高功能孤独症儿童汉语口语花园路径句的理解研究

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2023.02.014

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2023, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (2): 243-248.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2023.02.014

• 心理行为研究 • 上一篇

高功能孤独症儿童汉语口语花园路径句的理解研究

任登峰¹^,², 郭强³, 赵航¹, 刘巧云¹()

1.华东师范大学教育学部康复科学系，上海智能教育研究院，上海市 200062
2.贵州工程应用技术学院师范学院，贵州毕节市 551700
3.浙江师范大学儿童发展与教育学院，浙江杭州市 311231

收稿日期:2023-02-17 修回日期:2023-02-22 出版日期:2023-02-25 发布日期:2023-03-16
通讯作者: 刘巧云 E-mail:qyliu@spe.ecnu.edu.cn
作者简介:任登峰(1986-)，男，汉族，重庆市人，博士研究生，主要研究方向：特殊儿童语言康复。
基金资助:
国家语委"十四五"科研规划课题(YB145-21);Supported by "14th Five-Year Plan" Research Project of the State Language Commission No(YB145-21);上海市教委科研创新计划项目(2023-59);Scientific Research and Innovation Program of Shanghai Education Commission No(2023-59);贵州省教育科学规划课题(2021C036);Education Science Planning Project of Guizhou Province No(2021C036)

Comprehension of Chinese spoken garden path sentences for children with high-functioning autism

REN Dengfeng¹^,², GUO Qiang³, ZHAO Hang¹, LIU Qiaoyun¹()

1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Education, AI for Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
2. School of Teachers, Guizhou University of Engineering Science, Bijie, Guizhou 551700, China
3. College of Child Development and Education, Zhejiang Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311231, China

Received:2023-02-17 Revised:2023-02-22 Published:2023-02-25 Online:2023-03-16
Contact: LIU Qiaoyun E-mail:qyliu@spe.ecnu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的探究高功能孤独症(HFA)儿童汉语花园路径句理解的心理行为特点。方法 2019年4月至8月，在上海市华东师范大学的言语听觉重点实验室采用社会招募的办法，招募35例HFA儿童(HFA组)和35例生理年龄匹配的普通发展儿童(TD组)为研究对象。基于心理语言学方法设计《花园路径句理解测验》，采用施事任务实验范式对两组儿童进行花园路径句理解能力测试和心理加工过程的分析，探索HFA儿童对汉语口语花园路径句的加工策略和错误类型。结果 HFA组花园路径句理解得分明显低于TD组(t = -2.941, P < 0.01)，反应时显著长于TD组(t = 6.132, P < 0.001)，两组习得人数无显著性差异(χ² = 2.954, P > 0.05)。在“有生命的名词+动词+有生命的名词+的+名词”(AVA)和“有生命的名词+动词+无生命的名词+的+名词”(AVI)花园路径句的错误类型上，两组均表现为“追求语序正确型”施事错误高于“追求语义正确型”施事错误(t > 2.503, P < 0.05)；在“无生命名词+动词+有生命名词+的+名词”(IVA)错误类型上，HFA组“追求语序正确型”施事错误显著低于“追求语义正确型”施事错误(t = -6.523, P < 0.001)，而TD组两者间比较无显著性差异(t = 2.024, P > 0.05)。结论 5~7岁的HFA儿童在汉语口语花园路径句的理解和加工能力落后于同龄普通发展儿童。HFA儿童对语义较为敏感，语义违反的花园路径句更容易导致理解错误。在理解花园路径句的错误类型上，在AVA和AVI的花园路径句型中，HFA儿童具有和正常儿童相似的句子理解加工策略；在IVA的花园路径句型中，HFA儿童采用语序和语义相结合的句子加工策略，但语义的作用更为凸显，正常儿童采用更加稳定的语序加工策略。

关键词: 高功能孤独症, 花园路径句, 特征

Abstract:

