来考察主观语言表达的解释机制和表征。研究人员将调查不同类型的主观表达是否以及在多大程度上引发语言处理过程中的视角转换，以及这是否受到自上而下的上下文因素的调节。该项目还将评估视角敏感元素的解释在多大程度上受其发生的语言环境的指导，以及视角持有者在实时处理过程中是如何被激活的。目前心理语言学中关于观点采纳的争论主要集中在客观情况下，个体在他们所知道或可以直接观察到的东西上存在差异，而最近理论语言学中关于观点采纳的争论主要集中在个体意见和态度之间的主观差异上。本项目的研究将拓宽视角加工的实证基础，并将进一步加深我们对人类如何加工视角敏感语言材料的理解。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

People's opinions, tastes and attitudes differ from person to person, and are highly subjective. There are many words that reflect subjective attitudes, including adjectives such as 'fun,' 'frightening' and 'unhealthy.' An important question is whose perspective or opinion these subjective words are anchored to--whose opinion it is that something is frightening, or fun, or unhealthy. Identifying whose opinion these kinds of subjective words reflect is important. For example, consider a physician deeming a certain individual to be unhealthy compared to a friend with no medical training conveying the same sentiment. However, identifying whose opinion a subjective adjective is anchored to is not always straightforward. The type of sentence in which the word occurs influences its meaning. If someone states 'The situation was frightening,' that speaker is often interpreted as the arbiter of what counts as 'frightening,' but if someone asks a friend 'Was the situation frightening?' then the perspective shifts and the friend's opinion of what counts as frightening also matters. The current project aims to improve understanding of how people understand subjective words, including shifts from one person's perspective to another's perspective, and how language-based and social-interaction-based factors influence this. This research may inform theories of language use, as well as the design of interventions to improve communication in contexts such as health, legal and educational settings. An understanding of the relation between language and people's personal opinions/attitudes may also be relevant when dealing with social tensions due to attitude divergence, as well as investigations of subjective perspective-taking in nontypical populations.This research will contribute to our understanding of subjective perspective-taking and its interfaces with language. The research uses both online and offline experimental methods to examine the mechanisms and representations involved in the interpretation of subjective linguistic expressions. The researchers will investigate whether and to what extent subjective expressions of different types trigger perspective-shifts during language processing, and whether this is modulated by top-down contextual factors. The project will also gauge the extent to which interpretation of perspective-sensitive elements is guided by the linguistic context in which they occur and how the perspective-holder is activated during real-time processing. Current debate in psycholinguistics regarding perspective-taking primarily focuses on objective situations where individuals differ in what they know or can observe directly, whereas much of the recent debate on perspective in theoretical linguistics has centered on subjective differences between individuals' opinions and attitudes. The studies in this project will broaden the empirical basis of work on perspectival processing and will further our understanding of how humans process perspective-sensitive linguistic material.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.