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.

相关文章 15

[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]	高斌, 张丹丹, 朱根, 蔡艳香, 郭羽希. 高中生主动性人格与网络学习投入：网络学习自我效能和学业期望的序列中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(2): 224-230.
[3]	杨宝琰, 马熙凤, 臧鸿瑜, 毛海燕. 经济收入和父亲受教育程度对农村初中生学习投入的影响：家庭义务感和依赖教育性未来身份的作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2024, 40(1): 83-92.
[4]	辛钊阳, 王庆林, 王明辉, 杜静, 赵国祥. 师生关系与硕士研究生学习适应:科研自我效能和专业承诺的链式中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 825-832.
[5]	刘思含, 伍新春, 王歆逸. 父母教养方式的潜在类别及其与青少年学习投入和焦虑症状的关系[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(5): 673-682.
[6]	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.
[7]	丛佩瑶, 贾宁. 元认知监测中容易度判断与学习判断的分离:来自行为与近红外脑成像的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(4): 522-531.
[8]	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.
[9]	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.
[10]	李其容, 杨艳宇, 李春萱. 父母冲突、青少年日常自我效能和学习投入:日常消极情绪与日常沉思在父母冲突调节效应中的中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(2): 236-246.
[11]	李奕萱, 王泽宇, 周铭扬, 杨玉川, 赵敏翔, 董妍. 高中生物理和化学学科中同伴学业支持与学业情绪的关系:学习效能感的中介作用和性别的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(1): 58-67.
[12]	张洋, 张婉莹, 王燕青, 赵婷婷, 王福兴. 生成性绘图与合作对高中生科学知识学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 830-838.
[13]	李明, 尚新华, 方晓义, 姬文广. 从父母教育卷入到学业成就:自主支持与自主学习力的链式中介[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 839-847.
[14]	张彩, 江伊茹, 朱成伟, 邵婷婷, 王海涛, 陈福美. 学校归属感与青少年手机依赖的关系:学习焦虑的中介效应与同伴关系的调节效应[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(6): 848-858.
[15]	郎悦茹, 龚少英, 曹阳, 吴亚男. 网络学习中师生交互与大学生学习投入的关系：自主动机与学业情绪的序列中介作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(4): 530-537.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed