句子结构与控制动词类型对题元角色指派的影响
天津师范大学心理学部, 天津 300387
Effects of sentence structure and type of control verb on thematic role assignment: Evidence from eye movements
Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China
通讯作者: 白学军, E-mail:bxuejun@126.com
收稿日期: 2020-08-27
| 基金资助: |
|
Received: 2020-08-27
扩展论元依存模型认为:语序固定语言的题元角色指派依赖论元的语序线索; 论元线索与动词论元表征不一致时, 题元角色再分析会产生额外的加工负荷。为检验该模型, 本研究采用眼动记录方法, 实验为2 (句子结构:居中、前置) × 2 (控制动词类型:主语控制、宾语控制)被试内设计。通过操纵句子结构, 考察汉语读者对语序线索的依赖性; 通过操纵控制动词类型, 考察汉语论元线索与动词论元表征的一致性对题元角色指派的影响。结果发现:(1)前置结构的句子在名词1、名词2和动词区域的阅读时间和回视次数多于居中结构的句子; (2)宾语控制动词条件在动词和动词后区域的第二遍阅读时间和总回视次数多于主语控制动词条件; (3)在居中结构中, 宾语控制动词条件在名词2和动词区域的阅读时间和回视次数多于主语控制动词条件; 在前置结构中, 宾语控制动词条件在动词后区域的阅读时间多于主语控制动词条件。结果支持扩展论元依存模型。
关键词:
Thematic role assignment refers to the on-line processing of assigning semantic roles, such as assigning agents or patients, to arguments (i.e., nouns) related to the verb. Linguistic information provided by arguments (e.g., word order, or case marking), as well as lexical argument representation of the verb is used for assigning thematic roles. The Extended Argument Dependency Model (eADM) suggests that argument cues utilized to assign semantic roles vary across languages. For rigid word-ordering languages (e.g., English) with case marking, readers adopt a position-based assignment, according to which the initial argument is usually analyzed as an agent. By contrast, thematic role assignment in unrestricted word-ordering languages (e.g., German, Italian, Japanese, and Turkish) with case marking exhibits a morphology-based strategy. The eADM model also predicts a reversal of thematic role assignment when the verb’s argument representation contradicts with the argument cues, which is based on verb information and induces additional processing costs. Considerable evidence has demonstrated the language-specific weight on argument cues. However, it is unknown whether word order strongly affects thematic role assignment in Chinese (a rigid-ordering language with case marking) reading. In addition, the reanalysis of thematic roles proposed by the eADM model has only been tentatively explored in Spanish. Whether such reanalysis processing exists in other languages, especially in non-alphabetic languages like Chinese, is still lack of evidence.
The present study examined the reliance on word order information in the existence of case marking information and the reanalysis of thematic roles when argument representation of the verb was in contradiction with cues of arguments in Chinese. The sentence structure (centered or preposed) and the type of control verb (subject-control or object-control) were manipulated. Sentences in the centered structure provided information of word order and case marking, while sentences in the preposed structure only provided case marking information. Argument representation of object-control verbs incompatible with the information of arguments would lead to a re-assignment of semantic roles. The argument representation of subject-control verbs compatible with the argument cues would cause no reanalysis. Fifty-four pairs of control verbs were selected, each of which was embedded into a centered-structure sentence and a preposed-structure sentence. Eye movements of 24 native Chinese speakers were recorded by the Eyelink Ⅱ eye tracker. Each participant read 54 experimental sentences, followed by a comprehension question.
The results showed that the preposed structure sentences caused longer second-pass reading time and more total incoming regressions in the first noun, longer first-pass reading time in the second noun, and longer regression path duration in the verb region than the centered-structure sentences, which suggested the strategy of position-based assignment for Chinese readers. There were robust main effects of the types of control verb, in that longer first pass reading time, regression path duration, and total incoming regressions were observed in the verb region, and longer second-pass reading time and total incoming (outgoing) regressions were found in the post-verb region in the object control verb condition than in the subject control verb condition. These results indicated that the mismatch of verb argument representation and argument cues contributed to an extra processing load. In addition, interactions between sentence structure and types of control verb were also observed, with longer second-pass reading time and total incoming regression in the second noun and longer second-pass reading time in the verb region in the centered-structure sentences containing object control verbs than those containing subject control verbs. There were longer first-pass reading time and regression path duration in the post-verb region in the preposed-structure sentences in the object-control verb condition than in the subject-control verb condition.
