PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: In this paper, we studied how native (L1) speakers of Russian and speakers of Mandarin Chinese learning Russian as a foreign language (L2) process Russian sentences with different word orders. We compared SVO (canonical) and OVS (non-canonical) orders in isolation and in context. Experiments focusing on the L2 processing of different word orders are still not very numerous, and those using context are extremely rare.
UNASSIGNED: In Experiment 1, target sentences were presented in isolation. In Experiment 2, one-sentence contexts introduced one NP mentioned in the target sentence, either the first (so that given information preceded new information, which is characteristic for Russian and many other languages) or the second. As a result, two factors could be compared: the syntactic (word order) and the contextual (whether the context is appropriate from the information-structural perspective). We used different measures to capture online and offline effects: word-by-word reading times, question-answering accuracy and sentence rating on a 1 to 5 scale (for L1 participants).
UNASSIGNED: In both experiments, RTs and question-answering accuracy data showed that non-canonical orders were difficult for L2 participants, but not for L1 participants. However, L1 participants gave non-canonical orders lower ratings in isolation, presumably because in naturally occurring texts, they are used only in particular contexts. As for the context factor in Experiment 2, some effects were the same for L1 and L2 processing: all participants read given NPs faster than new ones and preferred sentences with a \'given - new\' word order. The latter may reflect the universal principles of narrative coherence. However, unlike native speakers, L2 readers are not sensitive to more subtle contextual requirements of different word orders.
UNASSIGNED: In Experiment 1, target sentences were presented in isolation. In Experiment 2, one-sentence contexts introduced one NP mentioned in the target sentence, either the first (so that given information preceded new information, which is characteristic for Russian and many other languages) or the second. As a result, two factors could be compared: the syntactic (word order) and the contextual (whether the context is appropriate from the information-structural perspective). We used different measures to capture online and offline effects: word-by-word reading times, question-answering accuracy and sentence rating on a 1 to 5 scale (for L1 participants).
UNASSIGNED: In both experiments, RTs and question-answering accuracy data showed that non-canonical orders were difficult for L2 participants, but not for L1 participants. However, L1 participants gave non-canonical orders lower ratings in isolation, presumably because in naturally occurring texts, they are used only in particular contexts. As for the context factor in Experiment 2, some effects were the same for L1 and L2 processing: all participants read given NPs faster than new ones and preferred sentences with a \'given - new\' word order. The latter may reflect the universal principles of narrative coherence. However, unlike native speakers, L2 readers are not sensitive to more subtle contextual requirements of different word orders.
摘要：
■在本文中，我们研究了以俄语为母语（L1）的人和以普通话为母语的人如何学习俄语作为外语（L2）处理具有不同词序的俄语句子。我们在隔离和上下文中比较了SVO（规范）和OVS（非规范）顺序。针对不同词序的L2处理的实验还不是很多,那些使用上下文的人非常罕见。
■在实验1中，目标句子被孤立地呈现。在实验2中，单句上下文引入了目标句子中提到的一个NP，要么是第一个(这样给定的信息先于新的信息，这是俄语和许多其他语言的特征)或第二种。因此,可以比较两个因素：句法（词序）和上下文（从信息结构的角度来看上下文是否合适）。我们使用不同的措施来捕获在线和离线效果：逐字阅读时间，1至5量表（L1参与者）的问答准确性和句子评分。
■在两个实验中，RTs和问答准确性数据显示，对于L2参与者来说，非规范顺序是很困难的，但不是L1参与者。然而,L1参与者孤立地给予非规范订单较低的评级，大概是因为在自然发生的文本中，它们仅在特定上下文中使用。至于实验2中的上下文因素，L1和L2处理的一些效果是相同的：所有参与者阅读给定NP的速度都比新NP的速度更快，并且首选具有“给定-新”字序的句子。后者可能反映了叙事连贯性的普遍原则。然而,与母语人士不同，L2读者对不同词序的更微妙的上下文要求并不敏感。
■在实验1中，目标句子被孤立地呈现。在实验2中，单句上下文引入了目标句子中提到的一个NP，要么是第一个(这样给定的信息先于新的信息，这是俄语和许多其他语言的特征)或第二种。因此,可以比较两个因素：句法（词序）和上下文（从信息结构的角度来看上下文是否合适）。我们使用不同的措施来捕获在线和离线效果：逐字阅读时间，1至5量表（L1参与者）的问答准确性和句子评分。
■在两个实验中，RTs和问答准确性数据显示，对于L2参与者来说，非规范顺序是很困难的，但不是L1参与者。然而,L1参与者孤立地给予非规范订单较低的评级，大概是因为在自然发生的文本中，它们仅在特定上下文中使用。至于实验2中的上下文因素，L1和L2处理的一些效果是相同的：所有参与者阅读给定NP的速度都比新NP的速度更快，并且首选具有“给定-新”字序的句子。后者可能反映了叙事连贯性的普遍原则。然而,与母语人士不同，L2读者对不同词序的更微妙的上下文要求并不敏感。
