دانشگاه الزهرا

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات25
تعداد شماره‌ها911
تعداد مقالات7,489
تعداد مشاهده مقاله12,117,337
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله8,568,586
Samadi, Eskandar, karimi, Mohammad Nabi, Babaii, Esmat. (1401). The Role of Semantic Priming in Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian. جلوه هنر, 6(1), 247-261. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.31707.1323
Eskandar Samadi; Mohammad Nabi karimi; Esmat Babaii. "The Role of Semantic Priming in Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian". جلوه هنر, 6, 1, 1401, 247-261. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.31707.1323
Samadi, Eskandar, karimi, Mohammad Nabi, Babaii, Esmat. (1401). 'The Role of Semantic Priming in Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian', جلوه هنر, 6(1), pp. 247-261. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.31707.1323
Samadi, Eskandar, karimi, Mohammad Nabi, Babaii, Esmat. The Role of Semantic Priming in Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian. جلوه هنر, 1401; 6(1): 247-261. doi: 10.22051/lghor.2020.31707.1323

The Role of Semantic Priming in Relative Clause Attachment Ambiguity Resolution in Persian

Journal of Language Horizons
مقاله 12، دوره 6، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 11، مرداد 2022، صفحه 247-261    اصل مقاله (387.72 K)
نوع مقاله: Research article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2020.31707.1323
نویسندگان
Eskandar Samadi1؛ Mohammad Nabi karimi* 2؛ Esmat Babaii3
1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran,
2Associate Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
3Professor, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده
The present study investigated the role of semantic priming in the processing of ambiguous sentences containing Relative Clauses (RCs) preceded by a complex Noun Phrase (NP) by Persian native speakers. To this end, in a self-paced reading task using E-prime software, 63 Persian native speakers read sentences containing ambiguous RCs in their L1, i.e. Persian. The type of semantic relationship in this study was the one between the RC and one of the NPs within the complex NP to find out whether priming one of the NPs through this semantic manipulation would affect Persian native speakers’ attachment preferences. The results of the off-line post interpretive (RC attachment preferences) and on-line data (reading times) revealed that semantic priming affects participants’ attachment preferences, which suggests that their parsing preferences are not guided purely by syntactic information. The findings are in line with constraint-based models of sentence parsing, which assume that, during parsing, multiple sources of information interact and each of them constrains the interpretation in a particular way. The results also support the predictions of the Spreading Activation Model and Lexical Priming Theory.
کلیدواژه‌ها
RC attachment preference؛ ambiguity resolution؛ semantics؛ priming؛ native Persian speakers
عنوان مقاله [English]
نقش تداعی معنایی در ابهام‌زدایی جمله‌های موصولی در زبان فارسی
نویسندگان [English]
اسکندر صمدی1؛ محمدنبی کریمی2؛ عصمت بابایی3
1دانشجوی دکتری زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، گروه زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
2دانشیار زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، گروه زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
3استاد زبان‌شناسی کاربردی، گروه زبان‌های خارجی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران
چکیده [English]
پژوهشِ حاضر، به بررسی نقش تداعیِ معنایی در پردازش جمله‌های مبهمِ دربردارندة بندهای موصولی که گویشوران فارسی قبل از آن یک گروه اسمی مرکب مبهم به کار می‌برند، پرداخته است. به این منظور، در یک تکلیف خواندن خودآموز با استفاده از نرم افزار ای. پرایم، 63 گویشور فارسی، جمله‌های دربردارندة بندهای موصولی مبهم در زبان اولشان یعنی فارسی را خواندند. نوع رابطه معنایی در این پژوهش، از نوع رابطة بین بند موصولی و یکی از گروه‌های اسمی مرکب بود تا کشف شود آیا تداعیِ گروه‌های اسمی از طریق این آزمایش معنایی، اولویت‌های الحاقی گویشوران فارسی را متأثر می‌کند. یافته‌های تفسیری پست‌های آفلاین (اولویت‌های الحاقی بندهای موصولی) و داده‌های برخط (مدت‌زمان‌های خواندن) نشان داد که تداعی معنایی، اولویت‌های الحاقی شرکت‌کنندگان را متأثر می‌سازد که بدین معناست که اولویت‌های تجزیه آن‌ها فقط به وسیلة اطلاعات نحوی هدایت نمی‌شوند. این یافته‌ها همسو با مدل‌های محدودیت-بنیاد تجزیه جمله‌ها است که در این مدل ها تصور بر آن است که در هنگام تجزیه جمله‌ها، چندین منبع اطلاعاتی با یک‌دیگر تعامل دارند و هر یک از آن‌ها تفسیر را به روش خاصی محدود می‌سازد. همچنین، یافته‌ها پیش‌بینی‌های مدل فعال‌سازی گسترشی و نظریة تجزیه واژگانی را پشتیبانی می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
اولویت الحاقی بند موصولی, تفکیک‌پذیری ابهام, معناشناسی, تداعی معنایی, گویشوران فارسی
مراجع
  1. Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90201-3
  2. Arabmofrad, A. & Marefat, H. (2008). RC attachment ambiguity resolution in   Persian. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 29-49. http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-71-en.html
  3. Bergmann, A., Armstrong, M., & Maday, K. (2008). Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish: A production study. In Proceedings of Speech Prosody (pp. 505-518). http://isle.illinois.edu/sprosig/sp2008/papers/id147.pdf
  4. Bidaoui, A., Foote, R., & Abunasser, M. (2016). Relative clause attachment in native and L2 Arabic. International Journal of Arabic Linguistics, 2(2), 75-95. https://revues.imist.ma/index.php/IJAL/article/view/11564
  5. Caffarra, S., Molinaro, N., Davidson, D., & Carreiras, M. (2015). Second language syntactic processing revealed through event-related potentials: An empirical review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 51(1), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.010
  6. Carreiras, M., & Clifton, C. (1999). Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eye tracking evidence from Spanish and English. Memory & cognition, 27(5), 826-833. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03198535
  7. Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033295X.82.6.407
  8. Colins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1999). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ135579
  9. Colonna, S., Pynte, J., & Mitchell, D. C. (2000, March 30-April 1). Relative clause attachment in French: The role of constituent length. 13th CUNY conference on human sentence processing, La Jolla.
  10. Dekeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second‐language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language learning, 55(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x
  11. Dekydtspotter, L., Donaldson, B., Edmonds, A. C., Fultz, A. L., & Petrush, R. A. (2008). Syntactic and prosodic computations in the resolution of relative clause attachment ambiguity by English-French learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 453-480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263108080728
  12. Delle Luche, C., Van Gompel, R. P., Gayraud, F., & Martinie, B. (2006). Effect of relative pronoun type on relative clause attachment. In R. Artstein & M. Poesio (Eds.), Ambiguity in Anaphora workshop proceedings (p. 23-30). Malaga.
  13. Desmet, T., DeBaecke, C., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M., & Vonk, W. (2006). Relative clause attachment in Dutch: On-line comprehension corresponds to corpus frequencies when lexical variables are taken into account. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(4), 453-485. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400023485
  14. Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(4), 610-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.12.007
  15. Dussias, P. E. (2003). Syntactic ambiguity resolution in L2 learners: Some effects of bilinguality on L1 and L2 processing strategies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 529-557. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000238
  16. Ehrlich, K., Fernandez, E., Fodor, J. D., Stenshoel, E., & Vinereanu, M. (1999, March 18-20). Low attachment of RCs: New data from Swedish, Norwegian, and Romanian [Poster presentation]. The 12th annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York.
  17. Faghiri, P., Samvelian, P., & Hemforth, B. (2014). Accessability and word order: The case of ditransitive constructions in Persian. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 217-237). CSLI Publications.
  18. Fernández, E. M. (2003). Bilingual sentence processing: RC attachment in English and Spanish. John Benjamins Publishing.
  19. Finger, I., & Zimmer, M. (2000). Relative clause attachment preference in Brazilian Portuguese. Unpublished manuscript.
  20. Fodor, J. D. (2002). Psycholinguistics cannot escape prosody. In B. Bell & I. Marlien (Eds.), Speech Prosody: Proceedings, Aix-en-Provence, France (pp. 83-88). Aboratoire Parole et Language – SPROSIG.
  21. Green, M. J., & Mitchell, D. C. (2006). Absence of real evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 55(1), 1-17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.03.003
  22. Hemforth, B., Fernández, S., Clifton Jr, C., Frazier, L., Konieczny, L., & Walter, M. (2015). Relative clause attachment in German, English, Spanish and French: Effects of position and length. Lingua, 166, 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.08.010
  23. Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L., & Scheepers, C. (2000). Syntactic attachment and anaphor resolution: The two sides of relative clause attachment. In M. W. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 259-81). Cambridge University Press.
