• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Pattern-Prototype Effects of Processing Familiar Metonymy in Sentential Context

    2021-02-19 19:50:05LIJie
    Journal of Literature and Art Studies 2021年6期
    關鍵詞:美國白宮樓房戰(zhàn)爭

    LI Jie

    This study conducted an eye-tracking experiment on processing different patterns of Chinese familiar metonymy in sentential contexts. It analyzes five eye-tracking measures concerning the processing of metonymy. The results indicate that different patterns of metonymy experience different processing processes under a sentential-context condition, and results in prototype effects. The main finding is that Spatial Part & Whole metonymy is more prototypical than other three patterns of metonymy, i.e., Container and Contained, Location and Located, Entity and Adjacent Entity, and that the effect of metonymy pattern on the processing is stable and observable. It concludes that contextual information facilitates the processing of non-prototypical metonymy, but restrain the processing of prototypical metonymy.

    Keywords: eye-tracking, pattern effects, familiar metonymy, processing, sentential contexts

    1. Introduction

    This paper examines how various patterns of Chinese metonymy are processed back-grounded in a sentential context. Different from relevant studies (Frisson & Pickering, 1999; Fass, 1997; Gibbs, 1999; Rapp, 2011; Joue et al., 2018) that were mainly focused on the categorization process or the processing of metonymic senses, concerning the conceptualization of metonymy, this survey investigates to what extent the type of substitution relationship (based on different types of contiguity) affects the processing of metonymy. The central issue under discussion is whether there exits possible prototype effects generated by metonymic patterns during processing , which has not been explored by experiments so far.

    Previous experimental research on metonymy scattered over a few issues. Some of them look into matronymic sense. For example, Gerrig (1989) distinguished the processing of familiar sense and unfamiliar sense of metonymy by measuring sentence reading time in highlighted contexts: Unfamiliar sense cost longer time to process than familiar sense. Others are interested in the syntactic ambiguity resolution in processing metonymy, like Pickering and Traxler (1998), who carried out an eye-tracking study in which participants were asked to read a sentence (including metonymic expressions) in context and then a syntactically ambiguous target sentence. They found that plausible metonymic interpretation was obtained under an available contextual condition and that the process of syntactic ambiguity resolution is thus affected. Still, some others investigate contextual effects on metonymy processing. Unlike studies by language philosophers (Grice, 1975, 1989; Searle, 1979) maintaining that the processing of figurative language is first interpreted as literal ones in a given context and activated after the first interpretation fails, experimental results (Pynte et al., 1996; Joue et al., 2018) indicated that figurative language is processed as fast as literal language if supported by strong contextual information, i.e., with closely relevant context. Yet, few has discussed the type effect in processing figurative expressions.

    Several typical models have been proposed to account for figurative language processing. Some typical ones like literal-first (literal sense is processed first), figurative first (figurative sense is processed first) and parallel model (with fully specified and underspecified versions). Frisson and Pickering (1999) compared the time course of the processing of metonymic expressions with the literal ones in two eye-tracking experiments to figure out whether people rapidly access a familiar metonymic interpretation for a noun and whether the processing of nouns that are ambiguous between a literal and a metonymic sense is informative about figurative language processing (1999, p. 1367). Their findings show that the two patterns of metonymy (place-for-institution and place-for-event metonymy) overall tend to support an underspecified account of the parallel model, though they differ slightly in the time course. Inspired by this finding, this study investigates the four patterns of metonymy constructed as a prototypical category (Peirsman & Geeraerts, 2006) to find out whether different patterns of metonymy experience the same processing process.

    2. Methodology

    2.1 Assumption

    Peirsman and Geeraerts (2006) constructed a category of metonymy based on their analysis of the notion of contiguity, and structured the Spatial Part and Whole relations (henceforth SW ) as the core of the category. Deviating from the core, they (2006) framed other relations of contiguity in that category and classified other three metonymic patterns, i.e., Container and Contained (CC), Location and Located (LL), Entity and Adjacent Entity (EA), as the members of the prototypical structure. This experiment attempts to figure out whether prototype effects of metonymy processing is observed in different metonymic patterns under a sentential-context condition. If yes, it means metonymic meaning of some pattern(s) is more prototypical than the rest ones. It assumes that there are no significant differences among the four patterns of metonymic processing in both familiar and unfamiliar metonymic types under context condition.

