Discourse complexity in the light of eye-tracking: a pilot Russian language study

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

The paper explores the influence of discourse structure on text complexity. We assume that certain types of discourse units are easier to read than others, due to their explicit discourse structure, which makes their informational input more accessible. As a data source, we use the dataset from the MECO corpus, which contains eye movement data for 12 Russian texts read by 35 native speakers. We demonstrate that the approach relying on elementary discourse units (EDUs) can be felicitously used in the analysis of eye movement data, since fixation patterns on EDUs are similar to those on whole sentences. Our analysis has identified EDU outliers, which show shorter time of first fixation than estimated. We arranged these outliers into several groups associated with different discourse structures. First, these are statements with nominal predicates that set exposition of the text or macroproposition and, following those, EDUs that elaborate on the previous statement and signal the beginning of the narrative. Second, they are EDUs that serve as the middle component of a listing or a group of coordinated clauses or phrases. The final group represents EDUs that are part of an opposition, contrast or comparison. Discourse analysis based on EDUs has never been applied to eye movement data, so our project opens many avenues for further research of complexity of discourse structure.

作者简介

Svetlana Toldova

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Email: toldova@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5777-9161

holds a Ph.D. in Philology and is Associate Professor of the School of Linguistics at the Faculty of Humanities and Head of Formal Linguistics Lab

room A-114, Building 1, 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 117218, Russia

Natalia Slioussar

National Research University Higher School of Economics; Saint Petersburg State University

Email: slioussar@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1706-6439

Doctor Habil., Associate Professor of the School of Linguistics at the Faculty of Humanities, Associate Professor of the Department of the Problems of Convergence in Natural Sciences and Humanities at St. Peterburg State University

room 518, Building 1, 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 117218, Russia

Anastasia Bonch-Osmolovskaya

National Research University Higher School of Economics

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: abonch@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5826-8286

Associate Professor of the Faculty of Humanities

room 521, Building 1, 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya Ulitsa, Moscow, 117218, Russia

