|
|
|
| Processing advantages on Chinese formulaic sequences： Evidence from eye movements |
| GAO Xiaolei1, LI Xuling1, ZHAO Han1, BAI Xuejun2, GAO Lei1 |
1 Plateau Brain Science Research Center, Tibet University, Lhasa 850000;
2 Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The present study investigated the processing advantages of Chinese formulaic sequences on native speakers and Tibetan second language speakers using eye movement technology, so did the role of formulaic sequences frequency and Chinese level in Chinese formulaic sequences processing. The results showed the processing advantages of Chinese formulaic sequences on both native speakers and Tibetan second language speakers. Compared with non formulaic sequences, the gaze duartion, total reading time of formulaic sequences were shorter, and the total fixation counts were fewer. And the frequency effect was observed during the processing of Chinese formulaic sequences, compared with high-frequency formulaic sequences, the low-frequency formulaic sequences needed longer gaze duartion and more fixation counts. On the target words, compared with non formulaic sequences, the total reading time of formulaic sequences were shorter, and the total fixation counts were fewer in both high and low frequency conditions. Compared with high-frequency formulaic sequences, the low-frequency formulaic sequences needed longer total reading time and more fixation counts. At the same time, this study found that the efficiency of the processing of Chinese formulaic sequences was similar between native speakers and Tibetan second language speakers with different Chinese levels. These results provided evidence for the totality representational hypothesis of formulaic sequences and usage-based view of language acquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 白学军, 高晓雷, 高蕾, 王永胜. (2017). 藏语阅读知觉广度的眼动研究. 心理学报, 49(5), 569-576.
[2] 房艳霞. (2018). 提高语块意识的教学对汉语第二语言学习者口语产出的影响. 世界汉语教学, 32(1), 93-109.
[3] 高珊. (2016). 母语者和第二语言学习者汉语阅读中语块加工的眼动研究. 北京语言大学博士学位论文.
[4] 高珊. (2017). 母语者和第二语言学习者汉语阅读中语块加工优势的眼动研究. 世界汉语教学, 31(4), 560-575.
[5] 高蕾, 高晓雷, 白学军, 陈梅香, 郭志英. (2018). 不同熟练程度藏汉双语者言语理解中的语码切换及其代价. 心理与行为研究, 16(6), 744-750.
[6] 高晓雷, 沈梦, 李海燕, 白学军, 高蕾. (2020). 藏语母语者汉语词汇识别的眼动研究. 心理与行为研究, 18(1), 45-52.
[7] 高晓雷, 王永胜, 郭志英, 张慢慢, 白学军. (2015). 藏-汉双语者语义与词汇表征特点研究. 心理与行为研究, 13(6), 737-743.
[8] 黄四宏, 詹宏伟. (2011). 语块认知加工研究的最新进展. 外国语, 34(2), 64-71.
[9] 孔令跃. (2018). 对外汉语教学语块研究述评. 华文教学与研究,(1), 49-57+69.
[10] 马丁一. (2015). 汉语离合式语块的眼动实验研究. 华东师范大学硕士学位论文.
[11] 毛澄怡. (2008). 语块及其在英语学习者会话中的使用特征. 解放军外国语学院学报, (2), 58-62.
[12] 屈典宁, 彭金定. (2016). 国外语块实证研究20年: 回顾与展望. 外语学刊, (2), 109-114.
[13] 王立非, 张岩. (2006). 基于语料库的大学生英语议论文中的语块使用模式研究. 外语电化教学, (4), 36-41.
[14] 吴华佳, 刘绍龙. (2013). 基于不同二语水平的预制语块心理表征实证研究. 中国外语, 10(5), 72-77.
[15] 吴继峰. (2016). 频率和汉语水平对汉语二语者非习语语块加工的影响. 第二语言学习研究, 2(2), 14-23.
[16] 肖文萍. (2002). 第二语言习得和外语学习. 外交学院硕士学位论文.
[17] 许莹莹, 王同顺. (2015). 语块频率、结构类型及英语水平对中国英语学习者语块加工的影响.外语教学与研究, 47(3), 393-404+480-481.
[18] 荀恩东, 饶高琦, 肖晓悦, 臧娇娇. (2016). 大数据背景下BCC语料库的研制. 语料库语言学, 3(1), 93-109+118.
[19] 闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军. (2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 589-605.
[20] 杨群, 张积家, 范丛慧. (2021). 维吾尔族与汉族的大学生在汉语歧义词消解中的语境促进效应及反应抑制效应. 心理学报, 53(7), 1-12.
[21] 张立飞. (2010). 论频率对语言结构的建构作用. 解放军外国语学院学报, 33(6), 8-14+127.
[22] 张锐. (2014). 中高级汉语学习者语块习得的心理表征模式研究. 南京师范大学硕士学位论文.
[23] 张妍. (2020). 频率、语义透明度对汉语母语者与中高水平学习者语块加工的影响. 解放军外国语学院学报, 43(4), 35-43.
[24] 郑航, 李慧, 王一一. (2016). 语境中语块的加工及其影响因素:以中级汉语学习者为例. 世界汉语教学, 30(3), 401-418.
[25] 朱璐瑶, 崔占玲. (2017). 字形信息在藏-汉双语者汉字词识别中的作用. 心理学探新, 37(4), 320-326.
[26] 周榕, 李丽娟. (2013). 语块在二语认知加工中的优势及其影响因素研究. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),(1), 42-49+158.
[27] 钟志英, 何安平. (2012). 中国英语学习者对高频非习语英语程式语的心理表征研究. 外语教学与研究, 44(6), 886-898.
[28] Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 173-194.
[29] Boers F., Eyckmans J., Kappel J., Stengers H., & Demecheleer M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
[30] Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711-733.
[31] Chen, Y., & Baker, P. (2010). Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 14(2), 30-49.
[32] Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.
[33] Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45-61.
[34] Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 17-44.
[35] Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 61-78.
[36] Ellis N. C., Simpson-Vlach R., & Maynard C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42(3), 375-396.
[37] Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29-62.
[38] Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433-445.
[39] Krahnke, K. J. (1983). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 300-305.
[40] Nekrasova, T. M. (2009). English L1 and L2 speakers' knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning, 59(3), 647-686.
[41] Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication(pp. 191-226). New York: Longman.
[42] Schmitt, N., & Underwood, G. (2004). Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self paced reading task. In N. Schmitt(Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use(pp. 173-189). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[43] Siyanova-Chanturia A., Conklin K., & Schmitt N. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27(2), 251-272.
[44] Tremblay A., Derwing B., Libben G., & Westbury C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61(2), 569-613.
[45] Underwood G., Schmitt N., & Galpin A. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 153-172). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[46] Valsecchi M., Künstler V., Saage S., White B. J., Mukherjee J., & Gegenfurtner K. R. (2013). Advantage in reading lexical bundles is reduced in non-native speakers. Journal of Eye Movement Research, 6(5): 2, 1-15.
[47] Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language in computer-supported communication: Theory meets reality. Language Awareness, 11(2), 114-131.
[48] Yi W., Lu S., & Ma G. (2017). Frequency, contingency and online processing of multiword sequences: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research, 33(4), 519-549. |
|
|
|
