不同语境下交流学习双方语言相似性的比较

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2020.04.07

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 设计交流学习任务和个人迁移任务，采用交流范式，探查了不同语境下交流学习双方语言相似性特征。结果显示：（1）语言交流方式下双方语言相似性水平最高，其次是对象可视方式，最后是表情和对象可视方式。（2）交流双方语言相似性随交流进程呈现倒U型分布，仅表情方式下自b6开始语言相似性相对稳定。（3）交流任务b10中双方相似性的交流语境效应显著，个人任务中不显著；表情方式下任务类型主效应不显著。结果发现：随着交流语境中非语言因素的增加，语言对于双方认知协调作用逐渐减弱；表情可视性促进了语言参照惯例的形成效率；仅表情和对象可视语境下双方相似性在交流和个人任务间表现出一致性。

关键词: 交流, 语言, 语境, 相似性

Abstract: In the study, communicative learning task and individual task were designed. The communicative paradigm was used to explore the language similarity between both sides of communicative learning in different contexts. The results showed that: (1)The language similarity level between the two sides was the highest under the way of language communication, followed by the object visual way, and finally the expression and object visual way. (2)The language similarity between both sides showed an inverted U-shaped with the process of communication, and the language similarity was relatively stable from the block 6 only under the way of expression. (3)In the block 10 of the communication task, the communicative context effect of similarity was significant, but that of the individual task was not significant. The main effect of task type was not significant in the way of expression. The results suggested that: with the increase of non-language factors in the communication context, the cognitive coordination of language gradually diminished. Expression visibility promoted the formation efficiency of language referential convention. Only under the expression and object visual context the similarity showed consistency between communication task and individual task.

Key words: communication, language, context, similarity

中图分类号:

G442

张恒超. 不同语境下交流学习双方语言相似性的比较[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(4): 440-448.

ZHANG Hengchao. A Comparison of Language Similarity between Two Sides of Communicative Learning in Different Contexts[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2020, 36(4): 440-448.