In conclusion, these findings indicate that Chinese readers depend on word order information heavily to assign thematic roles even when there is case marking; also, the mismatch between cues of arguments and the argument representation of control verbs in Chinese reading causes reanalysis of thematic roles. Such findings are in line with the claim of the eADM model.
Keywords:
本文引用格式
李芳, 李馨, 张慢慢, 白学军.
LI Fang, LI Xin, ZHANG Manman, BAI Xuejun.
1 引言
句子理解是在词汇识别的基础上利用各种句法、语义和语境线索获得句子意义的过程。题元角色指派(thematic role assignment)是句法和语义的接口, 其实质是句子由形式到意义的转换, 被认为是句子理解的重要组成部分(Pléh et al., 2017; Tanenhaus et al., 1989), 它是指为动词相关的论元(即, 名词)指派语义角色, 如施事角色(即, 动作的发出者)或受事角色(即, 动作的接受者) (Dowty, 1991)。例如, 在“猎人追赶老虎”这句话中, 题元角色指派就是把“猎人”指派为施事角色, 把“老虎”指派为受事角色。
论元线索和动词论元表征都是题元角色指派的重要依据。论元线索包括语序线索和格标记线索等。语序线索指论元名词的语序所提示的论元语义角色, 首个论元名词通常被判断为施事角色。格标记线索指用于表明论元语义角色的附加标记信息, 例如论元的形态屈折变化或者前置介词。动词论元表征指动词信息所表征的论元之间的语义关系, 例如动词“追赶”的论元表征为施事-受事。扩展论元依存模型(extended argument dependency model, eADM) (Bornkessel & Schlesewsky, 2006; Bornkessel- Schlesewsky & Schlesewsky, 2008, 2016)主张:(1)读者的论元线索权重具有跨语言差异:若同时存在语序线索和格标记线索, 语序相对自由的语言主要依赖格标记线索判断论元的语义角色, 而语序相对固定的语言则依赖语序线索; (2)读者基于论元线索与动词论元表征的线索整合完成题元角色指派:当论元线索与动词论元表征不一致时, 读者依据动词论元表征修正初始的论元语义角色分析, 题元角色再分析产生额外的加工负荷; 当论元线索与动词论元表征一致时, 不需要进行题元角色再分析。
语序和格标记线索权重的跨语言差异得到证据支持。MacWhinney等人(1984)对比了英语(语序固定)以及德语和意大利语(语序自由)的线索权重, 发现英语读者完全依赖语序线索, 德语和意大利语读者则依赖格标记线索。语序相对自由的日语、土耳其语, 其题元角色指派也主要依据格标记线索(Özge et al., 2019; Yamashita, 1997)。以德语为例, 句子“Der.NOM Junge trinkt den.ACC Saft.”与句子“Den.ACC Saft trinkt der.NOM Junge.”的语序线索不同, 但其题元角色指派都是依据名词前的主格标记词der (.NOM)把Junge指派为施事(Strotseva- Feinschmidt et al., 2019)。
但是, 目前尚不清楚汉语读者的语序和格标记线索权重。汉语语序相对固定, 汉语读者依据语序线索把句首的无标记名词判断为施事(Starosta, 1985)。Wang等人(2009)研究发现, 与主语-宾语(施事-受事)语序相比, 宾语-主语(受事-施事)语序在动词处诱发更大的N400。Li等人(2015)发现, 被试阅读受事前置句子时对动词的凝视时间长于施事前置句子。这些结果表明汉语读者依据语序线索判断论元的语义角色, 表现为语序线索不正确时的更大加工负荷。另外, 汉语的介词具有格标记作用(乔毅, 1987; 宋建清, 江海红, 2011)。介词“对”跟随的论元名词在句中承担受事角色或者与事角色(即施事动作的参与者) (孟晓琦, 贾秀英, 2009)。由介词“对”构成的“对”字结构(对+NP)充当状语时, 依据其在句中的位置可分为两类:(1)居中结构, “对”字结构位于主谓之间, 例如“老徐对老齐懊悔说应该及早采取防护措施”; (2)前置型结构, “对”字结构位于句首, 例如“对老齐, 老徐懊悔说应该及早采取防护措施”。居中结构和前置型结构同时包含语序线索和格标记线索; 把前置型结构的逗号省略之后(即“对老齐老徐懊悔说应该及早采取防护措施”), 它不提供语序线索仅包含格标记线索, 称前置结构1 (1居中结构和前置型结构:依据语序线索, “老徐”是施事角色。前置结构:介词“对”介引主谓短语(即, 老齐老徐懊悔做某事)充当NP (吴泓, 2019), 依据格标记线索, “老齐老徐”是主谓短语的施事。)。对比居中结构的句子和前置结构的句子可以探究汉语读者对语序线索的依赖性, 通过与其他语言的研究结果对比, 可以检验扩展论元依存模型主张的论元线索权重的跨语言差异。
