汉语施用结构加工的ERP研究（英文）
|
摘要
动词-论元关系是句子加工中句法-语义互动关系的重要方面。该领域现有的研究主要关注句子中动词同其核心论元之间的关系。但是汉语中却存在一种动词非核心论元提升到核心论元位置的施用结构。本文运用事件相关电位技术研究汉语中的施用结构与典型的受事宾语结构在句子加工方面的差异。实验要求被试对汉语中的词组(含干扰性的假词组)进行判断。实验结果显示,本实验在施用结构中发现了分布于双侧脑区的N400效应,与现有研究中论元类型和论元数目违反所导致的N400效应相类似。但与现有的动词-论元关系的ERP研究所不同的是:与典型的受事宾语结构相比,汉语施用结构呈现出一种持续的脑前部正波。这一波形在动词-论元关系加工研究中较为罕见,反映的是新提升论元与动词整合的困难以及汉语施用结构合格性检查的进行性特点,与汉语非受事论元认知研究中发现的转喻机制一致,反映了在汉语这种意合语言中语义(题元角色)在句法-语义界面中会发挥了更大的作用。
Verb-argument relation is a very important aspect of syntax-semantics interaction in sentence processing. Previous ERP(event related potentials) studies in this field concentrated on the relation between the verb and its core arguments. The present study aims to reveal the ERP pattern of Chinese applied object structures(AOSs), in which a peripheral argument is promoted to occupy the position of the patient object, as compared with the patient object structures(POSs). The ERP data were collected when participants were asked to perform acceptability judgments about Chinese phrases. The result shows that, similar to the previous studies of number-of-argument violations, Chinese AOSs show a bilaterally distributed N400 effect. But different from all the previous studies of verb-argument relations, Chinese AOSs demonstrate a sustained anterior positivity(SAP). This SAP, which is very rare in the studies related to complexity of argument structure operation, reflects the integration difficulty of the newly promoted arguments and the progressive nature of well-formedness checking in the processing of Chinese AOSs which is in accordance with the metonymic mechanism of nonpatient objects in the relevant cognitive study. It shows that, in Chinese, which is a paratactic language, semantics(thematic roles) plays a more important role in the syntax-semantics interface than that in hypotactic languages.
Verb-argument relation is a very important aspect of syntax-semantics interaction in sentence processing. Previous ERP(event related potentials) studies in this field concentrated on the relation between the verb and its core arguments. The present study aims to reveal the ERP pattern of Chinese applied object structures(AOSs), in which a peripheral argument is promoted to occupy the position of the patient object, as compared with the patient object structures(POSs). The ERP data were collected when participants were asked to perform acceptability judgments about Chinese phrases. The result shows that, similar to the previous studies of number-of-argument violations, Chinese AOSs show a bilaterally distributed N400 effect. But different from all the previous studies of verb-argument relations, Chinese AOSs demonstrate a sustained anterior positivity(SAP). This SAP, which is very rare in the studies related to complexity of argument structure operation, reflects the integration difficulty of the newly promoted arguments and the progressive nature of well-formedness checking in the processing of Chinese AOSs which is in accordance with the metonymic mechanism of nonpatient objects in the relevant cognitive study. It shows that, in Chinese, which is a paratactic language, semantics(thematic roles) plays a more important role in the syntax-semantics interface than that in hypotactic languages.
引文
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,I.,&Schlesewsky,M.(2008).An alternative perspective on“semantic P600”effects in language comprehension.Brain Research Review,59(1),55-73.
Cheng,J.(2009).虚词假设与增元结构-论不及物动词后非核心论元的句法属性[The null preposition hypothesis and the applicative construction:A syntactic study of the postintransitiveverb non-core arguments].Modern Foreign Languages,32(1),23-32.
Chung,S.(1976).An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesian.Linguist.Inquiry,7(1),41-87.
Coulson,S.,King,J.W.,&Kutas,M.(1998).Expect the unexpected:Event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,13(1),21-58.
Dowty,D.(1991).Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language,67(3),547-619.
Friederici,A.,&Frisch,S.(2000).Verb argument structure processing:The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information.Journal of Memory and Language,43(3),476-507.
Friederici,A.D.,Hahne,A.,&Mecklinger,A.(1996).Temporal structure of syntactic parsing:Early and late event-related brain potential effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory and Cognition,22(5),1219-1248.
Friederici,A.D.,Hahne,A.,&Saddy,D.(2002).Distinct neurophysiological pattern reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,31(1),45-63.
Friederici,A.D.,&Meyer,M.(2004).The brain knows the difference:Two types of grammatical violations.Brain Research,1000(1-2),72-77.
Frisch,S.,Hahne,A.,&Friederici,A.D.2004.Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing.Cognition,91(3),191-219.