Objective To explore the psychological and behavioral characteristics of understanding Chinese garden path sentences in children with high-functioning autism (HFA). Methods From April to August, 2019, 35 children with HFA and 35 age-matched typically developing (TD) children were recruited by social recruitment method in the Key Laboratory of Speech and Hearing of East China Normal University in Shanghai. The Garden Path Sentence Comprehension Test was designed based on the psycholinguistic method, and the mental process and the ability of understanding garden path sentences were tested by the agent task experiment paradigm. Finally, the processing strategies and error types of Chinese spoken garden path sentences for HFA children were explored. Results The score in understanding garden path sentences was lower (t = -2.941, P < 0.01), and the reaction time in processing garden path sentences was significantly longer (t = 6.132, P < 0.001) in HFA children than in TD children, however, there was no significant difference in the number of childern mastering garden path sentences between two groups (χ² = 2.954, P > 0.05). In terms of the error types of "animate noun + verb + animate noun + 's + noun" (AVA) and "animate noun + verb + inanimate noun + 's + noun" (AVI) garden path sentences, both groups showed more errors in "pursuit of correct word order" than in "pursuit of semantically correct" (t > 2.503, P < 0.05). In "inanimate noun + verb + animate noun + 's + noun" (IVA) sentences, HFA children showed less erros in "pursuit of correct word order" than in "pursuit of semantically correct" (t = -6.523, P < 0.001), however, no difference was found between them in TD children (t = 2.024, P > 0.05). Conclusion The processing and comprehension ability of Chinese spoken garden path sentences in HFA children aged five to seven yeas are poor. HFA children are more sensitive to semantics, and garden path sentences with semantic violations are more likely to lead to HFA children's understanding errors. In the garden path sentence patterns of AVA and AVI, HFA children appear similar sentence understanding and processing strategies as TD children. In the garden path of IVA, HFA children use a sentence processing strategy combining word order and semantics, but semantics play a more prominent role, while TD children use a more stable word order processing strategy.

Key words: high-functioning autism, garden path sentence, characteristics

中图分类号:

R749.93

任登峰, 郭强, 赵航, 刘巧云. 高功能孤独症儿童汉语口语花园路径句的理解研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2023, 29(2): 243-248.

REN Dengfeng, GUO Qiang, ZHAO Hang, LIU Qiaoyun. Comprehension of Chinese spoken garden path sentences for children with high-functioning autism[J]. 《Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice》, 2023, 29(2): 243-248.

