Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2020, Vol. 28 Issue (1) : 62-74     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00062
Regular Articles |
The cognitive neural mechanisms of verb argument structure complexity processing
WANG Xin,HANG Mingli,LIANG Dandan()
School of Chinese Language and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
Download: PDF(743 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

Verb argument structure complexity is manifested in four aspects: the number of arguments, the selection mode of arguments subcategorization, the assignment mode of θ-roles and the mapping of argument structure. Most empirical studies show that more arguments, alternating arguments subcategorization, alternating assignment of θ-roles and noncanonical mapping make the cognitive neural mechanisms of verb argument structure processing become more complicated. The main functional brain regions corresponding to processing of more arguments involve left inferior frontal gyrus and posterior perisylvian regions, the main functional brain regions corresponding to processing of alternating argument subcategorizations involve left inferior frontal gyrus, middle-posterior frontal lobesuperior temporal gyrus and middle-posterior temporal lobe, the main functional brain regions corresponding to processing of alternating assignment mode of θ-roles involve posterior perisylvian regions, left middle-posterior frontal lobe and inferior frontal gyrus, the main functional brain regions corresponding to processing of noncanonical mapping involve left inferior frontal gyrus, superior temporal gyrus, middle temporal gyrus and posterior temporal lobe. Perhaps, left inferior frontal gyrus involves initial syntactic processing, the determination of the subcategory of verbs, syntactic movement processing and semantic processing of unaccusative verbs, left middle-posterior frontal lobe involves initial syntactic processing and the determination of the subcategory of verbs, left superior temporal gyrus and middle-posterior temporal lobe involve surface syntactic structure processing and argument syntax-semantic integration, posterior perisylvian regions involve argument semantic reprensatation. The process of verb argument structure processing and lexical properties of verbs indicate that there are interaction effects between or among some complexities. Some other issues need further exploration, including the corresponding relationship between the complexity of the verb argument structure and the difficulty of its processing, the difficulty hierarchy of verb argument structure complexities processing and the cognitive neural mechanisms of interaction effects of them, as well as the cognitive neural mechanisms of Chinese verb argument structure complexity processing.

Keywords verb      argument structure complexity      processing      cognitive neural mechanisms     
ZTFLH:  B842  
Corresponding Authors: Dandan LIANG     E-mail: ldd233@sina.com
Issue Date: 21 November 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Xin WANG
Mingli HANG
Dandan LIANG
Cite this article:   
Xin WANG,Mingli HANG,Dandan LIANG. The cognitive neural mechanisms of verb argument structure complexity processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(1): 62-74.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00062     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2020/V28/I1/62
动词论元结构复杂性 功能脑区 所涉认知神经加工
多论元 外侧裂周后部 论元语义表征
左侧额下回 初始句法加工
选择性论元范畴 左侧颞上回和颞叶中后部 表层句法加工
左侧额下回 初始句法加工
左侧额叶中后部 初始句法加工
选择性题元角色指派 外侧裂周后部 论元语义表征
左侧额下回 初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定
左侧额叶中后部 初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定
非典型映射 左侧颞上回、颞中回和颞叶后部 表层论元句法-语义整合
左侧额下回 句法移位、非宾格动词语义加工
  
  
  
1 柏晓鹏, 薛念文 . ( 2015). 多语言视角下汉语“V+事件NP宾语”的论元结构研究. 外国语, ( 5), 2-13.
2 陈蓓 . ( 2017). 现代汉语非典型宾语的界定. 华中学术, ( 3), 176-184.
3 封世文, 杨亦鸣 . ( 2011). 基于功能性磁共振成像的汉语轻动词及其神经机制研究. 语言文字应用, ( 2), 43-53.
4 韩景泉 . ( 2019). 汉语非宾格动词的论元结构及其句法推导. 外语教学与研究, 51( 1), 31-43.
5 郝暾 . ( 2018). 论元结构构式在汉语母语者与二语学习者句子理解中的作用. 语言教学与研究, ( 4), 90-101.
