...
首页> 外文期刊>The quarterly journal of experimental psychology: QJEP >Temporal frames of reference in three Germanic languages: Individual consistency, interindividual consensus, and cross-linguistic variability
【24h】

Temporal frames of reference in three Germanic languages: Individual consistency, interindividual consensus, and cross-linguistic variability

机译:三种日耳曼语系的时间参照系:个体一致性,个体间共识和跨语言变异

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

A task like "moving a meeting forward" reveals the ambiguity inherent in temporal references. That speakers of U.S. English do not agree on how to solve it is well established: Roughly one half moves the meeting futurewards, the other half pastwards. But the extent to which individual speakers, rather than groups of speakers, consider such phrases as ambiguous has not been scrutinized. Does the split in readings result from a lack of intraindividual consistency or from a lack of interindividual consensus? And how specific is U.S. English in this regard when compared to other closely related Germanic languages? Based on a taxonomy of spatiotemporal frames of reference (FoRs), we conducted two experiments with speakers of Swedish, U.S. English, and German to assess individual preferences for temporal FoRs, intra- and cross-linguistic variability, consistency and long-term stability of these preferences, and possible effects of priming a spatial FoR. The data reveal cross-linguistic differences, both in terms of which temporal FoRs speakers prefer (the absolute FoR in Sweden, the intrinsic FoR in German, and both of these in the US) and in terms of the extent to which these preferences are shared and stable (high consensus and consistency in Sweden and Germany, and low consensus and partial consistency in the US). Overall, no effect of spatial priming was observed; only speakers of U.S. English with a baseline preference for the absolute temporal FoR seemed to be susceptible to spatial priming. Thus, the assumption that temporal references are affected by spatial references is only weakly supported.
机译:诸如“向前推进会议”之类的任务揭示了时间参考中固有的歧义。说美国英语的人不同意如何解决它是公认的:大约一半向前推进会议,另一半向前推进会议。但是,没有人仔细检查个别说话者而不是说话者群体认为这些短语模棱两可的程度。读数上的分歧是由于缺乏个体内的一致性还是由于缺乏个体间的共识?与其他紧密相关的日耳曼语相比,美国英语在这方面有多具体?基于时空参照系(FoR)的分类法,我们与瑞典语,美国英语和德语的讲者进行了两个实验,评估了个人对时间FoR的偏好,语言内和跨语言变异性,一致性和长期稳定性。这些偏好以及启动空间FoR的可能效果。数据揭示了跨语言的差异,既有时间上的FoR说话者更喜欢(瑞典的绝对FoR,德语的内在FoR,以及美国的这两者)以及这些偏好的共享程度且稳定(瑞典和德国的共识和一致性很高,美国的共识和部分一致性较低)。总体而言,未观察到空间启动效应。只有对绝对时间FoR有基线偏爱的美国英语使用者似乎容易受到空间启动的影响。因此,仅弱支持时态参考受空间参考影响的假设。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号