Frisch,S.,&Schlesewsky,M.(2001).The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing.NeuroReport,12(15),3391-3394.
Hagoort,P.,Brown,C.,&Groothusen,J.(1993).The syntactic positive shift(SPS)as an ERPmeasure of syntactic processing.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,8(4),439-483.
Hagoort,P.,Brown,C.,&Osterhout,L.(1999).The neurocognition of syntactic processing.In C.Brown&P.Hagoort(Eds.),Neurocognition of language(pp.273-316).Oxford,UK:Oxford University Press.
Hagoort,P.,Wassenaar,M.,&Brown,C.M.(2003).Syntax-related ERP effects in Dutch.Cognitive Brain Research,16(1),38-50.
Hald,L.A.,Steenbeek-Planting,E.G.,&Hagoort,P.(2007).The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension:Evidence from the N400.Brain Research,1146(1),210-218.
Hoeks,J.C.J.,Stowe,L.A.,&Doedens,G.(2004).Seeing words in context:The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading.Cognitive Brain Research,19(1),59-73.
Holcomb,P.J.,&Neville,H.J.(1991).Natural speech processing:an analysis using event-related brain potentials.Psychobiology,19(4),286-300.
Hu,J.H.(2010).题元、论元和语法功能项-格标效应与语言差异[Theta-roles,arguments and GF].Foreign Language Teaching and Research,39(3),163-168.
Kaan,E.,Harris,A.,Gibson,E.,&Holcomb,P.J.(2000).The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,15(2)159-201.
Kaan,E.,&Swaab,T.Y.(2003).Repair,revision and complexity in syntactic analysis:An electrophysiological differentiation.Journal of Cognitive.Neuroscience,15(1),98-110.
Kielar,A.,Meltzer-Asscher,A.,&Thompson,C.(2011).ERP responses to argument structure and semantic violations in sentence context in healthy and agrammatic aphasic adults.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,23,45-46.
Kielar,A.,Meltzer-Asscher,A.,&Thompson,C.(2012).Electrophysiological responses to argument structure violations in healthy adults and individuals with agrammatic aphasia.Neuropsychologia,50(14),3320-3337.
Kolk,H.H.J.,Chwilla,D.J.,van Herten,M.,&Oor,P.J.W.(2003).Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory:A study with event-related potentials.Brain and Language,85(1),1-36.
Kos,M.,Vosse,T.,van den Brink,D.,&Hagoort,P.(2010).About edible restaurants:Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs.Frontiers in Psychology,1(222),1-11.
Kuperberg,G.R.,Sitnikova,T.,Caplan,D.,&Holcomb,P.J.(2003).Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences.Cognitive Brain Research,17(1),117-129.
Kutas,M.,&Hillyard,S.A.(1980).Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.Science,207(4427),203-205.
Li,Y.F.(1993).Structural head and aspectuality.Language,69(3),480-504.
Lin,T.H.(2001).Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure.Ph.D.dissertation.Irvine:University of California Irvine.
Liu,Y.H.,Xu,X.D.,&Panther,K.U.(2013).An ERP approach to thematic hierarchies regarding grammatical objects of the Chinese verb Chi(eat).Language Sciences,40(4),36-44.
Münte,T.F.,Matzke,M.,&Johannes,S.(1997).Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,9(3),318-329.
Münte,T.F.,Heinze,H.J.,Matzke,M.,Wieringa,B.M.,&Johannes,S.(1998).Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited:No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift.Neuropsychologia,36(3),217-226.
Neville,H.J.,Nicol,J.L.,Barss,A.,Forster,K.I.,&Garrett,M.F.(1991).Syntactically based sentence processing classes:Evidence from event-related brain potentials.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3(2),151-165.
Osterhout,L.,&Holcomb,P.J.(1992).Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory and Language,31(6),785-806.
Osterhout,L.,Holcomb,P.J.,&Swinney,D.A.(1994).Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences:Evidence of the application of verb information in parsing.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory and Cognition,20(4),786-803.
Pylkk鋘en,L.(2002).Introducing arguments.Ph.D.dissertation,Cambridge,Massachusetts:MIT.
Sun,T.Q.(2009).汉语非核心论元允准结构初探[On oblique objects in Chinese].Chinese Language Learning,3,70-77.
Thompson,C.K.,&Meltzer-Asscher,A.(2014).Neurocognitive mechanisms of verb argument structure processing.In A.Bachrach,I.Roy,&I.Stockall(Eds.),Structuring the argument(pp.141-168).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
van Herten,M.,Kolk,H.H.J.,&Chwilla,D.J.(2005).An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies.Cognitive Brain Research,22(2),241-255.
Wang,Z.H.(2000).“吃食堂”的认知考察[A cognitive exploration on the Mandarin phrase chi shitang‘eat restaurant’].Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies,2,58-64.
