漢語連貫關係於閱讀處理作用之探究

Abstract

閱讀過程中,成功地理解文本來自一致的心理表徵(Kintsch, 1988),而心理表徵又與連貫關係(Hobbs, 1979)密不可分(Graesser, Millis& Zwaan, 1997),因此,本研究旨在探討漢語母語者閱讀四種連貫句對時,連貫關係於句對處理的影響反映在其連貫性判斷、閱讀時間及回憶表現上的情形。四種連貫句對乃是由因果關聯的高、低,以及語意關聯的高、低所組成。此外亦調查讀者類型中,理科生和文科生在上述三個調查重點的表現差異情形。整個研究透過 Prime Professional 2.0 軟體進行,並探究以下研究問題:(1)閱讀因果關聯、語意關聯高、低組合的四種句對之連貫性評估情況與差異為何?(2)線上(on-line)閱讀四種句對時反映在其目標句閱讀時間的情況與差異為何?(3)線下(off-line)回憶四種句對時反映在其目標句回憶表現的情況與差異為何? 本研究的實驗結果顯示,首先,當因果關聯的連貫關係高,受試者認為句對較有連貫性,語意關聯亦是如此。第二,因果關聯高的句對其目標句閱讀時間較短,語意關聯的效果僅在高因果時,使高語意的句對閱讀較低語意快。第三,因果關聯和語意關聯高的句對其目標句回憶表現較佳。第四,因果關聯對理組的影響較大,語意關聯對文組的影響較大。整體而言,本研究結果發現了在漢語句對閱讀中,母語者於評估句對是否具有連貫性上,語意關聯同因果關聯一樣為重要的角色。此外,閱讀時,因果關聯能有效促進句對的處理速度,語意的影響則不如因果。而在短時記憶上,兩種連貫關係對回憶出的句對質量皆有相當影響。During the reading process, the successful understanding of the text comes from a consistent mental representation(Kintsch, 1988), and mental representation is inseparable from the coherence relation(Hobbs, 1979 (Graesser, Millis& Zwaan, 1997). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate when native Chinese speakers read the four types of coherent sentence pairs, the effect of coherence on the sentence pairs that reflected in the coherence judgment, reading time, and recall performance. The sentence pairs are composed of high/low causal relatedness and high/low semantic relatedness. We also investigated the performance of science students and liberal arts students. The following research questions were explored: (1)What's the difference in the coherence judgment in reading the four types of coherent sentence pairs? (2)What's the difference in the reading time of the target sentences of the four sentence pairs? (3)What's the difference in the memory performance of the target sentences of the four sentence pairs? The experimental results of this study show that, first, in the process of Chinese sentence pairs, both causal relatedness and semantic relatedness are important to judge whether the sentence pairs are coherent or not. Second, causal relatedness can effectively promote the processing speed of sentence pairs, while the effect by semantic relatedness is not as good as causality. Third, the two coherent relations are beneficial to the quality of the recall performance.