参考文献

Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2012). Embodiment in mathematics teaching and learning: Evidence from students’ and teachers’ gestures. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 207-215.
Arnold, J. E., Kahn, J. M., & Pancani, G. C. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 505-512.
Barnett, M, D., & Johnson, D, M. (2016). The perfectionism social disconnection model: The mediating role of communication styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 200-205.
Beyer, H., & Liebe, U. (2015). Three experimental approaches to measure the social context dependence of prejudice communication and discriminatory behavior. Social Science Research, 49, 343-355.
Bezuidenhout, A. (2013). Perspective taking in conversation: a defense of speaker non-egocentricity. Journal of Pragmatics 48, 4-16.
Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465-1477.
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 171-190.
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Heller, D. (2014). What language processing can tell us about perspective taking: A reply to Bezuidenhout (2013). Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 279-284.
Buz, E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Jaeger, T. F. (2016). Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 68-86.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.
Crossley, L., Woodworth, M., Black, P. J., & Hare, R. (2016). The dark side of negotiation: Examining the outcomes of face-to-face and computer-mediated negotiations among dark personalities. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 47-51.
De Ruiter, J. P., Bangerter, A., & Dings, P. (2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 232-248.
Duran, N. D., & Dale, R. (2014). Perspective-taking in dialogue as self-organization under social constraints. New Ideas in Psychology, 32, 131-146.
Gahl, S., & Strand, J. F. (2016). Many neighborhoods: Phonological and perceptual neighborhood density in lexical production and perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 162-178.
Galati, A. (2009). Assessing common ground in conversation: The effect of linguistic and physical co-presence on early planning (doctorial dissertation). State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2013). Collaborating in spatial tasks: how partners coordinate their spatial memories and descriptions. Cognitive Processing,14(2), 1-3.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). From action to abstraction: Gesture as a mechanism of change. Developmental Review, 38, 167-184.
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Gesture’s role in speaking, learning, and creating. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 257-283.
Graziano, M., & Gullberg, M. (2013). Gesture production and speech fluency in competent speakers and language learners. In Tilburg Gesture Research Meeting (TiGeR) 2013. Tilburg University.
Hanna, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Trueswell, J. C. (2003). The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 43-61.
Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290-305.
Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36 (49), 143-159.
Keysar, B., Barr, D. J., Balin, J. A., & Brauner, J. S. (2000). Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science, 11(1), 32-38.
Koppensteiner, M., Stephan, P., & Jäschke, J. P. M. (2016). Moving speeches: Dominance, trustworthiness and competence in body motion. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 101-106.
Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1, 113-114.
Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2015). Referential precedents in spoken language comprehension: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 1-19.
Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8(1), 339-359.
Malt, B. C., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Conversation and convention: Enduring influences on name choice for common objects. Memory & Cognition, 32(8), 1346-1354.
Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S. (1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 331-354.
Nappa, R., & Arnold, J. E. (2014). The road to understanding is paved with the speaker’s intentions: Cues to the speaker’s attention and intentions affect pronoun comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 70, 58-81.
Novack, M., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). Learning from gesture: How our hands change our minds. Educational Psychology Review, 27(3), 405-412.
O’Carroll, S., Nicoladis, E., & Smithson, L. (2015). The effect of extroversion on communication: Evidence from an interlocutor visibility manipulation. Speech Communication, 69, 1-8.
Overall, N. C., & McNulty, J. K. (2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1-5.
Roberts, G., Langstein, B., & Galantucci, B. (2016). (In)sensitivity to incoherence in human communication. Language & Communication, 47, 15-22.
Rogers, S. L., Fay, N., & Maybery, M. (2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PloS one, 8(2), e57211.
Sidera, F., Serrat, E., Serrano, J., Rostan, C., Caño, A., & Amadó, A. (2013). Let’s share perspectives! Mentalistic skills involved in cooperation. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 2(3), 325-352.
Vanlangendonck, F., Willems, R. M., Menenti, L., & Hagoort, P. (2013). The role of common ground in audience design: Beyond an all or nothing story. In the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference the (PRE-CogSci 2013).
Vesper, C., Schmitz, L., Safra, L., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2016). The role of shared visual information for joint action coordination. Cognition, 153, 118-123.
Yoon, S. O., Koh, S., & Brown-Schmidt. (2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 699-707.
Yu, C., Schermerhorn, P., & Scheutz, M. (2012). Adaptive eye gaze patterns in interactions with human and artificial agents. Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 1(2), 13-43.
Zwaan, R. A.(2014). Embodiment and language comprehension: reframing the discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 229-234.
张恒超. (2013). 参照性交流中的“听者设计”. 心理发展与教育, 29(5), 552-560.
张恒超. (2017a). 共享因素对参照性交流双方学习的影响. 心理学报, 49(2), 197-205.
张恒超. (2017b). 参照性交流学习中语言参照惯例的形成特点. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 39(10), 133-138.
张恒超. (2018a). 交流语言认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26(2), 270-282.
张恒超. (2018b). 交流手势的认知特征. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 796-809.
张恒超, 阴国恩. (2012). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习的影响. 心理发展与教育, 28(2), 193-200.
张恒超, 阴国恩. (2014). 参照性交流中的非策略性认知过程. 心理研究, 7(5), 7-14.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	梁丹丹, 闫晓民, 葛志林. 4~8岁汉语高功能自闭症儿童基于语言线索的情绪识别能力发展研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 169-175.
[2]	马星, 刘文理. 汉语单音节中元音影响塞音识别的机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 513-521.
[3]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴. 语言范畴影响面部表情知觉的电生理学证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(3): 313-322.
[4]	张玉平, 董琼, 宋爽, 舒华. 小学低年级儿童的阅读发展轨迹:早期语言认知技能的预测作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 210-218.
[5]	吴国婧, 程雪林, 李叶, 白荣, 邢淑芬, 李玉华. 学前期儿童执行功能和语言的双向关系:社会经济地位的调节[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 186-194.
[6]	范若琳, 汝涛涛, 郑允佳, 徐贵平. 自发性观点采择对宽恕不同程度人际伤害的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 774-783.
[7]	占淑玮, 杨宁, 赵必华. 留守学前儿童接受性语言能力与社会退缩的关系:有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 834-844.
[8]	钟伟芳, 郭永兴, 汝涛涛, 侯伟. 沃尔夫假说的新证据:范畴内和范畴间颜色辨别难度相同时语言范畴也会影响注意前颜色知觉[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(1): 19-25.
[9]	杜萱, 林嘉懿, 陈黎静. 儿童和青少年的空间—时间隐喻图式[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(5): 513-519.
[10]	李占星, 倪晓莉, 牛更枫, 朱莉琪. 儿童基于心理本质论的种族认知及其影响因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(5): 633-640.
[11]	韩瑽瑽, 陈英和, 于晓, 邓之君, 刘静, 侯江文, 林燕燕. 表面相似性对数量关系和相对大小关系理解的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(3): 257-264.
[12]	钟伟芳, 汝涛涛, 莫雷. 习得的语言范畴对注意前颜色范畴知觉的影响:一项ERP研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(2): 129-137.
[13]	钟伟芳, 汝涛涛. 语言范畴可否引起偏侧化颜色范畴知觉？[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(1): 1-9.
[14]	张恒超. 交流语境对学习过程中学习者语言选择性注意的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 320-328.
[15]	俞稼钰, 王芩芩, 梁丹丹. 学龄期普通话特异性语言损伤儿童体习得——来自词汇体和语法体组合加工的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(2): 203-209.