Ye,Z.,Zhan,W.,&Zhou,X.(2007).The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension:an ERP study.Brain Research,1142(1),135-145.
Zhou,X.,Jiang,X.,Ye.Z.,Zhang,Y.,Lou,K.,&Zhan W.(2010).Semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during sentence comprehension:an ERP study.Neuropsychologia,48(6),1551-1562.
*1 In our experiment, we only presented the participants with V+NP phrases instead of complete sentences. As can be seen from the semantic restrictions of the verbs, all the default subjects of the phrases in our experiment are human beings.They all bear the roles of actors in sentences. Actors are always more prominent than the roles of the peripheral arguments in the thematic hierarchy. Also, the property of inflection-poverty of Chinese implies that word order plays a crucial role in the mapping of the arguments in the prominence hierarchy to syntactic positions in the sentence. Since the thematic prominence hierarchy and word order in all phrases are the same, the ERP behavior of the phrases, with their subjects deleted, should reflect that of the complete sentences.
*Liu, Xu,&Panther(2013)was one of the pioneering papers which aims to explore the neurocognitive mechanism of Chinese non-patient object phrases. But heir study was merely about the phrases consisting of Chinese verb chi(eat)and its non-patient objects. Their study revealed that N400 amplitudes decrease along the cline Instrument> Locative> Source>Means> Patient.
*An N400 effect was also found in a similar experiment conducted by Kos, Vosse, van den Brink, and Hagoort(2010, p. 5)which investigated sentences like Fred eet een restaurant ‘Fred eats a restaurant’ in German.
**After this process, the transitive verb will become intransitive, hence the promotion of a peripheral argument to occupy the position of the basic object is called argument augmentation.
Cheng,J.(2009).虚词假设与增元结构-论不及物动词后非核心论元的句法属性[The null preposition hypothesis and the applicative construction:A syntactic study of the postintransitiveverb non-core arguments].Modern Foreign Languages,32(1),23-32.
Chung,S.(1976).An object-creating rule in Bahasa Indonesian.Linguist.Inquiry,7(1),41-87.
Coulson,S.,King,J.W.,&Kutas,M.(1998).Expect the unexpected:Event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,13(1),21-58.
Dowty,D.(1991).Thematic proto-roles and argument selection.Language,67(3),547-619.
Friederici,A.,&Frisch,S.(2000).Verb argument structure processing:The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information.Journal of Memory and Language,43(3),476-507.
Friederici,A.D.,Hahne,A.,&Mecklinger,A.(1996).Temporal structure of syntactic parsing:Early and late event-related brain potential effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory and Cognition,22(5),1219-1248.
Friederici,A.D.,Hahne,A.,&Saddy,D.(2002).Distinct neurophysiological pattern reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,31(1),45-63.
Friederici,A.D.,&Meyer,M.(2004).The brain knows the difference:Two types of grammatical violations.Brain Research,1000(1-2),72-77.
Frisch,S.,Hahne,A.,&Friederici,A.D.2004.Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing.Cognition,91(3),191-219.
Frisch,S.,&Schlesewsky,M.(2001).The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing.NeuroReport,12(15),3391-3394.
Hagoort,P.,Brown,C.,&Groothusen,J.(1993).The syntactic positive shift(SPS)as an ERPmeasure of syntactic processing.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,8(4),439-483.
Hagoort,P.,Brown,C.,&Osterhout,L.(1999).The neurocognition of syntactic processing.In C.Brown&P.Hagoort(Eds.),Neurocognition of language(pp.273-316).Oxford,UK:Oxford University Press.
Hagoort,P.,Wassenaar,M.,&Brown,C.M.(2003).Syntax-related ERP effects in Dutch.Cognitive Brain Research,16(1),38-50.
Hald,L.A.,Steenbeek-Planting,E.G.,&Hagoort,P.(2007).The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension:Evidence from the N400.Brain Research,1146(1),210-218.
Hoeks,J.C.J.,Stowe,L.A.,&Doedens,G.(2004).Seeing words in context:The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading.Cognitive Brain Research,19(1),59-73.
Holcomb,P.J.,&Neville,H.J.(1991).Natural speech processing:an analysis using event-related brain potentials.Psychobiology,19(4),286-300.
Hu,J.H.(2010).题元、论元和语法功能项-格标效应与语言差异[Theta-roles,arguments and GF].Foreign Language Teaching and Research,39(3),163-168.
Kaan,E.,Harris,A.,Gibson,E.,&Holcomb,P.J.(2000).The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty.Language,Cognition and Neuroscience,15(2)159-201.
Kaan,E.,&Swaab,T.Y.(2003).Repair,revision and complexity in syntactic analysis:An electrophysiological differentiation.Journal of Cognitive.Neuroscience,15(1),98-110.