论元线索与动词论元表征的一致性是影响题元角色指派的关键因素。以英语为材料的研究发现, 动词论元表征与语序线索不一致时, 读者的反应时增加(Manouilidou & de Almeida, 2013)。Gattei和Dickey等人(2015)采用自定步速法, 结果发现西班牙语的语序线索与动词论元表征不一致时, 读者对第二个论元名词的阅读时间增加。Gattei等人(2017)采用相同的实验材料并结合眼动技术发现, 当语序线索与动词论元表征不一致时, 读者对动词区域及动词后区域的注视时间和回视行为增加。上述结果均符合扩展论元依存模型主张的题元角色再分析时加工负荷更大, 但这些研究以拼音文字为主, 缺少来自其他语系(例如, 汉语)的证据, 该模型的跨语言普遍性仍然有待进一步验证。
目前尚无研究直接探究汉语论元线索与动词论元表征的线索整合, 但是Zhai (2011)采用自定步速阅读法考察了汉语控制动词的加工。在研究中采用主语控制动词和宾语控制动词(Betancort et al., 2006; Boland et al., 1990; Frazier et al., 1983)。主语控制动词(subject control verb, 如“懊悔”)指主语是后续动作的施事(动词语义指向2 (2语义指向, 指句中某成分在语义上跟哪个成分直接相关(徐晓东 等, 2013; 徐晓东 等, 2017)。比如:人们倾向于从主语控制动词“懊悔”的主语方面说明懊悔的原因, 而倾向于从宾语控制动词“提醒”的宾语方面说明被提醒的事宜。)主语), 其论元表征为施事在前, 与语序线索一致; 宾语控制动词(object control verb, 如“提醒”)指宾语是后续动作的施事(动词语义指向宾语), 其论元表征为施事在后, 与语序线索不一致。结果发现, 汉语读者对宾语控制动词条件的动词区域和动词后区域的反应时长于主语控制动词条件。由于自定步速阅读和反应时记录的方法限制, 无法确定该差异究竟源于动词论元表征的差异还是源于语序线索与动词论元表征的不一致。前者属于词汇加工过程, 后者属于句子整合加工过程, 其出现时间晚于前者。采用眼动技术不仅可以记录被试自然阅读过程, 而且可以通过早期眼动指标(例如, 第一遍阅读时间)和晚期眼动指标(例如, 第二遍阅读时间)分别揭示词汇加工过程和句子整合过程, 进而检验论元线索与动词论元表征不一致时的题元角色再分析过程。
本研究采用眼动技术记录被试阅读包含不同控制动词(主语控制动词、宾语控制动词)的两类汉语“对”字结构句(居中结构、前置结构)的眼动过程。通过对比居中结构与前置结构句子的加工过程, 考察汉语被试对语序线索的依赖性。通过对比主语控制动词条件与宾语控制动词条件的加工过程, 考察论元线索与动词论元表征的一致性对题元角色指派的影响:对于居中结构的后续施事, 主语控制动词论元表征与语序线索相一致, 宾语控制动词的论元表征与语序线索不一致; 对于前置结构的后续施事, 主语控制动词的论元表征与格标记线索相一致, 宾语控制动词的论元表征与格标记线索不一致。
根据扩展论元依存模型:(1)语序固定语言的读者非常依赖语序线索, 因此预期前置结构语序线索的缺乏使得其动词前区域的加工负荷大于居中结构; (2)论元线索与控制动词论元表征不一致时的题元角色再分析产生额外的加工负荷, 因此预期控制动词论元表征与论元线索进行整合时, 宾语控制动词条件的加工负荷大于主语控制动词条件, 且反映在晚期加工阶段。
2 方法
2.1 被试
采用G*Power 3.1软件(Faul et al., 2009)估算样本量, 设置f = 0.25 (中等效应量, 见 Cohen, 1988), α = 0.05, Power = 0.80, 计算得到样本量为24人。
被试为24名天津师范大学的本科生, 年龄在19~24岁之间, 男女各半。所有被试母语为汉语, 视力或矫正视力正常。
2.2 实验设计
采用2 (句子结构:居中、前置) × 2 (控制动词类型:主语控制、宾语控制)的被试内设计。通过操纵句子结构, 考察汉语被试对语序线索的依赖性; 通过操纵控制动词类型, 考察汉语论元线索与动词论元表征的一致性对题元角色指派的影响。
2.3 实验材料
从Zhai的实验材料选取主语控制动词与宾语控制动词各54个, 所有动词均为双字词。按照“A对B……”结构, 将两类动词编入相同语境的居中结构“对”字句, 然后按照“对BA……”结构, 将上述两类句子调整为前置结构。共54组句子, 每组包含4个句子, 分别对应于4种实验条件。句子长度为17~20个汉字。实验材料示例见表1。
表1 不同实验条件的句子示例
| 实验条件 | 句子 | |
|---|---|---|
| 居中结构 | 主语控制动词 | 老徐对老齐懊悔说应该及早采取防护措施。 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 老徐对老齐提醒说应该及早采取防护措施。 | |
| 前置结构 | 主语控制动词 | 对老齐老徐懊悔说应该及早采取防护措施。 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 对老齐老徐提醒说应该及早采取防护措施。 | |
两类动词的词频差异不显著(M主语控制动词 = 30.09/百万, M宾语控制动词 = 52.71/百万, t(53) = 1.12, p = 0.269), 笔画数差异不显著(M主语控制动词 = 17.17/百万, M宾语控制动词 = 17.61/百万, t(53) = 0.56, p = 0.576)。