6 何文广, 陈宝国 . ( 2013). 句子加工中核心名词动物性效应及其认知机制. 心理科学进展, 21( 3), 437-447.
7 黄正德 . ( 2007). 汉语动词的题元结构与其句法表现. 语言科学, 6( 4), 3-21.
8 刘涛, 江火 . ( 2016). 句法移位的脑神经加工机制——来自汉语被动句的ERPs研究. 语言科学, 15( 6), 612-624.
9 刘涛, 杨亦鸣 . ( 2016). 基于事件相关电位的空语类分类的神经机制研究. 外语研究, ( 5), 14-21.
10 任会启, 梁丹丹 .( 2014). 智障儿童动词论元遗漏的实验研究. 语言科学, 13( 5), 449-460.
11 任鹰 . ( 2009). “领属”与“存现”:从概念的关联到构式的关联——也从“王冕死了父亲”的生成方式说起. 世界汉语教学, 23( 3), 308-321.
12 沈家煊 . ( 2018). 比附“主谓结构”引起的问题. 外国语, 41( 6), 2-15.
13 田启林 . ( 2018). 移还是不移——领主属宾句的生成方式探析. 外文研究,( 3), 1-6+14+105.
14 王穗苹, 黄健 . ( 2019). 语言理解中的语义加工:不同模态神经影像的研究. 生理学报, ( 1), 127-139.
15 王奇 . ( 2006). “领主属宾句”的语义特点与句法结构. 现代外语, 29( 3), 230-238.
16 王小潞, 何代丽 . ( 2017). 汉语隐喻加工的fMRI研究. 北京第二外国语学院学报, 39( 4), 70-94.
17 王鑫, 杨亦鸣 . ( 2018). 跨学科视阈下动词研究新视野——《构建论元:动词论元结构的跨学科研究》述评. 语言与翻译, ( 4), 89-94.
18 王渊博, 闻素霞, 贾德梅 . ( 2017). 汉-维非熟练双语者非目标语言语音激活与语义激活差异的ERP研究. 心理科学, 40( 6), 1282-1288.
19 Agnew Z. K., van de Koot H., McGettigan C., & Scott S. K . ( 2014). Do sentences with unaccusative verbs involve syntactic movement? Evidence from neuroimaging. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29( 9), 1035-1045.
20 Alyahya R. S. W., Halai A. D., Conroy P ., & ambon Ralph, M. A. ( 2018). The behavioural patterns and neural correlates of concrete and abstract verb processing in aphasia: A novel verb semantic battery. Neuroimage Clinical, 17, 811-825.
21 Bachrach A., Roy I. , & tockall, L.( 2014). Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
22 Barbieri E., Brambilla I., Thompson C. K., & Luzzatti C . ( 2019). Verb and sentence processing patterns in healthy Italian participants: Insight from the Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Journal of Communication Disorders, 79, 58-75.
23 Binder J. R., Desai R. H., Graves W. W., & Conant L. L . ( 2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767-2796.
24 Blanco-Elorrieta E., Kastner I., Emmorey K., & Pylkk?nen L . ( 2018). Shared neural correlates for building phrases in signed and spoken language. S cientific Reports, 8( 1), 1-10.
25 Caley S., Whitworth A., & Claessen M . ( 2016). Can we separate verbs from their argument structure? A group study in aphasia. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52( 1), 59-70.
url: http://dx.doi.org/national Journal of Language
26 Caplan, D. ( 2010). Task effects on BOLD signal correlates of implicit syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive. Processes, 25( 6), 866-901.
27 Caplan D., Alpert N., Waters G., & Olivieri A . ( 2000). Activation of Broca’s area by syntactic processing under conditions of concurrent articulation. Human Brain Mapping, 9( 2), 65-71.
28 ChodorowM.S., . ( 1979). Time-compressed speech and the study of lexical and syntactic processing.In W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett( pp. 87-111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29 ChomskyN.( 1993). Lectures on government and binding.Dordrecht: Foris.
30 Cho-ReyesS., &Thompson C.K, . ( 2012). Verb and sentence production and comprehension in aphasia: Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences (NAVS). Aphasiology, 26( 10), 1250-1277.
31 Constable R. T., Pugh K. R., Berroya E., Mencl W. E., Westerveld M., Ni W. J., Shankweiler D . ( 2004). Sentence complexity and input modality effects in sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 22( 1), 11-21.
32 CuervoM.C., . ( 2014). Alternating unaccusatives and the distribution of roots. Lingua, 141( 1), 48-70.
33 den Ouden D. B., Fix S., Parrish T. B., & Thompson C. K . ( 2009). Argument structure effects in action verb naming in static and dynamic conditions. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22( 2), 196-215.
34 Dronkers N. F., Wilkins D. P., an Valin, R. D. J., Redfern B. B., & Jaeger J. J . ( 2004). Lesion analysis of the brain areas involved in language comprehension. Cognition, 92( 1-2), 145-177.
35 Europa E., Gitelman D. R., Kiran S., & Thompson C. K . ( 2019). Neural connectivity in syntactic movement processing. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, ( 13), 13-27.
36 Fadlon, J. ( 2016). The transitive-unaccusative alternation: A cross-modal priming study. Psycholinguist, 45(3), 671-696.
37 Faroqi-ShahY., &Thomson C.K, . ( 2003). Effect of lexical cues on the production of active and passive sentences in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 85( 3), 409-426.
38 Feng S., Legault J., Yang Y., Zhu J., Shao K., & Yang L . ( 2015). Differences in grammatical processing strategies for active and passive sentences: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 33( S1), 104-117.
39 FriedericiA.D., . ( 2011). The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91( 4), 1357-1392.
40 FriedericiA.., &Graetz P.A, . ( 1987). Processing passive sentences in aphasia: Deficits and strategies. Brain and Language, 30( 1), 93-105.
41 FriedericiA.., &Kotz S.A, . ( 2003). The brain basis of syntactic processes: Functional imaging and lesion studies. Neuroimage, 20( S1), S8-S17.
42 Friedmann,N., Shapiro L.P . ( 2003). Agrammatic comprehension of simple active sentences with moved constituents: Hebrew OSV and OVS structures. Journal of Speech Language & Hearing Research, 46( 2), 288-297.
url: http://dx.doi.org/al of Speech Language
43 Grodzinsky ,Y. ( 2000). Syntax in the brain: Linguistic versus neuroanatomical specificity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23( 1), 1-21.
44 Hernandez M., Fairhall S. L., Lenci A., Baroni M., & Caramazza A . ( 2014). Predication drives verb cortical signatures. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26( 8), 1829-1839.
45 Hirotani M., Makuuchi M., Ruschemeyer S. A., & Friederici A. D . ( 2011). Who was the agent? The neural correlates of reanalysis processes during sentence comprehension. Human Brain Mapping, 32( 11), 1775-1787.
46 LeeJ., &Thompson C.K, . ( 2011). Real-time production of unergative and unaccusative sentences in normal and agrammatic speakers: An eyetracking study. Aphasiology, 25( 6-7), 813-825.
47 Mack J. E., Andrew Zu-Sern Wei., Gutierrez K., & Thompson C. K . ( 2016). Tracking sentence comprehension: Test-retest reliability in people with aphasia and unimpaired adults. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 40, 98-111.
48 Mack J. E., Meltzer-Asscher A., Barbieri E., & Thompson C. K . ( 2013). Neural correlates of processing passive sentences. Brain Sciences, 3( 3), 1198-1214.
49 MalyutinaS., & denOuden, D . ( 2017). Task-dependent neural and behavioral effects of verb argument structure features. Brain & Language, 168, 57-72.
50 Malyutina S., Richardson J. D., & den Ouden D . ( 2016). Verb argument structure in narrative speech: Mining aphasia bank . Seminars in Speech and language, 37( 1), 34-47.
51 MasonR., &Just, M . ( 2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1146, 115-127.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.02.076
52 Mason R., Just M., Keller T., & Patricia A . ( 2003). Ambiguity in the Brain: What Brain imaging reveals about the processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29( 6), 1319-1338.
53 McAllister T., Bachrach A., Waters G., Michaud J., & Caplan D . ( 2009). Production and comprehension of unaccusatives in aphasia. Aphasiology, 23( 7-8), 989-1004.
54 Meltzer-Asscher A., Mack J. E., Barbieri E., & Thompson C. K . ( 2015). How the brain processes different dimensions of argument structure complexity: Evidence from fMRI. Brain & Language, 142, 65-75.
55 Meltzer-Asscher A., Schuchard J., den Ouden D. B., & Thompson C. K . ( 2013). The neural substrates of complex argument structure representations: Processing ‘alternating transitivity’ verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28( 8), 1154-1168.
56 Momma S., Robert S. L., & Phillips C . ( 2018). Unaccusativity in sentence production. Linguistic Inquiry, 49( 1), 181-194.
57 Perlmutter, D. ( 1978) . Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypojournal. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.
58 Rappaport-Hovav , M., & Levin, B. ( 2011). Lexicon uniformity and the causative alternation.In Everart, M., Marelj, M., & Siloni, T. (Eds.),The Theta system:rgument structure at the interface[C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
url: http://dx.doi.org/on uniformity and the causative alternation.In Everart, M., Marelj, M.,
59 Rodd J. M., Olivia A. L., Bill R., & Lorraine K. T . ( 2010). The functional organisation of the fronto-temporal language system: Evidence from syntactic and semantic ambiguity. Neuropsychologia, 48( 5), 1324-1335.
60 Rodriguez-Ferreiro J., Llorenc A., & Sanz-Torrent M . ( 2014). Argument structure and the representation of abstract semantics. PLoS One, 9( 8), 1-7.
61 ShetreetE., &Friedmann, N . ( 2012). Stretched, jumped, and fell: An fMRI investigation of reflexive verbs and other intransitives. NeuroImage, 60( 3), 1800-1806.
62 Shetreet E., Friedmann N., & Hadar U . ( 2010 a). The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22( 10), 2306-2315.
63 Shetreet E., Friedmann N., & Hadar U . ( 2010 b). Cortical representation of optional complements: The theoretical contribution of fMRI. Human Brain Mapping, 31( 5), 770-785.
64 Shetreet E., Palti D., Friedmann N., & Hadar U . ( 2007). Cortical representation of verb processing in sentence comprehension: Number of complements, subcategorization, and thematic frames. Cerebral Cortex, 17( 8), 1958-1969.
65 Sullivan N., Walenski M., Love T., & Shapiro L. P . ( 2017). The comprehension of sentences with unaccusative verbs in aphasia: a test of the intervener hypojournal. Aphasiology, 31( 1), 67-81.
66 SungJ.E., . ( 2016). The effects of verb argument complexity on verb production in persons with aphasia: Evidence from a subject-object-verb language . Journal of Psycholingustic Research, 45( 2), 287-305.
67 ThompsonC.K., . ( 2003). Unaccusative verb production in agrammatic aphasia: The argument structure complexity hypojournal. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16( 2-3), 151-167.
68 Thompson C. K., Bonakdarpour B., &Fix S. F . ( 2010). Neural mechanisms of verb argument structure processing in agrammatic aphasic and healthy age-matched listeners. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22( 9), 1993-2011.
69 Thompson C. K., Bonakdarpour B., Fix S., Blumenfeld H., Parrish T., Gitelman D., … Mesulam M . ( 2007). Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19( 11), 1753-1767.
70 Thompson C. K. ,& Meltzer-Asscher, A.( 2014). Neurocognitive mechanisms of verb argument structure processing.In A. Bachrach,I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (pp. 141-168) .Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
url: http://dx.doi.org/cognitive mechanisms of verb argument structure processing.In A. Bachrach,I. Roy,
71 Thompson C. K., Riley , E. A, den Ouden , D. B., Meltzer- Asscher A., & Lukic S . ( 2013). Training verb argument structure production in agrammatic aphasia: Behavioral and neural recovery patterns. Cortex, 49( 9), 2358-2376.
72 VerniceM., &Guasti M.T, . ( 2015). The acquisition of SV order in unaccusatives: Manipulating the definiteness of the NP argument. Journal of Child Language, 42( 1), 210-237.
73 WangH., &Thompson C.K, . ( 2016). Assessing syntactic deficits in Chinese Broca's aphasia using the Northwestern Assessment of Verbs and Sentences-Chinese (NAVS-C). Aphasiology, 30( 7), 815-840.
74 Wittenberg E., Jackendoff R., Kuperberg G., Paczynski M., Snedeker J. ,& Wiese, H.( 2014). The processing and representation of light verb constructions.In A. Bachrach,I. Roy, & L. Stockall (Eds.), Structuring the argument: Multidisciplinary research on verb argument structure (pp. 63-80) . Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
url: http://dx.doi.org/rocessing and representation of light verb constructions.In A. Bachrach,I. Roy,
[1] ZHU Yanhan, CHEN Guoliang, XU Junying. Mindfulness in organization: Cognition-oriented dynamic derivative process and interventions[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(3): 510-522.
[2] WAN Nan, ZHU Shuqing, JIA Shiwei. The effect of feedback interval on feedback processing: A perspective of integrating behavioral and electrophysiological researches[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(2): 230-239.
[3] DING Xiaobin,LIU Jianyi,WANG Yapeng,KANG Tiejun,DANG Chen. The automatic processing of changes in emotion: Implications from EMMN[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2020, 28(1): 85-97.
[4] ZENG Ying,XIA Tiansheng. The neuroaesthetics of music: From aesthetic responses to neural bases[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(9): 1596-1606.
[5] CHEN ShengDong,CHEN YongQiang,GAO Wei,LUO Li,YANG JieMin,YUAN JiaJin. The automaticity in cognitive processing: From dichotomy to gradual view[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(9): 1556-1563.
[6] CHEN Yahong,WANG Jinyan. The effect of music training on pre-attentive processing of the brain[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(6): 1036-1043.
[7] LI Fangjun,WANG Shuman,LI Aimei,LI Bin. Team voice effectiveness and its mechanism from the perspective of group information processing: The influence of voice quantity and quality[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(6): 965-974.
[8] ZHU Zhaoxia,LIU Li,CUI Lei,PENG Danling. The influence of writing on reading: Evidence from the contrast between traditional writing and typing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(5): 796-803.
[9] HAN Haibin,XU Pingping,QU Qingqing,CHENG Xi,LI Xingshan. Cross-modal integration of audiovisual information in language processing[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(3): 475-489.
[10] YANG Ling,YAO Dongwei,CAO Hua,WANG Binqiang,HE Yuanyuan,SU Hongting. The characteristics, mechanisms and interventions of drug addicts' decision-making defects[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(2): 329-343.
[11] ZHANG Li Hua,MIAO Li. Hostile interpretation bias and aggression[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(12): 2097-2108.
[12] MA Yuanxiao,CHEN Xu. Plasticity of insecure attachment and its neuromechanism[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(12): 1967-1979.
[13] BAI Xiaoyu,Tawanda S. Mutusva,ZHU Zhuohong. PEAK relational training system for children with autism: A novel application based on relational frame theory[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(11): 1896-1905.
[14] CHE Jingshang,SUN Hailong,XIAO Chenjie,LI Aimei. Why information overload damages decisions? An explanation based on limited cognitive resources[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(10): 1758-1768.
[15] DU Bixuan,ZHANG Mingming,ZHANG Keye,REN Jie,HE Weiqi. Early development of the body shape and body movement in infancy[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(10): 1703-1712.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech