花園路徑句是一種暫時(shí)性的局部歧義句,是一種特殊的歧義現(xiàn)象。花園路徑句的歧義消解研究一直為語(yǔ)言學(xué)家和心理語(yǔ)言學(xué)家所關(guān)注,它對(duì)于理解人類(lèi)語(yǔ)言的加工機(jī)制具有重要意義。本研究旨在探究中國(guó)英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者的二語(yǔ)閱讀能力與英語(yǔ)花園路徑句的歧義消解的關(guān)系。本研究設(shè)計(jì)了一個(gè)花園路徑句理解實(shí)驗(yàn)來(lái)考察不同閱讀熟練度的英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者在花園路徑句歧義消解中的表現(xiàn)。參與者為60名來(lái)自江西某大學(xué)英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)的二年級(jí)學(xué)生,分為熟練閱讀者組和較不熟練閱讀者組,每小組有30名學(xué)生。參與者需要閱讀20個(gè)句子,其中包括10個(gè)花園路徑句和10個(gè)非歧義句子。本實(shí)驗(yàn)中所有的花園路徑句都是主從復(fù)合句。閱讀完每個(gè)句子后,參與者需要回答一個(gè)關(guān)于該句子的一般疑問(wèn)句。本研究運(yùn)用心理學(xué)軟件E-Prime 2.0編寫(xiě)實(shí)驗(yàn)程序,以反應(yīng)時(shí)和得分為指標(biāo)。所有統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù)均在SPSS 24.0中進(jìn)行了分析。實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明:（1）學(xué)習(xí)者閱讀能力影響花園路徑句的歧義消解。熟練閱讀者在理解花園路徑句時(shí),比較不熟練閱讀者反應(yīng)更快,并獲得更高的測(cè)試成績(jī)（反應(yīng)時(shí)p=.000<.05;得分p=.000<.05）。（2）較不熟練閱讀者對(duì)于花園路徑句歧義消解的困難主要在于對(duì)其... 

【文章來(lái)源】：江西師范大學(xué)江西省

【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：71 頁(yè)

【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
Abstract
摘要
List of Abbreviations
Chapter One Introduction
    1.1 Background of the Study
    1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study
    1.3 Organization of the Thesis
Chapter Two Review of the Literature
    2.1 Garden Path Sentence
        2.1.1 Definition of Garden Path Sentence
        2.1.2 Classification of Garden Path Sentence
    2.2 Reading Ability
    2.3 Ambiguity Resolution of Garden Path Sentence
        2.3.1 Theoretical Models of Ambiguous Sentences Processing
            2.3.1.1 Garden Path Model
            2.3.1.2 Constraint-based Model
            2.3.1.3 Weakly Interactive Parallel Parser Theory
        2.3.2 Empirical Studies on Ambiguity Resolution of Garden Path Sentence
            2.3.2.1 Reading Ability and Ambiguity Resolution of Garden PathSentence
            2.3.2.2 Other Influencing Factors of Ambiguity Resolution of GardenPath Sentence
    2.4 Theoretical Foundation of the Study
        2.4.1 Structure Building Framework
        2.4.2 Suppression Mechanism and Ambiguity Resolution
        2.4.3 Reading ability,Suppression Mechanism and Ambiguity Resolution
    2.5 Summary
Chapter Three Methodology
    3.1 Research Questions
    3.2 Reading Ability Test
        3.2.1 Participants
        3.2.2 Materials
        3.2.3 Procedures
        3.2.4 Data Collection and Analysis of Reading Ability Test Scores
    3.3 Garden Path Sentences Comprehension Test
        3.3.1 Participants
        3.3.2 Materials
        3.3.3 Procedures
        3.3.4 Data Collection and Analysis of Garden Path Sentence ComprehensionTest
    3.4 Pilot Study
Chapter Four Results and Discussion
    4.1 Results of Tests in Garden Path Sentence and Unambiguous Sentence
        4.1.1 Results of Tests in the Same Reading Ability Group
            4.1.1.1 Results of Tests in Skilled Readers Group
            4.1.1.2 Results of Tests in Less-skilled Readers Group
        4.1.2 Results of Tests between Skilled Readers and Less-skilled ReadersGroup
            4.1.2.1 Results of Response Time
            4.1.2.2 Results of Scores
    4.2 Results of Tests in Main Clause and Subordinate Clause
        4.2.1 Results of Tests in the Same Reading Ability Group
            4.2.1.1 Results of Tests in Skilled Readers Group
            4.2.1.2 Results of Tests in Less-skilled Readers Group
        4.2.2 Results of Tests between Skilled Readers and Less-skilled ReadersGroup
            4.2.2.1 Results of Response Time
            4.2.2.2 Results of Scores
    4.3 Results of Correlation Tests
        4.3.1 Results of Correlation Tests between Reading Ability and theComprehension of Garden Path Sentence
        4.3.2 Results of Correlation Tests between Reading Ability and theComprehension of Main Clause and Subordinate Clause
    4.4 Discussion
        4.4.1 Differences between Skilled Readers' and Less-skilled Readers' Performance in Garden Path Sentence and Unambiguous Sentence
        4.4.2 Differences between Skilled Readers’and Less-skilled Readers’Performance in Main Clause and Subordinate Clause
        4.4.3 Correlations between Reading Ability and Ambiguity Resolution ofGarden Path Sentence
    4.5 Summary
Chapter Five Conclusion
    5.1 Major Findings
    5.2 Implications of the study
        5.2.1 Theoretical Implications
        5.2.2 Pedagogical Implications
    5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study
References
Appendices
    Appendix Ⅰ Reading Ability Test Materials
    Appendix Ⅱ Garden Path Sentences Comprehension Test Materials
    Appendix Ⅲ Instructions for Garden Path Sentences Comprehension Test
Acknowledgements
在學(xué)期間公開(kāi)發(fā)表論文（著）及科研情況