为了确认两类控制动词在句中的词性, 请不参与正式实验的40名本科生完成词性判断任务。评定材料分4个版本, 每个版本有10人参与评定。每个版本共80个句子, 包含26个填充句。填充句要求被试判断的词语均为名词。具体评定方式是:给出完整句子并设置词性判断问题(例如, 请问“懊悔”在句中是什么词性?), 要求被试填写两类控制动词的词性。以动词词性符合度(判断为动词的评定数与总评定数的比值)作为评价指标。如表2所示, 4类实验句的动词词性符合度在0.98~0.99之间, 表明两类控制动词在句中符合动词词性。
表2 不同实验条件的评定结果(M ± SD)
| 实验材料评定 | 居中结构 | 前置结构 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 主语控制动词 | 宾语控制动词 | 主语控制动词 | 宾语控制动词 | |
| 动词词性符合度 | 0.98 ± 0.06 | 0.99 ± 0.05 | 0.99 ± 0.03 | 0.99 ± 0.03 |
| 语义指向符合度 | 0.92 ± 0.14 | 0.94 ± 0.12 | 0.94 ± 0.10 | 0.89 ± 0.16 |
| 通顺性 | 5.11 ± 0.78 | 5.15 ± 0.69 | 4.49 ± 0.67 | 4.49 ± 0.71 |
为了确认两类控制动词的语义指向(徐晓东 等, 2013; 徐晓东 等, 2017), 另请不参与正式实验的40名本科生完成施事判断任务。评定材料分4个版本, 每个版本有10人参与评定。具体评定方式是:给出完整句子并设置施事判断问题(“谁应该及早采取防护措施?”), 要求评定者判断施事角色是NP1(“老徐”)还是NP2(“老齐”)。如果包含主语控制动词的句子被判断为NP1是施事或者包含宾语控制动词的句子被判断为NP2是施事, 则符合控制动词的语义指向。以语义指向符合度(符合语义指向的评定数与总评定数的比值)作为动词语义指向的评价指标。如表2所示, 4类实验句的动词语义指向符合度在0.89~0.94之间, 表明动词语义指向非常符合该动词的控制信息。
正式实验前, 再请不参与本实验的40名本科生评定句子通顺性。评定材料分4个版本, 每个版本有10人参与评定。通顺性分为7个等级, 其中非常不通顺为1, 非常通顺为7。4类实验句的通顺性的平均数和标准差见表2。
对动词词性符合度、语义指向符合度进行两因素重复测量方差分析的结果表明:各主效应和交互作用均不显著, Fs < 2.55, ps > 0.121。对通顺性进行两因素重复测量方差分析的结果表明:句子结构的主效应显著, F(1, 53) = 51.15, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.49; 控制动词类型的主效应和句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用均不显著, Fs < 0.09, ps > 0.781。
采用拉丁方设计, 把实验句分为4个组块。每个组块包含54个实验句, 8个练习句(“对”字句)和18个填充句(非“对”字句), 共80个句子。练习句与填充句在每个组块里重复出现。每个被试仅阅读一个组块的内容。
2.4 实验仪器
采用SR Research公司的EyeLink II眼动仪记录被试阅读时的眼动轨迹, 采样率为500 HZ。实验材料呈现屏的刷新率为150 HZ, 分辨率为1024× 768像素。
实验句以白底黑字呈现, 采用宋体字体, 字号为21号。
2.5 实验程序
第一步:介绍指导语。要求被试正常阅读句子并根据句意回答问题。
第二步:被试眼睛校准。实验材料均为单行句子, 因此采用既简便又具有足够精度的水平三点校准, 误差小于0.25。
第三步:被试练习。被试完成8个练习句的阅读与作答, 熟悉实验流程。具体流程同正式实验。
第四步:正式实验。首先, 屏幕中央呈现单个句子, 被试完成阅读并理解句意后按空格键进入下一屏; 然后, 屏幕呈现关于题元角色的判断题, 仅针对上一句提问, 被试按“是”或“否”键作答。被试作答完毕后, 进入下一个试次。
每个句首设有漂移校准点。正式实验阶段, 若误差过大则对被试进行重新校准。整个实验大约持续30分钟。
3 结果
3.1 数据处理及眼动指标
被试阅读理解的正确率为88.72%, 说明被试认真阅读并理解句意。在进行正式分析之前, 删除注视时间短于80 ms或长于1200 ms的注视点(Rayner, 1998; Zhang et al., 2019), 并按照以下标准删除数据:(1)追踪丢失或者注视点个数少于5的句子(1.08%); (2)注视时间和回视次数超出3个标准差之外的数据(平均删除比率为6.14%)。
将整个句子划分为7个部分, 示例见表3。共划定4个兴趣区:兴趣区1是名词1区域, 兴趣区2是名词2区域, 兴趣区3是动词区域, 兴趣区4是动词后区域。动词后面跟随的词语为单字词或者双字词, 因此兴趣区4的范围划定为3个汉字, 包括单字词和双字词各一个。
表3 实验句的兴趣区划分示例
| 实验条件 | 1 | 2 (兴趣区1) | 3 | 4 (兴趣区2) | 5 (兴趣区3) | 6 (兴趣区4) | 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 居中结构 | |||||||