Kielar,A.,Meltzer-Asscher,A.,&Thompson,C.(2011).ERP responses to argument structure and semantic violations in sentence context in healthy and agrammatic aphasic adults.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,23,45-46.
Kielar,A.,Meltzer-Asscher,A.,&Thompson,C.(2012).Electrophysiological responses to argument structure violations in healthy adults and individuals with agrammatic aphasia.Neuropsychologia,50(14),3320-3337.
Kolk,H.H.J.,Chwilla,D.J.,van Herten,M.,&Oor,P.J.W.(2003).Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory:A study with event-related potentials.Brain and Language,85(1),1-36.
Kos,M.,Vosse,T.,van den Brink,D.,&Hagoort,P.(2010).About edible restaurants:Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs.Frontiers in Psychology,1(222),1-11.
Kuperberg,G.R.,Sitnikova,T.,Caplan,D.,&Holcomb,P.J.(2003).Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences.Cognitive Brain Research,17(1),117-129.
Kutas,M.,&Hillyard,S.A.(1980).Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.Science,207(4427),203-205.
Li,Y.F.(1993).Structural head and aspectuality.Language,69(3),480-504.
Lin,T.H.(2001).Light verb syntax and the theory of phrase structure.Ph.D.dissertation.Irvine:University of California Irvine.
Liu,Y.H.,Xu,X.D.,&Panther,K.U.(2013).An ERP approach to thematic hierarchies regarding grammatical objects of the Chinese verb Chi(eat).Language Sciences,40(4),36-44.
Münte,T.F.,Matzke,M.,&Johannes,S.(1997).Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,9(3),318-329.
Münte,T.F.,Heinze,H.J.,Matzke,M.,Wieringa,B.M.,&Johannes,S.(1998).Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited:No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift.Neuropsychologia,36(3),217-226.
Neville,H.J.,Nicol,J.L.,Barss,A.,Forster,K.I.,&Garrett,M.F.(1991).Syntactically based sentence processing classes:Evidence from event-related brain potentials.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3(2),151-165.
Osterhout,L.,&Holcomb,P.J.(1992).Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory and Language,31(6),785-806.
Osterhout,L.,Holcomb,P.J.,&Swinney,D.A.(1994).Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences:Evidence of the application of verb information in parsing.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory and Cognition,20(4),786-803.
Pylkk鋘en,L.(2002).Introducing arguments.Ph.D.dissertation,Cambridge,Massachusetts:MIT.
Sun,T.Q.(2009).汉语非核心论元允准结构初探[On oblique objects in Chinese].Chinese Language Learning,3,70-77.
Thompson,C.K.,&Meltzer-Asscher,A.(2014).Neurocognitive mechanisms of verb argument structure processing.In A.Bachrach,I.Roy,&I.Stockall(Eds.),Structuring the argument(pp.141-168).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.
van Herten,M.,Kolk,H.H.J.,&Chwilla,D.J.(2005).An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies.Cognitive Brain Research,22(2),241-255.
Wang,Z.H.(2000).“吃食堂”的认知考察[A cognitive exploration on the Mandarin phrase chi shitang‘eat restaurant’].Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies,2,58-64.
Ye,Z.,Zhan,W.,&Zhou,X.(2007).The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension:an ERP study.Brain Research,1142(1),135-145.
Zhou,X.,Jiang,X.,Ye.Z.,Zhang,Y.,Lou,K.,&Zhan W.(2010).Semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during sentence comprehension:an ERP study.Neuropsychologia,48(6),1551-1562.
*1 In our experiment, we only presented the participants with V+NP phrases instead of complete sentences. As can be seen from the semantic restrictions of the verbs, all the default subjects of the phrases in our experiment are human beings.They all bear the roles of actors in sentences. Actors are always more prominent than the roles of the peripheral arguments in the thematic hierarchy. Also, the property of inflection-poverty of Chinese implies that word order plays a crucial role in the mapping of the arguments in the prominence hierarchy to syntactic positions in the sentence. Since the thematic prominence hierarchy and word order in all phrases are the same, the ERP behavior of the phrases, with their subjects deleted, should reflect that of the complete sentences.
*Liu, Xu,&Panther(2013)was one of the pioneering papers which aims to explore the neurocognitive mechanism of Chinese non-patient object phrases. But heir study was merely about the phrases consisting of Chinese verb chi(eat)and its non-patient objects. Their study revealed that N400 amplitudes decrease along the cline Instrument> Locative> Source>Means> Patient.
*An N400 effect was also found in a similar experiment conducted by Kos, Vosse, van den Brink, and Hagoort(2010, p. 5)which investigated sentences like Fred eet een restaurant ‘Fred eats a restaurant’ in German.
**After this process, the transitive verb will become intransitive, hence the promotion of a peripheral argument to occupy the position of the basic object is called argument augmentation.