【參考文獻(xiàn)】：
期刊論文
[1]第二語(yǔ)言閱讀“熔斷”假說(shuō)的認(rèn)知心理證據(jù):在線篇章處理的范式[J]. 吳詩(shī)玉,張宇英,胡青青.  心理學(xué)報(bào). 2017(03)
[2]英語(yǔ)歧義的類(lèi)型及其積極作用[J]. 丁一,張艷瑩.  佳木斯職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào). 2017(01)
[3]我們能否像閱讀母語(yǔ)那樣閱讀外語(yǔ)?——在線篇章處理的證據(jù)[J]. 楊楓,吳詩(shī)玉.  外語(yǔ)教學(xué)理論與實(shí)踐. 2016(04)
[4]句法歧義消解影響因素、認(rèn)知機(jī)制及其神經(jīng)基礎(chǔ)[J]. 何文廣,張曉靚.  心理科學(xué). 2016(04)
[5]英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者花園路徑句理解分析[J]. 曾淑萍.  沈陽(yáng)農(nóng)業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版). 2016(04)
[6]書(shū)面韻律信息與詞匯偏向在歧義句歧義消解中的作用[J]. 于澤,趙國(guó)祥,任桂琴.  心理科學(xué). 2015(01)
[7]音樂(lè)和語(yǔ)言句法認(rèn)知的比較[J]. 周臨舒,蔣存梅,楊玉芳.  科學(xué)通報(bào). 2012(Z2)
[8]句法歧義消解與個(gè)體閱讀能力的差異[J]. 韓迎春.  廣東第二師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào). 2012(01)
[9]中國(guó)英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者的花園路徑句理解——與工作記憶容量和語(yǔ)言水平的相關(guān)研究[J]. 顧琦一,程秀蘋(píng).  現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ). 2010(03)
[10]英語(yǔ)花園路徑句加工的定性研究[J]. 晏小琴.  外國(guó)語(yǔ)言文學(xué). 2008(01)

碩士論文
[1]工作記憶抑制機(jī)制對(duì)第二語(yǔ)言句法歧義句理解的影響研究[D]. 杜文娜.揚(yáng)州大學(xué) 2017
[2]“花園路徑”現(xiàn)象的認(rèn)知語(yǔ)用分析[D]. 周麗杰.中國(guó)石油大學(xué)(華東) 2015
[3]工作記憶的抑制機(jī)制與漢語(yǔ)閱讀理解的關(guān)系研究[D]. 朱蓮花.東北師范大學(xué) 2005
[4]主題推理加工中的個(gè)體差異及時(shí)間進(jìn)程[D]. 顧敏敏.河北師范大學(xué) 2004
[5]工作記憶的抑制機(jī)制與漢語(yǔ)歧義詞理解的關(guān)系研究[D]. 沈毅.東北師范大學(xué) 2002



本文編號(hào)：2990709