    2.2 Materials

    38 (6 for practice and 32 for experiment) sentences including familiar metonymy are used as experimental materials, including four sub-categories (matching the four patterns of metonymy): Spatial Part and Whole, Container and Contained, Location and Located, Entity and Adjacent Entity. In each sub-category there are four groups of metonymic sentences, each of which is paired with a literal sentence. In total, there are eight sentences in every sub-category: fourare metonymic and the rest literal. All the materials are presented by a software in a random order.

    The materials are selected according to the results of a pretestso that the frequency, and revised from the original sentences; the length ranges from 41 to 45 words (Mean = 44). The metonymic construction are included in a four-word phrase and occur in the middle of the sentence. The four-word phrase is one of the three regions in the experiment. After this region is identified, 32 native-Chinese graduate students majoring in Modern Chinese are asked to identify the other two four-word phrases that are most related before and after that region as the other two regions for exploration. According to the results, the rest two regions for observation are identified, for example,

    白宮 (White House)—總統(tǒng)(President)

    (1) /近年以來/Region①,/美國白宮(1總統(tǒng)/2法律)/ Region ②很繁忙,重要事件接連發(fā)生,都得/親自處理/ Region ③。

    Translation: /Since recent years/Region ①, / the White House of the United States (1 president / 2 law)/Region ② has been very busy. Important events take place one after another and /he has to handle them in person/Region ③.

    (2) /會議期間/Region ①,/美國白宮(1樓房/2戰(zhàn)爭/Region ②很熱鬧,重要人物接連進去,都是/親自參加/Region ③。

    Translation: /Since the meeting/Region ①, /the White House of the United States (1 building / 2 war)/ Region ②has been very busy. Important people come in one after another and/they attend it in person/Region ③.

    Sentences offering contextual information are constructed in balanced grammatical, semantic, and plausibility conditions and matched for word frequency, semantic association length and syntactic structure. They arealso chosen to exemplify a wide variety of metonymic readings. (c.f. Filik &Moxey, 2010)

    2.3 Research Methods

    Design: The experiment is designed in a one-factor framework. The pattern factor includes four levels: Spatial Part & Whole, Container & Contained, Location & Located and Entity & Adjacent Entity.

    Participants: 36 (16 male, 20 female) native Chinese-speaking volunteers are recruited to participate the experiment. All the participants are undergraduate students with agerange from 21 to 23 years old, right-handed, and have normal or corrected-to-normal vision. None of them has psychological or brain disorders.

    Instrument: An EyeLink 1000 eye-trackeris used to record the eye movements. It is connected to a PC computer with a 21” LCD monitor for stimulus presentation hardware and running at 1000 Hz sampling rate. Desktop Mount for the EyeLink 1000 system sits just below the display that the participant is looking at. Binocular recording model is used in the experiment, and only the data from the right eye is further analyzed. A keyboard is used for response. SR Research Experiment Builder and Data Viewer are used respectively for programming and data collection and processing.

    Procedure: The presentation of materials and recording of latencies are controlled by the software Experiment Builder for Eyelink 1000. At the beginning of the experiment, all participants are presented with a 13-point grid in order to calibrate their eye movements with the locations on the screen. If the initial calibration fails,participants are presented with a 9-point calibration grid instead. Recalibration repeats throughout all the experiment whenever necessary.The instruction is first presented and then the practice trial. Participants are told to read sentences silently at their own pace to comprehend the sentence, and allowed to practice many times until they fully know how to response. The experimental task is to choose an appropriate meaning for metonymic or literal phrase in bold. The participants viewed the one-line sentence binocularly on a LCD monitor from a distance of 71 cm, but only the participants dominant eye is tracked. The experimental items are presented in a random order; judgment is made in the end of the sentence.

    Participants are set up individually in the eye tracker and are asked to respond as accurately as possible after they read the experimental materials. Before that, they are instructed to put their index fingers respectively onto the “F” and “J” buttons on the keyboard to choose the correct meaning for the phrase in bold. After the participants read the instruction part, they can press any key to enter the practice trial, which includes six sentences and is arranged in the same way as the experiment trial. The trial begins with an annulus fixation point in the centre on the screen and lasts 500 ms to attract the participants attention. It then follows the sentence and the two choice items for the phrase being tested. Once the participants respond, the stimuli disappear immediately. It take approximately 20 minutes to finish the whole experiment.

