动词论元结构复杂性加工的认知神经机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00062

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

动词论元结构复杂性表现在论元数量、论元范畴选择模式、题元角色指派模式和映射方式四个方面。大部分实证研究表明, 更多的论元数量、选择性论元范畴、选择性题元角色指派以及非典型映射, 使动词论元结构加工的认知神经机制更复杂。多论元加工功能脑区主要涉及左侧额下回和外侧裂周后部; 选择性论元范畴加工功能脑区主要涉及左侧额下回、额叶中后部、颞上回和颞叶中后部; 选择性题元角色指派加工功能脑区主要涉及外侧裂周后部、左侧额叶中后部和额下回; 非典型映射加工功能脑区主要涉及左侧额下回、颞上回、颞中回和颞叶后部。左侧额下回可能涉及初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定、句法移位和非宾格动词语义加工, 左侧额叶中后部可能涉及初始句法加工和动词次范畴确定, 左侧颞上回和颞叶中后部可能涉及表层句法加工和表层论元句法-语义整合, 外侧裂周后部可能涉及论元语义表征。动词论元结构加工过程和动词词汇特征表明, 复杂性某些方面存在交互作用。动词论元结构复杂性与加工难易的对应关系、复杂性加工难度层级和交互作用的认知神经机制以及汉语动词论元结构复杂性加工认知神经机制等议题, 有待进一步探讨。

关键词: 动词, 论元结构复杂性, 加工, 认知神经机制

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.

Key words: verb, argument structure complexity, processing, cognitive neural mechanisms

中图分类号:

B842

王鑫, 杭明丽, 梁丹丹. (2020). 动词论元结构复杂性加工的认知神经机制. 心理科学进展 , 28(1), 62-74.

WANG Xin, HANG Mingli, LIANG Dandan. (2020). The cognitive neural mechanisms of verb argument structure complexity processing. Advances in Psychological Science, 28(1), 62-74.

图/表 3

参考文献 74

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., & Pylkkänen 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

[1]	叶舒琪, 尹俊婷, 李招贤, 罗俊龙. 情绪对直觉与分析加工的影响机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(5): 736-746.
[2]	成美霞, 匡子翌, 冷晓雪, 张洋, 王福兴. 以教促学：学习者自我生成教学对学习的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(5): 769-782.
[3]	杨庆, 李亚琴. 不确定是坏的么?不确定状态中的错误加工特点及其解释机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 338-349.
[4]	张皓, 肖邦明, 黄敏学. 基于用户动态信息加工的信息流广告回避机制与重定向策略[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(2): 223-239.
[5]	陈子炜, 付迪, 刘勋. 错认总比错过好——面孔视错觉的发生机制及其应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(2): 240-255.
[6]	杨珍芝, 曾红. 正念训练对冲动性不同要素的影响：基于双加工理论[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(2): 274-287.
[7]	周国梅, 郑若颖, 林佳, 刘心阁. 面孔吸引力的整体表征及其动态性增强[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(7): 1429-1438.
[8]	邓尧, 王梦梦, 饶恒毅. 风险决策研究中的仿真气球冒险任务[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(6): 1377-1392.
[9]	李亮, 李红. 人们为什么会羞怯：认知机制及神经基础[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(5): 1038-1049.
[10]	王润洲, 毕鸿燕. 发展性阅读障碍视听时间整合缺陷可能的机制：视听时间再校准能力受损[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(12): 2764-2776.
[11]	赵娜, 秦学者, 刘雅倩, 孙铃. 一分价钱, 一分货?价格质量效应的理论机制与调节因素[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(10): 2372-2380.
[12]	颜丽珠, 陈妍秀, 刘勋, 傅世敏, 南威治. 数字空间联结的灵活性及其内在机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(1): 51-64.
[13]	刘小禹, 付静宇. 情绪即社会信息模型的理论及应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(1): 188-205.
[14]	贺汝婉, 李斌, 张淑颖, 崔馨月, 雷励. 时间与金钱概念对消费者购买决策的不同影响及其心理机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(9): 1684-1695.
[15]	刘传军, 廖江群. 道德困境研究的范式沿革及其理论价值[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(8): 1508-1520.