4.3 Article

How readers process syntactic input depends on their goals

期刊

ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA
卷 203, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103006

关键词

Reading; Syntactic processing; Sentence processing; Flanker paradigm

资金

  1. European Research Council [ERC742141, H2020-MSCA-IF-2018 833223, H2020-MSCAIF-2018 840286]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During reading, the recognition of words is influenced by the syntactic compatibility of surrounding words: a sentence-superiority effect. However, when the goal is to make syntactic categorization decisions about single target words, these decisions are influenced by the syntactic congruency rather than compatibility of surrounding words. Although both these premises imply that readers can extract syntactic information from multiple words in parallel, they also suggest that how the brain organizes syntactic input-and consequently how surrounding stimuli affect word recognition-depends on the reader's top-down goals. The present study provides a direct test of this conception. Participants were offered nouns and verbs amidst a grammatical context ('this horse fell') and ungrammatical context ('fell horse this'). Using a conditional task setup, we manipulated the amount of emphasis put on respectively sentences and single words. In two blocks readers were instructed to make sentence grammaticality judgments only if the middle word was respectively noun or verb; in two other blocks readers were instructed to syntactically categorize the middle word only if the sentence was respectively correct or incorrect. We established an interaction effect whereby the impact of grammatical correctness on syntactic categorization decisions was greater than the effect of grammatical correctness per se. This first sentence-superiority effect in the categorization of single words, combined with the absence of this effect in prior flanker studies, leads us to surmise that word-to-word syntactic constraints only operate if the reader is engaged in sentence processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据