    2.4 Measures

    Data from 35 participants are collected and one participant is excluded due to the failure in collecting the data. The data from the practice trial are first filtered. The accuracy rate for the all the subjects is above 90%. Further statistic analysis is carried out to test the hypotheses for this experiment. Several eye-tracking measures(Clifton et al, 2007) were analyzed to detect various possible effects of metonymy type in the processing: First Fixation Duration (Mitchell et al, 2008) is employed to analyze cognitive processes concerning word frequency, lexical access (Reichle et al, 2003) and some gross syntactic anomalies (Pickering et al, 2003); First-pass Time is counted as one of the “early” measures (Mitchell et al, 2008); Regression Rate is crucial to distinguish first-pass regressions from later measures of regressions; Regression Path Duration is calculated to detect higher level processes, such as semantic integration, discourse processes, and even pragmatic processing; Total Time is the sum of all fixations on a word or in a region (Clifton et al., 2007). Under different circumstances, these measures are interpreted differently to cover different cognitive processing.

    Results and Analysis

    The five standard eye-tracking measures in different patterns are first analyzed to work out if there exits prototype effects of metonymic patterns during the processing. The eye-tracking data of the four patterns of metonymy, i.e., Spatial Part & Whole, Container & Contained, Location & Located and Entity & Adjacent Entity, are treated as the four levels of the within-subject factor. Pairwise comparisons is also carried out among the four to probe the source of the difference if there is a one.

    The results from the First Fixation Duration show that only region 3 differ significantly from the rest three patterns: F (3,102) = 3.4, p = .020 < .05. The results from the pairwise comparisons show that significant mean difference exists between metonymy of Spatial Part & Whole and Container & Contained: Mean difference(SW-CC) = 30.8, SE = 8.9, Sig. = .009 < .01. The significant difference of the measures on region 3 signifies the difference of lexical access to the following context for the two patterns of metonymy: the Container & Contained metonymic pattern are faster in lexical access than those following the Spatial Part & Whole.

    On region 1 the mean differences of theFirst-Pass Time between Spatial Part & Whole and Location & Located, and Spatial Part & Whole and Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy are significant: Mean difference(SW-LL) = -64.3, SE = 19.1, Sig. = 0.01 < 0.05; mean difference (SW-EA) = -62.9, SE = 21.5, Sig. = .04 < .05. On region 2 the difference is from Spatial Part & Whole and Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy, mean difference(SW-EA) = -114.7, SE = 33.0, Sig. = .01< .05. On region 3 mean difference (SW-LL) = 110.5, SE = 27.1, Sig.= .00< .05. Theseresults show that the preceding context for Spatial Part & Whole metonymy is much easier to process than Location & Locatedand Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy. Much less time is spent on Spatial Part& Whole metonymy than on Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy. It demonstrates that metonymy of Spatial Part& Wholepattern is more prototypical in comparison with Entity & Adjacent Entityin the metonymic structure. It supports Pearsman and Geeraerts (2006) finding that Spatial Part & Whole metonymy is more prototypical.

    The results of Regression Rate reveals significant differences in two regions: on region 1F (3,102) = 9.2, p= .00 < .05, and on region 2, the target region, F (3,102) = 6.3, p = .00< .05,. Results from the pairwise comparisons in region 1 show that mean difference (SW-EA) = 0.2, SE = 0.1, Sig. = .01< .05, which means that preceding context for Spatial Part & Whole metonymy is more difficult to process than that for Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy. Similarly, the result that mean difference (CC-LL) = -0.2, SE = 0.1, Sig. =.01<.05, indicates that preceding context for Container & Contained metonymy is easier to process than that for Location & Located metonymy.

    On region 2 more processing difficulty occurs in Spatial Part & Whole metonymy in comparison with Container & Contained and Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy: Mean difference (SW-CC) = 0.1, SE = 0.05, Sig.= .043 < .05, and mean difference (SW-EA) = 0.1, SE = 0.04, Sig. = .003 < .01. No other significant differences are found among the rest patterns of metonymy.

    Significant differences among the four patterns of familiar metonymy are also probed in the first-pass time: F (3,102) = 4.0, p = .009 < .01 on region 1, F(3,102) = 4.8, p = .004 < .01 on region 2 (target region), and F (3,102)= 6.3, p = .001 < .01 on region 3. We further locate the source for the difference, as shown in table 1.