图/表 6

表1

表2

表3

表4

表5

表6

参考文献 29

[1]	熊妮娜, 赵鹏, 李媛媛, 等. 孤独症儿童功能发展与病理行为的相关性[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2017, 23(4): 455-459.
	XIONG N N, ZHAO P, LI Y Y, et al. Correlation of developmental function and pathological behavior of children with autism[J]. Chin J Rehabil Theory Pract, 2017, 23(4): 455-459.
[2]	孙慧珍, 王国祥, 邱卓英, 等. 应用ICF-CY研究孤独症儿童的功能状态与体育活动和运动康复[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2017, 23(10): 1123-1129.
	SUN H Z, WANG G X, QIU Z Y, et al. Application of ICF-CY in analysis of functioning and disability, and physical activity and sport rehabilitation for children with autism spectrum disorder[J]. Chin J Rehabil Theory Pract, 2017, 23(10): 1123-1129.
[3]	林青, 高晓慧, 刘巧云, 等. 唐氏综合征儿童名词、动词、形容词理解能力特征研究[J]. 听力学及言语疾病杂志, 2020, 28(1): 7-11.
	LIN Q, GAO X H, LIU Q Y, et al. Study on the characteristics of noun, verb and adjective comprehension in children with Down syndrome[J]. J Audiol Speech Pathol, 2020, 28(1): 7-11.
[4]	林力孜, 戴美霞, 肖启蓬, 等. 高功能孤独症谱系障碍儿童智力结构及其特征的测试分析[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2016, 24(9): 906-909.
	LIN L Z, DAI M X, XIAO Q P, et al. Analysis of intelligence structure and characteristics in children with autism spectrum disorder[J]. CJCHC, 2016, 24(9): 906-909.
[5]	何红艳, 李金花, 孔利, 等. 孤独症个体语言障碍的神经电生理及影像学研究进展[J]. 现代特殊教育(高等教育研究), 2022(4): 63-69.
	HE H Y, LI J H, KONG L, et al. Neuroelectrophysiology and neuroimaging progress on language disorders in individuals with autism spectrum disorder[J]. Modern Special Educ (Res Higher Educ), 2022(4): 63-69.
[6]	杨峰, 周家秀, 肖秀云. 高功能孤独症儿童汉语普通话语言感知能力障碍的初步研究[J]. 中国儿童保健杂志, 2015, 23(12): 1287-1290.
	YANG F, ZHOU J X, XIAO X Y. Pilot study on speech perception abilities for Mandarin Chinese speaking children with high functional autism[J]. CJCHC, 2015, 23(12): 1287-1290.
[7]	李晓燕, 周兢. 自闭症儿童语言发展研究综述[J]. 中国特殊教育, 2006(12): 60-66, 59.
	LI X Y, ZHOU J. A review on language development of autistic children[J]. Chin J Special Educ, 2006(12): 60-66, 59.
[8]	曾涛, 赵龙. 二语学习者暂时歧义句加工研究[J]. 外语教育, 2021, 42(1): 53-58.
	ZENG T, ZHAO L. A study on the processing of temporary ambiguous sentences by second language learners[J]. Foreign Lang Educ, 2021, 42(1): 53-58.
[9]	卢华萍, 吴明军. 不同句法结构对二语花园路径句重新分析的影响研究[J]. 现代外语, 2021, 44(2): 233-245.
	LU H P, WU M J. Effects of structural changes on the reanalysis of L2 garden-path sentences by Chinese learners[J]. Modern Foreign Lang, 2021, 44(2): 233-245.
[10]	马龙凯, 杜慧颖. 二语暂时性主宾语歧义句在线加工中的动词语法体效应[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2020, 52(6): 893-905, 960.
	MA L K, DU H Y. Grammatical aspect effects on L2 on-line processing of temporal subject-object ambiguitises[J]. Foreign Lang Teach Res, 2020, 52(6): 893-905, 960.
[11]	HIROKI F. On the parsing of garden-path sentences[J]. Lang Cogn Neurosci, 2021, 36(10): 1234-1245.
[12]	QIAN Z Y, GARNSEY S, CHRISTIANSON K. A comparison of online and offline measures of good-enough processing in garden-path sentences[J]. Lang Cogn Neurosci, 2018, 33(2): 227-254.
[13]	VAN GOMPEL R, PICKERING M, et al. The activation of inappropriate analyses in garden-path sentences: evidence from structural priming[J]. J Mem Lang, 2006, 55(3): 335-362. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2006.06.004
[14]	POZZAN L, TRUESWELL J C. Second language processing and revision of garden-path sentences: a visual word study[J]. Biling (Camb Engl), 2016, 19(3): 636-643.
[15]	HOWARD P L, LIVERSEDGE S P, et al. Benchmark eye movement effects during natural reading in autism spectrum disorder[J]. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 2017, 43(1): 109-127. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000289 pmid: 27504678
