交流语境对学习双方语言准确性的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2018.05.02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 研究安排了交流任务和个人迁移任务，创设了三种交流语境，比较不同语境下交流学习双方的语言准确性。结果显示：（1）三种语境中仅语言交流时语言准确性水平最高，交流语境中的对象可视性阻碍了语言准确性提高的速率，表情可视性降低了语言准确性水平；交流语言相似性水平高的被试，语言准确性水平提高的效率和效果均高于低的一方；（2）交流任务中仅语言交流时语言准确性最高，个人任务中对象可视语境下准确性最低；和交流任务相比，高相似被试个人任务中的准确性更高。表明：语言认知不完全代表交流认知，对象可视性阻碍语言认知和交流认知水平，表情可视性辅助语言共同提高交流认知水平。

关键词: 语境, 交流, 学习, 语言

Abstract: The study arranged communication task and individual task, created three communicative contexts, and compared the language accuracy of both sides in different contexts. The results showed that:(1)In the three contexts, language accuracy was the highest in only language communication. Object visibility in the context of communication hampered the rate of language accuracy, and expression visibility reduced the level of language accuracy. The efficiency and effect of language accuracy in high similarity subjects were higher than those in low similarity subjects. (2)Under the condition of language, the level of language accuracy was the highest in the communication task; in the context of object visibility, the accuracy level was the lowest in the individual task. Compared to the communication task, the high similarity subject in the individual task was more accurate. The results suggested that:language cognition did not fully represent communication cognition, object visibility hindered language cognition and communication cognitive level, and expression visibility and language together improved the cognitive level of communication.

Key words: context, communication, learning, language

中图分类号:

B844

张恒超. 交流语境对学习双方语言准确性的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(5): 523-532.

ZHANG Hengchao. The Influence of Communicative Context on Language Accuracy of Both Sides of Learning[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2018, 34(5): 523-532.

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.
Arts, A., Maes, A., Noordman, L., & Jansen, C. (2011). Overspecification facilitates object identification. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 361-374.
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.
Berezan, O., Yoo, M., & Christodoulidou, N. (2016). The impact of communication channels on communication style and information quality for hotel loyalty programs. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 7(1), 100-116.
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.
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.
Brennan, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482-1493.
Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of memory and language, 61(2), 171-190.
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., & Marshall, C.R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A.K. Joshi, I.A. Sag and B.L. Webber (eds), Elements of discourse understanding (10-63). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39.
Davies, C. N. (2011). Over-Informativeness in Referential Communication (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge).
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. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.
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.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and semantics, 3:Speech Acts (41-58). New York:Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 22-40.
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.
Hellbernd, N., & Sammler, D. (2016). Prosody conveys speaker's intentions:Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 70-86.
Jacquette, D. (2014). Collective referential intentionality in the semantics of dialogue. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49), 143-159.
Katsos, N. (2009). Evaluating under-informative utterances with context-dependent and context-independent scales:Experimental and theoretical implications. In U. Sauerland and K. Yatsushiro (eds), Experimental Semantics and Pragmatics (51-73), London:Palgrave.
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?:Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and language, 48(1), 16-32.
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, M. L., & Frank, M. C. (2016). The length of words reflects their conceptual complexity. Cognition, 153, 182-195.
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.
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.
Perniss, P., Özyürek, A., & Morgan, G. (2015). The influence of the visual modality on language structure and conventionalization:Insights from sign language and gesture. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 2-11.
Rogers, S. L., Fay, N., & Maybery, M. (2013). Audience design through social interaction during group discussion. PloS one, 8(2), e57211.
Sacchi, S., Riva, P., & Aceto, A. (2016). Myopic about climate change:Cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 68-73.
Sedivy, J. (2003). Pragmatic versus form-based accounts of referential contrast:Evidence for effects of informativity expectations. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32(1), 3-23.
Snedeker, J., & Trueswell, J.C. (2004). The developing constraints on parsing decisions:The role of lexical-biases and referential scenes in child and adult sentence processing. Cognitive Psychology, 49(3), 238-299.
Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more:A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 260-273.
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.
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. (2017). 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. (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.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	卢富荣, 江世涛, 温梦雨, 王丽娴, 张亚丽, 张彩. 父母教育焦虑和教育卷入一致性对初中生学习投入的差异化影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(4): 553-562.
[2]	郑筱星, 李佩瑾, 邢强. 自主控制影响自我调节类别学习:“决策驱动”的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 370-378.
[3]	刘颖, 刘儒德, 毛晨莹, 林静敏, 刘佳彬. 在线视频学习中教师反馈时间和反馈复杂性对大学生学习投入的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(3): 408-417.
[4]	成梦婷, 徐琴美, 葛雨箐, 马洒, 严晨毓. 母亲回应方式与婴儿情绪调节策略使用的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(2): 162-171.
[5]	赵笑梅, 赵昕睿, 王珂珂. 大学生图文信息知识整合的加工:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 18-27.
[6]	王祯, 史保莹, 赵好莉, 郭云飞, 王恩国. 情感教学代理的情绪表达和角色对视频学习的影响:学习者经验的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 60-69.
[7]	姜莹, 盖笑松. 中英母语者英语语音意识训练效果对比的元分析[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2026, 42(1): 70-84.
[8]	谢宇, 贺荟中, 王磊, 戴惟熙. 孤独症儿童与典型发展儿童内隐学习物品情景线索的比较研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 761-769.
[9]	乔沛桦, 成美霞, 王福兴. 增加测验互动的教学代理对多媒体学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(6): 850-858.
[10]	黄杰, 朱丹, 周丽敏. 高中生感知的教师工作倦怠对其学习倦怠的感染效应:基于资源丧失的视角[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(5): 684-691.
[11]	马小凤, 姬喜莹, 张骐韵, 刘明惠, 张晶. 提取关键步骤促进问题解决[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 465-472.
[12]	施利承, 冷英, 谭顶良. 实物操作促进儿童几何概念学习的神经基础:一项fNIRS研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(4): 500-509.
[13]	谢莉, 金辉, 王志英, 胡宇飞, 杨喜兰, 席娟. 脱贫内生动力对贫困大学生学习投入的影响:自我控制的中介作用和社会支持的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(3): 386-397.
[14]	赵笑梅, 程释, 刘子涵, 刘红. 不同语言条件和执行功能对大学生记忆整合的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(2): 153-162.
[15]	郭滢, 陈晓丹, 刘文志, 刘雨彤, 朱皕. 青少年语义错误记忆发展:学习测验因素[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2025, 41(1): 12-21.