    The results of the three measures above show that early effects of lexical access and processing occur much more frequently in familiar metonymy, and imply that metonymic patterns have a stable and obvious effect on processing familiar metonymy. The results also show that in a very early beginning of processing familiar metonymy, participants are able to locate the most relevant contextual information to facilitate the metonymy processing.

    With this mechanism, they even consciously realize to fixate at some relatively closed region in their first fixation time. It might demonstrate that processing familiar metonymy involves some psychological anticipation from the contextual predictability (Frisson, Rayner, & Pickering, 2005)—which is believed to be triggered by some metonymic pattern—that directs their cognitive sources to that particular region. Metonymic processing is a process governed by subjective factor.

    Late measures such as Regression Path Duration reflect cognitive cost spent on overcoming the difficulty during the course of late processing (Rayner et al., 1989). Results in Table 2: Onthe target region, region 2, it takes much less time to process Spatial Part & Wholemetonymy than the other three patterns ofmetonymy; mean differences of Spatial Part & Whole metonymy differ significantly from other patterns ofmetonymy. Region 3 is the interest area of the following context for the metonymy. Theresult shows that participants spend much more time on this region when they process the Spatial Part & Whole metonymy, and indicates that metonymy of Spatial Part & Whole pattern is more prototypical than other patterns of metonymy.

    To combine the results on the two regions (i.e., region 2 and region 3) of Spatial Part & Wholemetonymy, a clear picture of processing this type of metonymy emerges: Participants do not encounter too much difficulty in processingmetonymy of Spatial Part & Whole pattern, or they could access it at an early stage.However, they needed to spend more time to get contextual information to confirm their first interpretation for the Spatial Part & Whole metonymy, which accounts for the much more time spent on region 3. Thisfinding is supported by the significant differences of the regression rate. The“confirming” Process is similar to the process of “testing hypothesis” In understanding meaning (Wilson, 2004, 2006), but it emphasizes the dynamicity of on-line meaning processing. Theconfirming process is a result for semantic, pragmatic and some other higher processing. It is also a kind of late effect rather than an early effect in the meaning processing.

    Analysis of Total Time (see Table 3) for the four patterns of both familiar metonymy still shows that Spatial Part & Whole metonymy takes longer time to process than Container & Contained metonymy on Region 2 and than Entity & Adjacent Entity metonymy on Region 3. Total Time effect largelyreflects later reinspection of the region with difficulty (Mitchell et al., 2008), and the results mean that familiar SW metonymy is much more difficult to process when set in superfluous context. This supports the viewpoint again that SW metonymy possesses the prototypical core of contiguity (Peirsman & Geeraerts, 2006): it is so prototypical and highly contextualized as a conventional model that no excessive contextual information is required. When extra context is offered, it triggers a process of interpreting non-conventionalized meaning and costs much more time to discriminate other possible understanding, and finally to confirm the processing result. Participants might first treat it as implicated meaning, which usually needs further and evidence-testing inference(Grice, 1975).

    Conclusion

    This experiment analyzes five standard eyetracking measures to capture theprocessingof familiar metonymy in a sentential context. The main finding is that Spatial Part & Whole metonymy is more prototypical than other three patterns of metonymy, and that the effect of metonymy pattern on the processing is stable and observable. It also indicates that not all the pieces of contextual information play an equal role in metonymic processing: Some ones are more decisive than others. Different patterns of metonymy experience different processing processes and differ significantly in these processes under a sentential-context condition, and results in prototype effects. Contextualinformation is especially critical for processing non-prototypical metonymy, but is redundant for processing prototypical metonymy.

    References

    Brysbaert, M., & Mitchell, D. C. (1996). Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 664-695.

    Clifton, C., Staub, A., & Rayner, K. (2007). Eye movements in reading words and sentences. In R. P. G. Van Gompel, M. H. Fischer, W. S. Murray, & R. L. Hill (eds.), Eye-movements: A window on mind and brain (pp. 241-372).Oxford : Elsevier Science.

    Fass, D. (1997). Processing metonymy and metaphor. London: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Filik, L., & Moxey, M. (2010). The on-line processing of written irony. Cognition, 116, 421-436.

    Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1347-1365.

    Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2001). Obtaining a figurative interpretation of a word: Support for Underspecification. Metaphor and Symbol, 16(3-4), 149-171.

    Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. (2007). The processing of familiar and unfamiliar senses of a word: Why reading Dickens is easy but reading Needham can be hard. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(4), 595-613.

    Frisson, S., Rayner, K., & Pickering, M. J. (2005). Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 862-877.

    Geeraerts, D. (2006). Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In G. Kristiansen et al. (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 21-50). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Gerrig, R. J. (1989). The time course of sense creation. Memory & Cognition, 17, 194-207.

    Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

    Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Joue, G., Boven, L., Willmes, K., Evola, V., Demenescu, L. R., Hassemer, J., Mittelberg, I., Mathiak, K., Schneider, F., & Habel, U.(2018). Handling or being the concept: An fMRI study on metonymy representations in coverbal gestures. Neuropsychologia 109, 232-244.

    Mitchell, D. C., Shen, X., Green, M. J., & Hodgson, T. L. (2008). Accounting for regressive eye-movements in models of sentence processing: A reappraisal of the Selective Reanalysis hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 266-293.

    Peirsman, Y., & Geeraerts, D. (2006). Metonymy as a prototypical category. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(3), 269-316.

    Pickering, M. J., & Traxler, M. J. (1998). Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 940-961.

    Pynte, J., Besson, M., Robichon, R., & Poli, J. (1996). Thetime-course of metaphor comprehension: An event-related potential study. Brain and Language, 55, 293-316.

    Rapp, et al. (2011). Neural correlates of metonymy resolution. Brain & Language, 119, 196-205.

    Rayner, K., & Well, A. D. (1996). Effects of contextual constraint on eye movements in reading: A further examination. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 504-509.

    Reichle, E. D., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z reader model of eye-movement control in reading: comprehensions to other models. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 445-526.

    Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 92-123). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2006). Metaphor, relevance and the “emergent property” issue. Mind & Language, 21(3), 404-433.

    Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In G. Ward and L. Horn (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell.