[16]	HOWARD P L, LIVERSEDGE S P, et al. Investigating the use of world knowledge during on-line comprehension in adults with autism spectrum disorder[J]. J Autism Dev Disord, 2017, 47(7): 2039-2053. doi: 10.1007/s10803-017-3129-x pmid: 28432451
[17]	缪小春, 陈国鹏, 应厚昌. 词序和词义在汉语语句理解中的作用再探[J]. 心理科学通讯, 1984(6): 1-7.
	MIAO X C, CHEN G P, YING H C. Reexamination of the roles of word order and lexical meaning in Chinese sentence comprehension[J]. Commun Psychol Sci, 1984(6): 1-7.
[18]	何泳枝. 4-6岁汉语高功能自闭症儿童句子理解策略研究[D]. 广州: 广东外语外贸大学, 2018.
	HE Y Z. Sentence comprehension strategies used by 4-6 years old Mandarin-speaking children with high functioning autism[D]. Guangzhou: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 2018.
[19]	李伟亚, 方俊明. 自闭症谱系障碍学生汉语简单句理解的实验研究[J]. 中国特殊教育, 2009(5): 17-22.
	LI W Y, FANG J M. An experimental research on simple Chinese sentence comprehension of children with autistic spectrum disorder[J]. Chin J Special Educ, 2009(5): 17-22.
[20]	刘顺华, 宋宜琪, 梁丹丹. 汉语高功能自闭症儿童句子理解策略及影响因素[J]. 语言科学, 2019, 18(6): 662-669.
	LIU S H, SONG Y Q, LIANG D D. Sentence comprehension strategies and influencing factors in Mandarin-speaking children with high functioning autism[J]. Linguistic Sci, 2019, 18(6): 662-669.
[21]	马春花. 东乡族儿童汉语语句理解策略的研究[J]. 兰州石化职业技术学院学报, 2009, 9(3): 48-51.
	MA C H. Research on strategy for Chinese sentences of Dongxiang minority children[J]. J Lanzhou Petrochem College Technol, 2009, 9(3): 48-51.
[22]	袁海娟. 智力障碍学生阅读理解策略的实验研究[J]. 绥化学院学报, 2021, 41(10): 65-68.
	YUAN H J. An experimental study on reading comprehension strategies of students with intellectual disabilities[J]. J Suihua Univ, 2021, 41(10): 65-68.
[23]	毕小彬, 范晓壮, 米文丽, 等. ICD-11和DSM-5中孤独症谱系障碍诊断标准比较[J]. 国际精神病学杂志, 2021, 48(2): 193-196.
	BI X B, FAN X Z, MI W L, et al. Comparison of diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorders in ICD-11 and DSM-5[J]. J Int Psych, 2021, 48(2): 193-196.
[24]	刘畅. 中国英语学习者园径句理解策略[J]. 边疆经济与文化, 2015(9): 114-115.
	LIU C. Chinese English learners garden path sentences comprehension strategies[J]. Border Economy Culture, 2015(9): 114-115.
[25]	赵鑫, 李红利, 金戈, 等. 语音记忆和中央执行功能在不同年级儿童解码和语言理解中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 469-484.
	ZHAO X, LI H L, JIN G, et al. Effects of phonological memory and central executive function on decoding, language comprehension of children in different grades[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(4): 469-484. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00469
[26]	张璇, 杨玉芳. 工作记忆容量在语言理解中的作用及机制[J]. 心理科学, 2009, 32(5): 1030-1033.
	ZHANG X, YANG Y F. Effects and mechanisms of working memory capacity in language comprehension[J]. Psychol Sci, 2009, 32(5):1030-1033.
[27]	赵鸣, 刘涛. 语言理解中记忆机制的研究进展[J]. 生物物理学报, 2011, 27(9): 739-748.
	ZHAO M, LIU T. A Review of studies on the mechanism of memory in language comprehension[J]. Acta Biophysica Sinica, 2011, 27(9): 739-748.
[28]	赵万兴, 吴燕楠, 郑董雯, 等. 孤独症谱系障碍个体工作记忆干预的研究进展[J]. 杭州师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 21(3): 268-275.
	ZHAO W X, WU Y N, ZHENG D W, et al. Research progress of working memory intervention in individuals with autism spectrum disorder[J]. J Hangzhou Normal Univ (Natural Sci Ed), 2022, 21(3): 268-275.
[29]	徐含笑. 汉语歧义句的句法理解策略[J]. 河北工程大学学报(社会科学版), 2013, 30(4): 101-104.
	XU H X. Syntactic comprehension strategies in Chinese ambiguous sentences[J]. J Hebei Univ Engineer (Social Sci Ed), 2013, 30(4): 101-104.

