ABSTRACT

Recent studies of appositives have turned up differences between sentence-medial appositives and sentence-final appositives, for instance, in their availability for discourse continuations. Three experiments investigated whether medial appositives are more difficult to comprehend than final appositives and if so why. Experiment 1 tested coordinating (Narration) versus subordinating (Elaboration) discourse relations in sentence-medial or sentence-final position. Coordinating relations received lower naturalness ratings in general but especially in medial position. We propose a timeline hypothesis that coordinating (Narration) relations in medial position are difficult because the processor constructs a narrative timeline from earlier to later times and avoids ordering an event later on the timeline than an event whose description has not yet been completed. An interpretation study of ambiguous appositives confirmed the timeline hypothesis (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, the appositive event was disambiguated to either precede or follow the main clause event on the narrative timeline. Sentences with medial appositives disambiguated to precede the main clause event received higher naturalness ratings than those disambiguated to follow the main clause event, as expected on the timeline hypothesis.

摘要

最近对同位语的研究发现了句子中间同位语和句末同位语之间的差异，例如，它们在话语延续的可用性方面。三个实验调查了内侧同位词是否比最终同位词更难理解，如果是，为什么。实验 1 测试了在句子中间或句子结尾位置的协调（叙述）与从属（精化）话语关系。一般来说，协调关系的自然度评分较低，尤其是在中间位置。我们提出了一个时间线假设，即在中间位置协调（叙述）关系是困难的，因为处理器构建了一个从早到晚的叙述时间线，并避免在时间线上比描述尚未完成的事件排序更晚的事件。对模糊同位词的解释研究证实了时间线假设（实验 2）。在实验 3 中，同位语事件被消除歧义，以在叙事时间线上的主句事件之前或之后。正如时间线假设所预期的那样，在主句事件之前消除歧义的具有内侧同位词的句子比在主句事件之后消除歧义的句子获得更高的自然度评级。在实验 3 中，同位语事件被消除歧义，以在叙事时间线上的主句事件之前或之后。正如时间线假设所预期的那样，在主句事件之前消除歧义的具有内侧同位词的句子比在主句事件之后消除歧义的句子获得更高的自然度评级。在实验 3 中，同位语事件被消除歧义，以在叙事时间线上的主句事件之前或之后。正如时间线假设所预期的那样，在主句事件之前消除歧义的具有内侧同位词的句子比在主句事件之后消除歧义的句子获得更高的自然度评级。