    猜你喜歡
    美國白宮樓房戰(zhàn)爭
    關于舊樓房改造處理技術探究
    未來戰(zhàn)爭我們最強
    心聲歌刊(2021年4期)2021-10-13 08:31:40
    樓房
    火雞駕到
    “樓房”與“平房”
    被風吹“偏”的戰(zhàn)爭
    學生天地(2019年32期)2019-08-25 08:55:12
    他們的戰(zhàn)爭
    樓房魔方
    打印奧巴馬
    大樹搬家
    黄色欧美视频在线观看| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 九色成人免费人妻av| 精品久久久久久久久av| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 亚洲av熟女| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 成人av在线播放网站| 亚洲图色成人| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 久久精品国产自在天天线| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 欧美色视频一区免费| 国产高清三级在线| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 久久久久久伊人网av| 六月丁香七月| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 一区福利在线观看| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| h日本视频在线播放| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 国产精品一及| 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲av一区综合| 国产精品久久视频播放| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 在线免费观看的www视频| 成人无遮挡网站| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| .国产精品久久| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 色播亚洲综合网| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| av在线观看视频网站免费| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 精品久久久久久成人av| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 免费av毛片视频| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 大香蕉久久网| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 免费看日本二区| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产成人一区二区在线| 亚洲五月天丁香| 免费观看在线日韩| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 三级毛片av免费| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 三级经典国产精品| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 少妇被粗大猛烈的视频| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 国产成人91sexporn| 日本色播在线视频| 免费av不卡在线播放| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 在线国产一区二区在线| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| av.在线天堂| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 精品久久久久久久久av| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 精品人妻视频免费看| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 久久久精品大字幕| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 久久久久久大精品| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 一本久久精品| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 91精品国产九色| av福利片在线观看| 亚洲18禁久久av| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 尾随美女入室| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看 | 舔av片在线| 国产精品伦人一区二区| av天堂中文字幕网| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 久99久视频精品免费| 日韩欧美在线乱码| av国产免费在线观看| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 亚洲在线观看片| 国产三级中文精品| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 成年免费大片在线观看| 久久久久国产网址| av免费在线看不卡| 能在线免费观看的黄片| av在线亚洲专区| 在线观看一区二区三区| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 久久久精品大字幕| av天堂在线播放| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 男女那种视频在线观看| 此物有八面人人有两片| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 久久人妻av系列| 国产三级中文精品| 欧美激情在线99| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 久久热精品热| 嫩草影院新地址| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 日日啪夜夜撸| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 日日啪夜夜撸| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 中文字幕久久专区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 春色校园在线视频观看| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 深夜a级毛片| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 欧美成人a在线观看| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产精品永久免费网站| 黄色日韩在线| 99久久精品热视频| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 欧美日韩综合久久久久久| 久久久成人免费电影| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 禁无遮挡网站| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 色吧在线观看| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 亚洲欧美精品专区久久| 久久久久九九精品影院| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 性欧美人与动物交配| 日韩视频在线欧美| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 床上黄色一级片| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产精品,欧美在线| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 色综合色国产| 少妇丰满av| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 国产探花极品一区二区| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 国产日韩欧美在线精品| av.在线天堂| 精品一区二区免费观看| 国产精品久久视频播放| av在线亚洲专区| 亚洲18禁久久av| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 欧美人与善性xxx| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| kizo精华| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 成年av动漫网址| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 毛片女人毛片| 色综合色国产| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 国产av不卡久久| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 午夜免费激情av| 日本熟妇午夜| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 六月丁香七月| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 级片在线观看| 国产 一区精品| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 日本在线视频免费播放| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| .国产精品久久| 乱人视频在线观看| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久久久性生活片| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 18+在线观看网站| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 亚洲av.av天堂| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 亚洲图色成人| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 亚洲av男天堂| 午夜激情福利司机影院| kizo精华| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 久久久久网色| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 我要搜黄色片| 精品久久久久久成人av| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 此物有八面人人有两片| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 欧美性感艳星| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 国产av在哪里看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 日本一本二区三区精品| 此物有八面人人有两片| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 内地一区二区视频在线| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 国产av不卡久久| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 免费大片18禁| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说 | 国产成人aa在线观看| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚州av有码| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 黄片wwwwww| 午夜精品在线福利| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 亚洲综合色惰| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 岛国毛片在线播放| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 亚洲无线观看免费| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 日本免费a在线| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 精品国产三级普通话版| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 久久人妻av系列| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 免费大片18禁| 成人欧美大片| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 免费看a级黄色片| 欧美成人a在线观看| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 内地一区二区视频在线| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 久久久成人免费电影| 一级av片app| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| www.av在线官网国产| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 亚洲第一电影网av| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频 | 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 不卡一级毛片| 成人无遮挡网站| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 乱人视频在线观看| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看| 深夜a级毛片| 99热全是精品| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 一级毛片我不卡| 成年版毛片免费区| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 赤兔流量卡办理| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频 | 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 夜夜爽天天搞| 黄色一级大片看看| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 91精品国产九色| 国产 一区精品| 欧美激情在线99| 99热这里只有是精品50| 黄片wwwwww| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产 一区精品| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 又爽又黄a免费视频| av国产免费在线观看| 简卡轻食公司| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 久久这里只有精品中国| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 联通29元200g的流量卡| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 久久久久九九精品影院| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 成人综合一区亚洲| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 成人欧美大片| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 99热这里只有精品一区| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 美女高潮的动态| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 久久久国产成人免费| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 99久久成人亚洲精品观看| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 少妇丰满av| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 一本久久精品| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 国产精品久久视频播放| .国产精品久久| 日本一二三区视频观看| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 国产精品.久久久| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产精品一及| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 一区福利在线观看| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 欧美zozozo另类| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产三级在线视频| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 悠悠久久av| 欧美色视频一区免费| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 亚洲综合色惰| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 欧美日本视频| a级毛片a级免费在线| 国产视频内射| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 有码 亚洲区| 久久久久久久久中文| av免费在线看不卡| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 中文字幕久久专区| 色吧在线观看| 天堂网av新在线| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 一本精品99久久精品77| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| eeuss影院久久| 99久国产av精品| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 成年av动漫网址| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 亚州av有码| 精品久久久噜噜| 国产成人精品婷婷| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 亚洲无线在线观看| 91狼人影院| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲性久久影院| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 长腿黑丝高跟| 观看免费一级毛片| 天堂√8在线中文| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| av.在线天堂| 老司机福利观看| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 一级黄色大片毛片| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 黑人高潮一二区| 黄色配什么色好看| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 免费av毛片视频| 内射极品少妇av片p| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 六月丁香七月| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 日韩视频在线欧美| 亚洲五月天丁香| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| videossex国产| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| kizo精华| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产精品,欧美在线| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 人体艺术视频欧美日本|