组别	n	性别(男/女)/n	年龄/月	智商/分
TD组	35	21/14	71.34±14.23	108.47±9.36
HFA组	35	28/7	71.74±14.69	101.35±14.87
χ²/t值		3.333	0.116	2.397
P值		0.068	0.908	0.010

句型	n	TD组	HFA组
AVA	35	9.06±8.95	8.26±3.69
AVI	35	9.26±9.12	11.43±5.19
IVA	35	9.63±8.63	12.09±5.61
F值		0.037	6.097
P值		0.964	0.003
P值^a			0.008
P值^b			0.001
P值^c			0.576

组别	n	追求语序正确型	追求语义正确型	t值	P值
TD组	35	4.66±4.54	2.40±2.36	4.134	< 0.001
HFA组	35	6.14±3.84	5.14±4.08	3.677	< 0.001
t值		1.479	3.069
P值		0.144	0.003

组别	n	追求语序正确型	追求语义正确型	t值	P值
TD组	35	4.54±4.49	2.51±1.36	4.131	< 0.001
HFA组	35	5.34±3.64	4.74±3.78	2.503	0.017
t值		0.819	2.610
P值		0.415	0.011

组别	n	追求语序正确型	追求语义正确型	t值	P值
TD组	35	4.37±4.36	2.00±1.36	2.024	0.490
HFA组	35	2.20±2.06	3.83±2.25	-6.523	< 0.001
t值		-2.659	2.327
P值		0.010	0.023

高功能孤独症儿童汉语口语花园路径句的理解研究

Comprehension of Chinese spoken garden path sentences for children with high-functioning autism

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 29

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 0

组别	n	习得人数/n	理解得分	反应时/ms
TD组	35	17	53.00±2.03	7174.41±722.42
HFA组	35	10	47.50±7.38	10535.70±2080.31
χ²/t值		2.954	-2.941	6.132
P值		0.086	0.007	< 0.001

[1]	黎梦丽,刘闵敬,周思美,张庆,王丽. 上臂围和小腿围在社区老年肌少症患者筛查诊断中的应用[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2021, 27(8): 982-992.
[2]	郭华珍,恽晓平,张璞,张慧丽,高明明,宋桂芸. 基于脑损伤患者遗忘特征的个性化记忆康复疗效[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2021, 27(4): 445-449.
[3]	萧敦武,陈楠,王詠,邱卓英,伊丽奇,朱平. 中国物理治疗师胜任特征模型的探索性研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2021, 27(3): 341-348.
[4]	张燕,王铭玥,王婕,姜恺宁,张筠晗. 基于Xception-LSTM的下肢运动能力评价方法[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2020, 26(6): 643-647.
[5]	刘昌亚. 加拿大物理治疗师执业资格认证特征及启示[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2019, 25(12): 1485-1488.
[6]	华仙, 席旭刚. 基于人体加速度多特征融合和K近邻算法的跌倒检测[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2018, 24(7): 865-868.
[7]	赵勇，金炳旭，刘振寰. 伴神经元移行异常脑性瘫痪儿童的临床特征及疗效分析[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2017, 23(4): 433-437.
[8]	罗平, 林鸿生, 方健辉, 张文, 蔡超辰. 组织特征超声成像技术量化健康跟腱和髌韧带组织的信度研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2017, 23(10): 1166-1170.
[9]	萧敦武1,2,3,4,5，王詠4,5，伊丽奇4,5. 物理治疗师胜任特征研究现状①[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2016, 22(2): 168-171.
[10]	张淑;吴士文;李华. 53 例脊肌萎缩症Ⅱ型患者的临床特[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2013, 19(06): 586-588.
[11]	张鸣;张金声;毕嘉璥;韩琤琤;黄永禧. 伴或不伴糖尿病脑梗死患者的临床比较[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2011, 17(9): 861-862.
[12]	李强;李建军;宫慧明b;武亮. 老年外伤性脊柱脊髓损伤[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2011, 17(2): 145-147.
[13]	王琰;邵晓秋;丁成赟;张在强. 进行性肌阵挛癫痫的临床表现与病理[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2010, 16(8): 768-770.
[14]	陈军;王珂;侯梅;王强. 脑性瘫痪患儿伴发临床下癫痫样放电临床综述[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2009, 15(04): 338-340.
[15]	王喜太;王强;张晓玉;李立峰. 基于肌电传感器的下肢残肢康复训练模式识别的研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2009, 15(01): 90-92.