|
|
手语加工过程中象似性效应及其理论解释
|
Abstract:
手语是听障人群日常交流的语言，影响其生活的方方面面，象似性被定义为心理储存的概念表征和语音表征之间的结构化映射，不同学者对手语加工处理中的作用进行了诸多研究。文章根据前有研究结果分析手语加工过程中象似性效应的理论解释，包含具身认知观、结构映射假说以及认知资源竞争假说三个视角。此外，文章梳理前有文献中的结果争议发现任务涉及语义与语音形式之间的映射可能是象似性效应在实验范式中出现的必要条件。未来研究可以从象似性效应的边界条件、手语象似性对聋人非语言认知的影响以及象似性在真实学习情境的应用等方面入手深入探讨。
Sign language is the language of daily communication for hearing-impaired people, which affects all aspects of their lives. Iconocity is defined as the structured mapping between mentally stored con-ceptual and phonological representations, and different scholars have carried out many studies on the role of iconocity in sign language processing. The article analyzes the theoretical explanations for the effect of iconocity in sign language processing based on the results of previous studies, in-cluding the embodied cognition, the structural mapping hypothesis, and the cognitive resource competition hypothesis. In addition, the article analyzes the controversy over the results in the previous literature and finds that the task involves a mapping between semantics and phonological form that may be necessary for the emergence of the iconocity effect in the experimental paradigm. Future research could delve deeper into the boundary conditions of the iconocity effect, the impact of sign language iconocity on deaf people’s nonverbal cognition, and the application of iconocity in authentic learning situations.
| [1] | 曹宇, 李恒(2016). 象似性和体验性对成年听人中国手语词汇习得的影响. 中国特殊教育, (2), 37-42. |
| [2] | 曹宇, 李恒(2021). 象似性和手语学习经验对中国手语-汉语跨模态语义启动效应的影响. 心理科学, 44(1), 67-73. |
| [3] | 何宇茵, 马赛(2013). 基于语料库的中国手语象似性研究. 中国特殊教育, (9), 53-57. |
| [4] | 李俊宏, 丁国盛(2013). 手语和口语理解及产生的脑机制对比. 心理科学进展, (9), 1560-1569. |
| [5] | 刘润楠, 杨松(2007). 试论手语词汇的任意性和理据性. 中国特殊教育, (5), 38-42+50. |
| [6] | 张积家, 陈磊, 陈穗清(2013). 语言符号的象似性对手语具体名词语义加工的影响. 语言文字应用, (1), 89-98. |
| [7] | 张积家, 彭聃龄(1993). 汉字词特征语义提取的实验研究. 心理学报, 25(2), 140-147. |
| [8] | Barcroft, J. (2004). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Lexical Input Processing Approach. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 200-208. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02193.x |
| [9] | Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual Symbol Systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149 |
| [10] | Baus, C., Carreiras, M., & Emmorey, K. (2013). When Does Iconicity in Sign Language Matter? Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2011.620374 |
| [11] | Bosworth, R. G., & Emmorey, K. (2010). Effects of Iconicity and Semantic Relatedness on Lexical Access in American Sign Language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1573-1581.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020934 |
| [12] | Emmorey, K. (2014). Iconicity as Structure Mapping. Philosophical Transac-tions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369, Article 20130301. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0301 |
| [13] | Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The Brain’s Concepts: The Role of the Sensory-Motor System in Conceptual Knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 455-479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290442000310 |
| [14] | Gimeno-Martínez, M., & Baus, C., (2022). Iconicity in Sign Lan-guage Production: Task Matters. Neuropsychologia, 167, Article 108166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2022.108166 |
| [15] | Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W. (2008). Visible Em-bodiment: Gestures as Simulated Action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 495-514. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.495 |
| [16] | Inoue, T. (2006). Memory in Deaf Signers and Embodied Cognition of Sign Languages. Japanese Psychological Research, 48, 223-232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2006.00315.x |
| [17] | Markham, P. T., & Justice, E. M. (2004). Sign Language Iconicity and Its Influence on the Ability to Describe the Function of Objects. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2004.03.008 |
| [18] | McGarry, M. E., Midgley, K. J., Holcomb, P. J., & Emmorey, K. (2023). How (and Why) Does Iconicity Effect Lexical Access: An Electrophysiological Study of American Sign Language. Neuropsychologia, 183, Article 108516.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2023.108516 |
| [19] | Meteyard, L., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). The Role of Sen-sory and Motor Information in Semantic Representation: A Review. In P. Calvo, & A. Gomila (Eds.), Handbook of Cogni-tive Science (pp. 291-312). Elsevier Science.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-046616-3.00015-3 |
| [20] | Morett, L. M. (2015). Lending a Hand to Signed Language Acquisition: Enactment and Iconicity Enhance Sign Recall in Hearing Adult American Sign Language Learners. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 251-276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.999684 |
| [21] | Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Lan-guage. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759 |
| [22] | Nielsen, A. K., & Dingemanse, M. (2021). Iconicity in Word Learning and Beyond: A Critical Review. Language and Speech, 64, 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830920914339 |
| [23] | Orlansky, M. D., & Bonvillian, J. D. (1984). The Role of Iconicity in Early Sign Language Acquisition. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4903.287 |
| [24] | Ormel, E., Hermans, D., Knoors, H., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). The Role of Sign Phonology and Iconicity during Sign Processing: The Case of Deaf Children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Educa-tion, 14, 436-448.
https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enp021 |
| [25] | Ortega, G., & Morgan, G. (2015a). Input Processing at First Exposure to a Sign Language. Second Language Research, 31, 443-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658315576822 |
| [26] | Ortega, G., & Morgan, G. (2015b). Phonological Development in Hearing Learners of a Sign Language: The Influence of Phonological Parameters, Sign Complexity, and Iconicity: Phonological Development in Sign L2 Learners. Language Learning, 65, 660-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12123 |
| [27] | Perniss, P., Lu, J. C., Morgan, G., & Vigliocco, G. (2018). Mapping Language to the World: The Role of Iconicity in the Sign Language Input. Developmental Science, 21, e12551. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12551 |
| [28] | Pietrandrea, P. (2002). Iconicity and Arbitrariness in Italian Sign Language. Sign Language Studies, 2, 296-321.
https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2002.0012 |
| [29] | Pretato, E., Peressotti, F., Bertone, C., & Navarrete, E. (2018). The Iconici-ty Advantage in Sign Production: The Case of Bimodal Bilinguals. Second Language Research, 34, 449-462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658317744009 |
| [30] | Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). The Link between Form and Meaning in American Sign Language: Lexical Processing Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 550-557.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014547 |
| [31] | Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). The Link between Form and Meaning in British Sign Language: Effects of Iconicity for Phonological Decisions. Journal of Experimental Psy-chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1017-1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019339 |
| [32] | Thompson, R. L., Vinson, D. P., Woll, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). The Road to Language Learning Is Iconic: Evidence From British Sign Language. Psychological Science, 23, 1443-1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459763 |
| [33] | VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to Form and Content in the Input: An Experiment in Consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion, 12, 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177 |
| [34] | Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Woolfe, T., Dye, M. W. G., & Woll, B. (2005). Language and Imagery: Effects of Language Modality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272, 1859-1863.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3169 |
| [35] | Vinson, D., Thompson, R. L., Skinner, R., & Vigliocco, G. (2015). A Faster Path between Meaning and Form? Iconicity Facilitates Sign Recognition and Production in British Sign Language. Journal of Memory and Language, 82, 56-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.002 |