| 主语控制动词 | 老徐 | 对 | 老齐 | 懊悔 | 说应该 | 及早采取防护措施 | |
| 宾语控制动词 | 老徐 | 对 | 老齐 | 提醒 | 说应该 | 及早采取防护措施 | |
| 前置结构 | |||||||
| 主语控制动词 | 对 | 老齐 | 老徐 | 懊悔 | 说应该 | 及早采取防护措施 | |
| 宾语控制动词 | 对 | 老齐 | 老徐 | 提醒 | 说应该 | 及早采取防护措施 |
参照同类研究(Li et al., 2015; Gattei et al., 2017), 采用的眼动指标包括:
(1)第一遍阅读时间(first-pass reading time), 注视点首次跳向另一兴趣区之前对当前兴趣区的所有注视点的注视时间之和。反映词汇识别过程。
(2)回视路径时间(regression path duration), 从兴趣区内的首次注视开始直至注视点落在兴趣区右侧区域之间所有注视点的持续时间的总和。反映句子的早期整合加工。
(3)第二遍阅读时间(second-pass reading time), 兴趣区内第一遍阅读之后(多次)再回到该兴趣区的所有注视点的持续时间之和。反映句子的晚期整合加工。
(4)总回视入次数(total incoming regressions), 整个阅读过程中注视点由后面区域落入当前兴趣区的次数。反映句子的整合加工。
(5)总回视出次数(total outgoing regressions), 整个阅读过程中当前兴趣区发生向左回视的次数。反映句子的整合加工。
各眼动指标的数据进行log变换。以通顺性为协变量1 (1兴趣区1、2、3的所有眼动指标以及兴趣区4的第一遍阅读时间和回视路径时间上, 通顺性的主效应均不显著, |t|s < 1.63, ps > 0.105。兴趣区4的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入(出)次数上, 通顺性的主效应(边缘)显著, |t|s > 1.89, ps < 0.060, 因此把通顺性作为自变量进行三因素的固定效应分析(正文报告的是该分析的结果), 通顺性与其他变量的二阶和三阶交互作用不显著, |t|s < 1.47, ps > 0.145。上述统计分析结果表明, 通顺性不影响句子结构与控制动词类型的主效应和交互作用。), 使用R 3.6.2 (Team, 2019)和RStudio (2019)运行lem4程序包(Bates et al., 2015)进行线性混合模型分析。
3.2 各兴趣区的分析结果
3.2.1 兴趣区1
考虑到兴趣区1在居中结构中处于句首位置, 其早期眼动指标易受污染, 且不存在向左回视, 因此仅分析该区域的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数。不同条件下各眼动指标的平均数和标准差见表4。
表4 兴趣区1不同实验条件下各眼动指标的结果(M ± SD)
| 实验条件 | 第二遍阅读时间(ms) | 总回视入次数(次) |
|---|---|---|
| 居中结构 | ||
| 主语控制动词 | 839 ± 302 | 3.01 ± 1.02 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 924 ± 330 | 3.32 ± 1.21 |
| 前置结构 | ||
| 主语控制动词 | 978 ± 388 | 3.71 ± 1.31 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 1083 ± 374 | 3.93 ± 1.50 |
句子结构的主效应在第二遍阅读时间(b = 0.18, SE = 0.06, t = 3.09, p = 0.005, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.30])和总回视入次数(b = 0.20, SE = 0.04, t = 5.21, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.13, 0.28])上显著:前置结构的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数多于居中结构。控制动词类型的主效应在第二遍阅读时间(b = 0.07, SE = 0.04, t = 1.75, p = 0.080, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.14])边缘显著, 在总回视入次数不显著(t = 1.57, p = 0.117)。句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用不显著, |t|s < 0.33, ps > 0.747。
3.2.2 兴趣区2
不同条件下各眼动指标的平均数和标准差见表5。
表5 兴趣区2不同实验条件下各眼动指标的结果(M ± SD)
| 实验条件 | 第一遍阅读 时间(ms) | 回视路径 时间(ms) | 第二遍阅读 时间(ms) | 总回视入 次数(次) | 总回视出 次数(次) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 居中结构 | |||||