  24. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A new theory of words and language. Routledge.
  25. Iudina, M. V., Fedorova, O. V. (2009). Syntactic ambiguity resolution: Priming and self-priming effects. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Papers from the Annual International Conference “Dialogue 2009”, 8(15), 554-559.
  26. Jun, S. A., & Koike, C. (2008). Default prosody and relative clause attachment in Japanese. Japanese-Korean Linguistics, 13(1), 41-53. https://linguistics.ucla.edu/people/jun/JunKoike-final.pdf
  27. Kecskes, I. (2008). The effect of the second language on the first language. Babylonia, 2(2), 31-34. https://www.albany.edu/faculty/ikecskes/files/babyloniaproofkecskes.pdf
  28. Kecskes, I. (2014). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
  29. Kim, J. H., & Christianson, K. (2013). Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42(5), 393-411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9224-4
  30. MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9(2), 157-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969408402115
  31. Marefat, H., & Farzizadeh, B. (2018). Relative clause ambiguity resolution in L1 and L2: Are processing strategies transferred? Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 125-161.‏ http://ijal.khu.ac.ir/article-1-2855-en.html
  32. Marefat, H., & Samadi, E., (2016). Semantic priming effect on relative clause attachment ambiguity resolution in L2. Applied Research on English Language, 4(2), 79-94. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2015.15504
  33. Megerdoomian, K. (2000). Persian computational morphology: A unification-based approach. Computing Research Laboratory, New Mexico State University.
  34. Mitchell, D. C., Brysbaert, M., Grondelaers, S., & Swanepoel, P. (2000). Modifier attachment in Dutch: Testing aspects of construal theory. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 493-516). Elsevier Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043642-5/50023-1
  35. Miyao, M., & Omaki, A. (2006). No ambiguity about it: Korean learners of Japanese have a clear attachment preference. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia, & C. Zaller (Eds.) A supplement to the proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. http://www.bu.edu/bucld/files/2011/05/30-MiyaoBUCLD2005.pdf
  36. Omaki, A., & Ariji, K. (2004). Testing and attesting the use of structural information in L2 sentence processing. In L. Dekydtspotter, R. A. Sprouse & A. Liljestrand (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (pp. 205-218). Cascadilla Proceedings.
  37. Papadopoulou, D. (2005). Reading-time studies of second language ambiguity resolution. Second Language Research, 21(2), 98-120.‏ https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr254oa
  38. Papadopoulou, D., & Clahsen, H. (2003). Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(4), 501-528. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000214
  39. Quillian, M. R. (1966). Semantic memory. Bolt, Beranak & Newman.
  40. Shabani, K. (2016, March). RC-attachment ambiguity resolution in Persian sentences [Paper presentation]. The Second International Conference on Behavioral Science and Social Studies, Istanbul, Turkey.
  41. Snowden, J. S. (2015). Semantic memory. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 572-578). Elsevier.
  42. Taghvaipour, M. (2004). An HPSG analysis of Persian relative clauses. In S. Muller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2004 conference, center for computational linguistics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, (pp. 274-293). CSLI Publications.
  43. Taleghani, A. H. (2008). Modality, aspect and negation in Persian (Vol. 128). John Benjamins Publishing.
  44. Thornton, R., Gil, M., & MacDonald, M. (1998): Accounting for cross-linguistic variation: A constraint-based perspective. In Hillert, D. (Ed.), Sentence processing: A crosslinguistic perspective. Syntax and semantics (volume 31) (pp. 211-223).  Academic Press. 
  45. Traxler, M. J. (2007). Working memory contributions to relative clause attachment processing: A hierarchical linear modeling analysis. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 1107-1121.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193482
  46. Traxler, M. J., Foss, D. J., Seely, R. E., Kaup, B., & Morris, R. K. (2000). Priming in sentence processing: Intra-lexical spreading activation, schemas, and situation models. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(6), 581-595. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026416225168
  47. Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Clifton Jr, C., & van Gompel, R. (2000). Architectures and mechanisms for sentence processing: Is syntactic parsing a form of lexical ambiguity resolution? In Cross-linguistic perspectives on language processing (pp. 149-174). Springer.
  48. Zahn, D., & Scheepers, C. (2015). Overt prosody and plausibility as cues to relative-clause attachment in English spoken sentences. Peerj Preprints. http://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1210v1
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 808
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 278


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب