由眼動資料探討連接詞在閱讀歷程中扮演的角色

The Relationship between Connectives and Reading Processes: Evidence from Eye Movements

10.6251/BEP.20100128

詹益綾(Yi-Ling Chan)；柯華葳(Hwa-Wei Ko)

眼動資料 ； 連接詞 ； 逐漸整合方式 ； 對立程度 ； connectives ； eye movements ； incremental interpretation

教育心理學報

42卷2期（2010 / 12 / 01）

297 - 316

繁體中文

本實驗目的在探討提供語法標誌線索的「連接詞」對讀者整合訊息以及處理的歷程。實驗一以眼動探討兩個問題：（一）訊息對立程度與連接詞「但是」的關係，（二）讀者處理連接詞訊息是符合延遲整合假設或是逐漸整合方式。結果顯示連接詞對讀者閱讀是有幫助的，且讀者需要花較長的時間處理句子對立關係高的句子。讀者對句子訊息的處理似乎是以逐漸整合的方式。實驗二加入另一有連接詞「因爲」的篇章，結果同實驗一，再次顯示閱讀時不是在句子結束才整合。綜合結果，本研究肯定連接詞在閱讀中的助益，而處理歷程是逐步整合語詞，而不是延遲整合。

Two experiments examined the effect of connectives on sentence and text reading. Delayed integration hypothesis and incremental interpretation have been postulated to examine the role of connectives. According to the delayed integration hypothesis, readers process two clauses linked by a connective by interpreting each clause separately and combining them when they reach the end of the second clause. However, incremental interpretation proposes that semantic processing takes place incrementally. In the first experiment, readers' eye movements were monitored as they read sentences containing adversative the connectives ”but” with different clausal semantic relatedness. Results indicated that readers spent more processing time on clauses with less semantic relatedness. Connectives helped reader integrating clausal semantic information. There was no interaction between clausal semantic relatedness and connectives. Moreover, duration of readers' first gaze on the end of second clause was not longer than any other content words. It seemed to indicate readers didn't integrate clauses at the end of the second clause, and that readers integrated words incrementally. In the second experiment, both adversative and causal connectives were inserted in texts. The incremental interpretation was also observed. These experiments support that connectives facilitate reading and readers integrate semantic units incrementally.

1. 柯華葳、陳明蕾、廖家寧(2005)。詞頻、詞彙類型與眼球運動型態：來自篇章閱讀的證據。中華心理學刊，47，381-398。
   連結：
2. Caron, J.,Micko, H. C.,Thuring, M.(1998).Conjunctions and the recall of composite sentences.Journal of Memory and Language,27,309-323.
3. Garrod, S.(ed.),Pickering, M. A.(ed.)(1999).Language Processing.Hove, East Sussex, UK:Psychology Press.
4. Halliday, M. A. K.,Hasan, R.(1976).Cohesion in English.London:Longman.
5. Just, M. A.,Carpenter, P. A.(1987).The psychological of reading and language comprehension.Newton, MA:Allyn and Bacon.
6. Just, M. A.,Carpenter, P. A.(1980).A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension.Psychological Review,87,329-354.
7. Kinstch, W.,van Dijk, T. A.(1978).Towards a model of text comprehension and production.Psychological Review,85,363-394.
8. Lorch, R. F. ,Jr.(ed.),O''Brien, E. J.(ed.)(1994).Sources of coherence in reading.Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
9. Millis, K. K.,Golding, J. M.,Barker, G.(1995).Causal connectives increase inference generation.Discourse Processes,20,29-49.
10. Millis, K. K.,Haberlandt, K.(1993).The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts.Applied Cognitive Psychology,7,317-339.
11. Millis, K. K.,Just, M. A.(1994).The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension.Journal of Memory and Language,33,128-147.
12. Millis, K. K.,Magliano, J. P.(1999).The co-influence of grammatical markers and comprehender goals on the memory for short discourse.Journal of Memory and Language,41,183-198.
13. Murray, J. D.(1997).Connectives-and narrative text: The role of continuity.Memory and Cognition,25(2),227-236.
14. Myers, J. L.,Shinjo, M.,Duffy, S. A.(1987).Degree of causal relatedness and memory.Journal of Memory and Language,26,453-465.
15. Rayner, K.(1998).Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 Years of research.Psychological Bulletin,24,372-422.
16. Rayner, K.,Pollatsek, A.(1989).The psychology of reading.New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
17. Segal, E. M.,Duchan, J. F.,Scott, P. J.(1991).The role of interclausal connectives in narrative structuring: Evidence from adult's interpretations of simple stories.Discourse Processes,14,27-54.
18. Singer, M.,Harkness, D.,Stewart, S. T.(1997).Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension.Discourse Processes,24,199-228.
19. Singer, M.,O''Connell, G.(2003).Robust inference processes in expository text comprehension.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,15(4),607-631.
20. Traxler, M. J.,Bybee, M. D.,Pickering, M. J.(1997).Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50(3),481-497.
21. Traxler, M. J.,Sanford, A. J.,Aked, J. P.,Moxey, L. M.(1997).Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,23,88-101.
22. 尤雪瑛(1990)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立政治大學西洋語文研究所。
23. 吳瑞屯、劉英茂(1986)。句子組合方式與連詞對理解與核對時間的影響。中華心理學刊，27(2)，93-103。
24. 程祥徽、田小琳(1992)。現代漢語。台北:書林。
25. 劉英茂(1999)。中英文句中思想結構之比較研究。中華心理學刊，41(2)，131-165。
26. 鄧立立(1998)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所。

1. 陳姿君(2014)。基於德中平行語料庫的德文連接詞翻譯研究—連接詞「wenn」與「weil」的實例分析—。東吳外語學報，39，227-253。
2. 官英華(2023)。母語背景對華語學習者華語短文閱讀理解與詞類訊息處理的影響。華語文教學研究，20(3)，1-31。