| 主语控制动词 | 340 ± 76 | 520 ± 140 | 775 ± 348 | 2.85 ± 1.18 | 1.54 ± 0.44 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 329 ± 77 | 486 ± 151 | 1070 ± 456 | 3.76 ± 1.64 | 1.65 ± 0.56 |
| 前置结构 | |||||
| 主语控制动词 | 379 ± 77 | 672 ± 210 | 1080 ± 446 | 3.83 ± 1.46 | 1.74 ± 0.59 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 383 ± 90 | 722 ± 233 | 1022 ± 393 | 3.67 ± 1.20 | 1.74 ± 0.52 |
句子结构的主效应显著(第一遍阅读时间: b = 0.14, SE = 0.03, t = 4.41, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.20]; 回视路径时间:b = 0.35, SE = 0.04, t = 8.78, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.27, 0.43] ; 第二遍阅读时间: b = 0.16, SE = 0.04, t = 3.56, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.07, 0.25]; 总回视入次数: b = 0.16, SE = 0.04, t = 3.82, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.24]; 总回视出次数: b = 0.07, SE = 0.03, t = 2.05, p = 0.041, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.14]):前置结构的阅读时间和总回视次数多于居中结构。
控制动词类型的主效应在第二遍阅读时间(b = 0.15, SE = 0.04, t = 3.88, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.23])和总回视入次数(b = 0.13, SE = 0.04, t = 3.45, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.20])上显著:宾语控制动词条件的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数多于主语控制动词条件。控制动词类型的主效应在其他眼动指标上不显著, |t|s < 0.95, ps > 0.348。
句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用在回视路径时间(b = 0.17, SE = 0.07, t = 2.41, p = 0.016, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.31])、第二遍阅读时间(b = -0.41, SE = 0.08, t = -5.10, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [-0.56, -0.25])和总回视入次数(b = -0.33, SE = 0.07, t = -4.54, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [-0.47, -0.19])上显著。简单效应分析发现:居中结构下, 宾语控制动词条件与主语控制动词条件的回视路径时间无显著差异(t = -1.59, p = 0.113), 宾语控制动词条件的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数多于主语控制动词条件(ts > 5.48, ps < 0.001); 前置结构下, 宾语控制动词条件的回视路径时间略长于主语控制动词条件(t = 1.75, p=0.080), 两种控制动词条件的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数无显著差异(|t|s < 0.83, ps > 0.399)。在其他眼动指标上, 句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用不显著, |t|s < 0.99, ps > 0.327。
3.2.3 兴趣区3
不同条件下各眼动指标的平均数和标准差见表6。
表6 兴趣区3不同实验条件下各眼动指标的结果(M ± SD)
| 实验条件 | 第一遍阅读 时间(ms) | 回视路径 时间(ms) | 第二遍阅读 时间(ms) | 总回视入 次数(次) | 总回视出 次数(次) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 居中结构 | |||||
| 主语控制动词 | 355 ± 75 | 447 ± 124 | 669 ± 287 | 2.41 ± 0.95 | 1.41 ± 0.37 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 402 ± 88 | 506 ± 153 | 859 ± 352 | 3.06 ± 1.28 | 1.59 ± 0.46 |
| 前置结构 | |||||
| 主语控制动词 | 345 ± 89 | 523 ± 165 | 698 ± 243 | 2.42 ± 0.81 | 1.51 ± 0.39 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 366 ± 73 | 611 ± 257 | 768 ± 327 | 2.71 ± 1.03 | 1.53 ± 0.45 |
句子结构的主效应在第一遍阅读时间(b = -0.07, SE = 0.03, t = -2.26, p = 0.016, 95% CI = [-0.13, -0.01])和回视路径时间(b = 0.08, SE = 0.04, t = 2.03, p = 0.043, 95% CI = [0.003, 0.16])上显著:前置结构的第一遍阅读时间短于居中结构, 回视路径时间长于居中结构。句子结构的主效应在其他眼动指标不显著, |t|s < 1.63, ps > 0.105。
控制动词类型的主效应在第一遍阅读时间(b = 0.07, SE = 0.03, t = 2.40, p = 0.024, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.12])、回视路径时间(b = 0.10, SE = 0.04, t = 2.69, p = 0.007, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.17])、第二遍阅读时间(b = 0.10, SE = 0.04, t = 2.69, p = 0.007, 95% CI =[0.09, 0.28])和总回视入次数(b = 0.18, SE = 0.05, t = 3.74, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.08, 0.25])上显著, 在总回视出次数(b = 0.06, SE = 0.04, t = 1.74, p = 0.083, 95% CI = [-0.01, 0.13])上边缘显著:宾语控制动词条件的注视时间和回视次数多于主语控制动词条件。
句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用在第二遍阅读时间(b = -0.17, SE = 0.10, t = -1.76, p = 0.080, 95% CI = [-0.36, 0.02])边缘显著。简单效应分析发现, 居中结构下, 宾语控制动词条件的第二遍阅读时间长于主语控制动词条件, t = 3.86, p < 0.001; 前置结构下, 两种控制动词条件的第二遍阅读时间无显著差异, t=1.40, p = 0.161。句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用在其他眼动指标上不显著, |t|s < 1.62, ps > 0.106。
3.2.4 兴趣区4
不同条件下各眼动指标的平均数和标准差见表7。
表7 兴趣区4不同实验条件下各眼动指标的结果(M ± SD)
| 实验条件 | 第一遍阅读 时间(ms) | 回视路径 时间(ms) | 第二遍阅读 时间(ms) | 总回视入 次数(次) | 总回视出 次数(次) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 居中结构 | |||||
| 主语控制动词 | 418 ± 108 | 646 ± 250 | 566 ± 212 | 2.22 ± 0.69 | 1.34 ± 0.34 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 392 ± 107 | 674 ± 274 | 724 ± 300 | 2.78 ± 1.08 | 1.61 ± 0.50 |
| 前置结构 | |||||
| 主语控制动词 | 375 ± 80 | 592 ± 296 | 523 ± 197 | 2.19 ± 0.70 | 1.35 ± 0.33 |
| 宾语控制动词 | 423 ± 105 | 713 ± 309 | 652 ± 288 | 2.52 ± 0.95 | 1.56 ± 0.47 |
句子结构的主效应在各眼动指标上不显著, |t|s < 1.50, ps > 0.148。
控制动词类型的主效应在回视路径时间(b = 0.09, SE = 0.04, t = 2.24, p = 0.025, 95% CI = [0.01, 0.17])、第二遍阅读时间(b = 0.15, SE = 0.05, t = 2.60, p = 0.012, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.27])、总回视入次数(b = 0.18, SE = 0.05, t = 4.04, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.27])和总回视出次数(b = 0.16, SE = 0.04, t = 4.31, p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.09, 0.23])上显著:宾语控制动词条件的阅读时间和回视次数多于主语控制动词条件。控制动词类型的主效应在第一遍阅读时间上不显著, b = 0.02, SE = 0.03, t = 0.75, p = 0.454, 95% CI = [-0.03, 0.08]。