参考

  1. Aaronson, Doris & Steven Ferres. 1983. Lexical categories and reading tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 9(5). 675.
  2. Aaronson, Doris & Hollis S. Scarborough. 1976. Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2(1). 56.
  3. Balogh, Jennifer, Edgar Zurif, Penny Prather, David Swinney & Lisa Finkel. 1998. Gap-filling and end-of-sentence effects in real-time language processing: Implications for modeling sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language 61(2). 169-182.
  4. Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1-48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  5. Boston, Marisa Ferrara, John T. Hale, Reinhold Kliegl & Umesh Patil. 2008. Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Researc 2. 1-12.
  6. Carlson, Lynn & Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse tagging reference manual. ISI Technical Report ISI-TR-545 54. 56.
  7. Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. University of Chicago Press.
  8. Chang, Frederick R. 1980. Active memory processes in visual sentence comprehension: Clause effects and pronominal reference. Memory & Cognition 8(1). 58-64.
  9. Clifton, Charles Jr., Adrian Staub & Keith Rayner. 2007. Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. van Gompel (ed.), Eye movements: A window on mind and brain, 341-372. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
  10. Cop, Uschi. 2017. Presenting GECO: An eye-tracking corpus of monolingual and bilingual sentence reading. Behavior Research Methods 49. 602-615.
  11. Degand, Liesbeth & Anne-Catherine Simon. 2005. Minimal Discourse Units: Can we define them, and why should we. Proceedings of SEM-05. Connectors, Discourse Framing and Discourse Structure: From Corpus-Based and Experimental Analyses to Discourse Theories 477. 65-74.
  12. Frank, Stefan L., Irene Fernandez Monsalve, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco. 2013. Reading time data for evaluating broad-coverage models of English sentence processing. Behavior Research Methods 45. 1182-1190.
  13. Ferreira, Fernanda & John M. Henderson. 1993. Reading processes during syntactic analysis and reanalysis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale 47(2). 247.
  14. Gernsbacher, Morton A., Varner R. Kathleen & Mark E. Faust. 1990. Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16(3). 430.
  15. Givón, Talmy. 1993. Coherence in text, coherence in mind. Pragmatics & Cognition 1(2). 171-227.
  16. Grosz, Barbara J. & Candace L. Sidner. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12. 175-204.
  17. Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
  18. Hirotani, Masako, Lyn Frazier & Keith Rayner. 2006 Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54(3). 425-443.
  19. Hirschberg, Julia & Diane Litman. 1993. Empirical studies on the disambiguation of cue phrases. Computational Linguistics 19(3). 501-530.
  20. Husain, Samar, Shravan Vasishth & Narayanan Srinivasan. 2014. Integration and prediction difficulty in Hindi sentence comprehension: Evidence from an eye-tracking corpus. Journal of Eye Movement Research 8. 1-12.
  21. Just, Marcel A. & Patricia. A. Carpenter. 1980. A theory of reading: From eye fixations to comprehension. Psychological Review 87. 329-354.
  22. Kibrik, Anrej A. & Vera I. Podlesskaya. 2009. Night Dream Stories: Corpus Study of Russian Discourse. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskih kultur. (In Russ.)
  23. Kliegl, Reinhold, Antje Nuthmann & Ralf Engbert. 2006. Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135. 12.
  24. Kuperman, Victor. 2010. The effect of word position on eye-movements in sentence and paragraph reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 63(9). 1838-1857. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003602412
  25. Kuperman, Victor. 2022a. Expanding horizons of cross-linguistic research on reading: The Multilingual Eye-movement Corpus (MECO). To appear in Behavior Research Methods.
  26. Kuperman, Victor. 2022b. Text reading in English as a second language: Evidence from the Multilingual Eye-Movements Corpus (MECO). To appear in Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
  27. Laurinavichyute, Anna K., Irina A. Sekerina, Svetlana Alexeeva, Kristine Bagdasaryan & Reinhold Kliegl. 2019. Russian Sentence Corpus: Benchmark measures of eye movements in reading in Russian. Behavior Research Methods 51. 1161-1178.
  28. Luke, Steven G. & Kiel Christianson. 2018. The Provo Corpus: A large eye-tracking corpus with predictability norms. Behavior Research Methods 50. 826-833.
  29. Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organization. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Information Sciences Institute.
  30. Marian, Viorica, Henrike K. Blumenfeld & Margarita Kaushanskaya. 2007. The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 50. 940-967.
  31. Podlesskaya, Vera I. & Andrej A. Kibrik. 2003. Methods of oral speech corpora research: Discourse transcription development experience. Proc. of Cognitive Modeling in Linguistics. Varna, Bulgaria.
  32. Polanyi, Livia. 1988. A formal model of the structure of discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 12. 601-638.
  33. Prasad, Rashmi, Bonnie Webber & Alan Lee. 2018. Discourse annotation in the PDTB: The next generation. Proceedings 14th Joint ACL-ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation. 87-97.
  34. Pynte, Joël & Alan Kennedy. 2006. An influence over eye movements in reading exerted from beyond the level of the word: Evidence from reading English and French. Vision Research 46. 3786-3801.
  35. Rayner, Keith. 1998. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin 124. 372.
  36. Rayner, Keith. 2012. Psychology of Reading. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  37. Schauer, Holger. 2000. From elementary discourse units to complex ones. 1st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue. 46-55.
  38. Van Dijk, Teun A. 2019. Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction, and Cognition. Routledge.
  39. Warren, Tessa, Sarah J. White & Erik D. Reichle. 2009. Investigating the causes of wrap-up effects: Evidence from eye movements and E-Z Reader. Cognition 111(1). 132-137.

版权所有 © Toldova S., Slioussar N., Bonch-Osmolovskaya A., 2022

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##