Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
− −
１．はじめに
(1a) teacher
asked
teacher answered
(1b)
(1) a. When the student asked the teacher answered his interesting question right away.
b. When the student asked, the teacher answered his interesting question right away.
e.g., The athlete realized her exercise ... e.g., hope
Pickering et al., 2000; Trueswell et al.,
1993
(2) (3)
Traxler, 2002
(2) When Sue tripped the table fell over and the vase was broken.
(3) When Sue fell the politician stopped and helped her up.
C-3
― 98 ―
MacDonald et
al., 1992
２．実験 実験文
16 72
(4) Plausible/Optionally Transitive conditions:
When1
the2
student3
asked(,4
) the5
teacher6
in7
a8
red9
shirt10
answered11
his12
interesting13
question14
right15
away.16
(5) Implausible conditions:
When1
the2
husband3
ate4
(,) the5
wife6
in7
a8
red9
hat10
had11
a12
glass13
of14
apple15
juice.16
(6) Intransitive conditions:
When1
the2
boy3
smiled4
(,) the5
girl6
in7
a8
pink9
dress10
waved11
her12
hand13
from14
the15
window.16
(4) ask
(5)
(6)
smile
実験参加者
40 21 19 21.5 SD = 1.48 Oxford Placement Test 2 (Allan, 2004)200 144 range: 122–164, SD = 10.42 1
1 CEFR B1–C1
― 99 ―
データ分析
200 ms 6000 ms
31.88% 28.28% 23.28%
Barr et al., 2013 結果と考察
answered
R12
wrote
waved
R7 in
85%
― 100 ―
付録
plausible implausible
Plausible conditions:
When1
the2
student3
asked(,4
) the5
teacher6
in7
a8
red9
shirt10
answered11
his12
interesting13
question14
right15
away.16
Implausible conditions:
When1
the2
husband3
ate4
(,) the5
wife6
in7
a8
red9
hat10
had11
a12
glass13
of14
apple15
juice.16
transitive intransitive Transitive conditions;
When1
the2
student3
asked(,4
) the5
teacher6
in7
a8
red9
shirt10
answered11
his12
interesting13
question14
right15
away.16
Intransitive conditions;
When1
the2
boy3
smiled4
(,) the5
girl6
in7
a8
pink9
dress10
waved11
her12
hand13
from14
the15
window.16
― 101 ―
Region 11 における最終モデル RT: Reading Time, PROFICIENCY: Oxford Placement Test 2 score, WM: working memory capacity, WL:
word length (the number of alphabets), ITEM ORDER: the item order including fillers
Oxford Placement Test 2
Final Model: lmer ( RT ~ AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY |
Participant ) + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY | Set ) + WM + WL + ITEM ORDER)
Final Model: lmer ( RT ~ AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY |
Participant ) + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY | Set) + WM + WL + ITEM ORDER )
Final Model: lmer ( RT ~ AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY |
Participant ) + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PROFICIENCY | Set) + WM + WL + ITEM ORDER )
× Final Model: lmer ( RT ~ AMBIGUITY * PLAUSIBILITY + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY * PLAUSIBILITY |
Participant ) + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY + PLAUSIBILITY | Set) + PROFICIENCY + WM + WL + ITEM
ORDER)
× Final Model: lmer ( RT ~ AMBIGUITY * TRANSITIVITY + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY + TRANSITIVITY |
Participant ) + ( 1 + AMBIGUITY + TRANSITIVITY | Set ) + PROFICIENCY + WM + WL + ITEM
ORDER )
― 102 ―
参照文献 Allan, D. (2004) The Oxford Placement Test 2:Tset Pack. Oxford University Press.
Barr, D., Levy, R., Scheepers, & Tily, H.(2013) Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis
testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68: 255–278.
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Marcel A. Just and Patricia A. Carpenter (1992) Working memory constraints on
the processing of syntactic ambiguity. Cognitive Psychology 24: 56–98
Pickering, M., Traxler, M. & Crocker, M. (2000) Ambiguity resolution in sentence processing: Evidence
against Frequency-based Accounts. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 447–475.
Preacher, K., Curran, P. & Bauer, D. (2006) Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple
linear regression, multilevel modeling and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics 31: 437–448.
Traxler, M. (2002) Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children’s processing of temporarily
ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 55(1): 75–96.
Trueswell, J., Tanenhaus, M. & Kello, C. (1993) Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating
effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition 19: 528–553.
謝辞
16J01818
― 103 ―
