论正字法规则性和熟悉性在语言认知中的作用
The Role of Orthographic Regularity and Familiarity Effect in Language Recognition

作者: 张顺梅 , 王权红 :西南大学心理学部,重庆;

关键词: 熟悉性规则性首字母缩写词N400Regularity Familiarity Acronyms N400

摘要:
语言认知是我们每天都要面对的事情,当我们面对大量以知觉形式呈现的语言符号时,如何将其转化为丰富的含义,是否有一些语言特性呢?本文通过查阅大量研究资料,从正字法规则性和熟悉性两个因素入手,阐述了正字法规则性和熟悉性在以词条的形式呈现的词汇认知中的作用以及在以句子呈现的语境条件下的作用,最后得出结论:正字法规则性和熟悉性在一定程度上可以影响词汇认知,但并非是影响语言理解的决定因素,在有语境的条件下,即使是无意义的字符串也可以进入语义加工通道。

Abstract: Language cognition is something that we have to face every day. When we face a large number of linguistic symbols in the form of perception, questions are raised that how to convert it into a wealth of meaning, and whether there are some language peculiarities to help us understand the meaning. Through consulting a large number of materials, this paper expounds the role of ortho-graphic regularity and familiarity in cognitive vocabulary presented in the form of word list and in literature reading presented with the sentence context. Finally, the paper draws on that ortho-graphic regularity and familiarity are not the determining factors affecting language understanding though they have an effect on word recognition. And at least in a verbal context, semantic access may be attempted for any letter string, regardless of familiarity or regularity.

文章引用: 张顺梅 , 王权红 (2016) 论正字法规则性和熟悉性在语言认知中的作用。 心理学进展, 6, 107-113. doi: 10.12677/AP.2016.62014

参考文献

[1] Reicher, G. M. (1969). Perceptual Recognition as a Function of Mea-ningfulness of Stimulus Material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 274-280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0027768

[2] Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A Dual Route Cascaded Model of Visual Word Recognition and Reading Aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204-256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204

[3] Deacon, D., Dynowska, A., Ritter, W., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2004). Repetition and Semantic Priming of Nonwords: Implications for Theories of N400 and Word Recognition. Psychophysiology, 41, 60-74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.00120

[4] Günther, H., Gfroerer, S., & Weis, L. (1984). Inflection, Frequency, and the Word Superiority Effect. Psychological Research, 46, 261-281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00308888

[5] Henderson, L. (1974). A Word Superiority Effect without Orthographic Assistance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 301-311.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14640747408400416

[6] Holcomb, P. J., Grainger, J., & O’Rourke, T. (2002). An Elec-tro-Physiological Study of the Effects of Orthographic Neighborhood Size on Printed Word Perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 938-950.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/089892902760191153

[7] Harm, M. W., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the Meanings of Words in Reading: Cooperative Division of Labor between Visual and Phonological Processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662-720.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.3.662

[8] Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology Re-veals Semantic Memory Use in Language Comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01560-6

[9] Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Event-Related Brain Potentials to Semantically Inappropriate and Surprisingly Large Words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(80)90046-0

[10] Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Better the DVL You Know: Acronyms Reveal the Contribution of Familiarity to Single Word Reading. Psychological Science, 18, 122-126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01859.x

[11] Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2007). The Acronym Su-periority Effect. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 1158-1163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193106

[12] Laszlo, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (2008). Minding the PS, Queues, and PXQs: Uniformity of Semantic Processing across Multiple Stimulus Types. Psychophysiology, 45, 458-466.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00636.x

[13] McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An Interactive Activation Model of Context Effects in Letter Perception: Part I. An Account of Basic Findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.5.375

[14] Noice, H., & Hock, H. S. (1987). A Word Superiority Effect with Nonorthographic Acronyms: Testing for Unitized Visual Codes. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 485-490.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03209756

[15] Prinzmetal, W., & Millis-Wright, M. (1984). Cognitive and Linguistic Factors Affect Visual Feature Integration. Cognitive Psychology, 16, 305-340.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(84)90012-4

[16] Rugg, M. D. (1990). Event-Related Brain Potentials Dissociate Repetition Effects of High- and Low-Frequency Words. Memory & Cognition, 18, 367-379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03197126

[17] Rugg, M. D., & Nagy, M. E. (1987). Lexical Contribution to Nonword Repetition Effects: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials. Memory& Cognition, 15, 473-481.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03198381

[18] Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An Interactive Activation Model of Context Effects in Letter Perception: Part 2. The Contextual Enhancement Effect and Some Tests and Extensions of the Model. Psychological Review, 89, 60-94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.60

分享
Top