Research on Interpretation Process of Bridging Reference in English Discourse with Think Aloud Protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Bridging reference (BR) refers to the relationship between a linguistic expression and its intended referent not explicitly mentioned in previous context. It has been studied for more than three decades with various approaches. However, limitation exists in those approaches except the relevance theory (RT) which suggests that each affecting factor is necessary for the cognitive effects and processing effort required to reach an acceptable overall interpretation. BR interpretation process has seldom been explored and only some questionnaires were adopted in earlier studies. This thesis tentatively approaches BR interpretation process by adopting the think aloud protocol (TAP). In addition, retrospective interview is used to complement TAP. Results from this research indicate that contextual assumptions with cause-effect relation are more accessible in BR interpretation. Contrary to findings from previous researches, contextual assumptions with contrast relation are not considered in this experiment. Encyclopedic information is not always used to test the acceptability of bridging referents. Subjects make choices in order of accessibility of contextual assumptions even though the referent is inconsistent with one’s general knowledge. It supports RT in that one stops inferring once a cognitive effect is achieved. Sometimes one’s activated general knowledge plays a decisive role in BR interpretation. Moreover, encyclopedic information, temporal sequence and syntactic position are taken into consideration in some cases. The constraint of discourse connectives on BR interpretation is proved again in this experiment. It also proves that backward inference is the only comprehension strategy employed by the subjects. The discussion of BR is within the framework of relevance theory. The exploration of BR within RT again verifies the explanatory power of this theory. Moreover, many factors affecting BR interpretation have been studied, but how does each of them work on interpreting BR remains unclear to us. The present study will not only focus on crucial factors affecting BR interpretation but also include other important factors in the analysis. The results from this experiment confirm the validity of TAP in examining BR on the one hand, and suggest alternative research method for later empirical studies of BR on the other hand. It reveals English majors’ cognition process of interpreting BR in English discourse in particular, and their cognition model in second language acquisition (SLA) in general. Analyzing TAP data within RT again validates the great explanatory power of this theory.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».