句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用在第一遍阅读时间(b = 0.18, SE = 0.06, t = 3.08, p = 0.002,95% CI = [0.06, 0.29])和回视路径时间(b = 0.19, SE = 0.08, t = 2.40, p = 0.017, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.35])上显著。简单效应分析发现, 居中结构下, 两种控制动词条件的第一遍阅读时间和回视路径时间无显著差异, |t|s < 1.63, ps > 0.104; 前置结构下, 宾语控制动词条件的第一遍阅读时间和回视路径时间长于主语控制动词条件, ts > 2.69, ps < 0.008。句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用在其他眼动指标上不显著, |t|s < 1.02, ps > 0.313。
4 讨论
本研究探讨汉语论元线索(语序和格标记)的权重以及论元线索与控制动词论元表征一致性对题元角色指派的影响。下面分别从论元线索的权重、论元线索与控制动词论元表征的线索整合两个方面进行讨论。
4.1 论元线索的权重
本研究发现, 在名词1区域, 前置结构第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数多于居中结构; 在名词2区域, 前置结构的第一遍阅读时间和总回视出次数多于居中结构; 在动词区域, 前置结构的第一遍阅读时间短于居中结构, 但回视路径时间长于居中结构。这表明前置结构在名词2区域的早期加工阶段表现出更大的加工负荷, 该加工负荷持续至动词区域, 并表现为对名词1区域有更多再加工。该结果符合预期(1)。居中结构同时包含语序线索和格标记线索; 前置结构仅包含格标记线索。前置结构的逗号省略, 破坏了语序线索, 从而导致前置结构的句法合理性、使用频率或熟悉度低于居中结构, 整体加工负荷更大。前置结构比居中结构的更大加工负荷表明, 存在介词“对”的格标记线索时, 汉语被试需要依赖语序线索判断论元语义角色。
本研究还发现句子结构与控制动词类型的交互作用:在居中结构中, 宾语控制动词条件在名词2区域的第二遍阅读时间和总回视入次数以及动词区域的第二遍阅读时间长于主语控制动词条件, 两种控制动词条件在动词后区域的各眼动指标不存在差异, 说明论元线索与控制动词论元表征的线索整合发生在动词区域, 并表现出对名词2区域的再加工; 在前置结构中, 两种控制动词条件名词2区域和动词区域的各眼动指标不存在差异, 宾语控制动词条件动词后区域的第一遍阅读时间和回视路径时间长于主语控制动词条件, 说明论元线索与控制动词论元表征的线索整合发生在动词后区域。无论居中结构还是仅包含格标记线索的前置结构, 被试都能整合论元线索与控制动词论元表征的线索以完成题元角色指派, 表明介词“对”的格标记线索得到利用。但是, 语序线索的缺乏使得前置结构的线索整合发生在更晚的句子成分。即, 缺乏语序线索使得被试需要依据更多句子信息才能进行线索整合。这表明汉语被试需要依赖语序线索进行即时的题元角色指派。
本研究通过前置结构与居中结构的对比发现汉语被试可以利用格标记线索, 但仍然非常依赖语序线索。汉语语序相对固定, 因此该结果符合扩展论元依存模型主张的语序固定语言对语序线索的依赖性。英语语序也相对固定。当同时存在语序和格标记线索时, 英语读者完全依赖语序线索而不利用格标记线索(MacWhinney et al., 1984)。因此, 英语读者和汉语读者对语序和格标记线索的权重并不完全相同, 但是他们都非常依赖语序线索。来自汉语和英语的跨语言证据共同支持扩展论元依存模型关于语序固定的语言依赖语序线索的主张。
对于语序相对自由的语言(例如, 德语、意大利语、日语、土耳其语), 当同时存在语序和格标记线索时, 读者依赖格标记线索进行题元角色指派(MacWhinney et al., 1984; Özge et al., 2019; Yamashita, 1997)。汉语语序和格标记线索的利用情况与这些自由语序语言不同, 支持了扩展论元依存模型主张的论元线索权重的跨语言差异。关于线索权重跨语言差异的内在机制, 扩展论元依存模型没有提供相关解释, 竞争模型(Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; MacWhinney, 2001)可以对此进行解释:线索间的权重主要取决于线索的有效性。线索的可得性和可靠性高, 其有效性就高, 因此成为读者的首选线索。“对”字结构作为特殊句型, 出现频率相对较低, 格标记线索可得性低。而且, “对”字结构的格标记线索不够明确, “对”可以介引不同的语义角色(孟晓琦, 贾秀英, 2009; 吴泓, 2019), 即可靠性也较低。由此可知, “对”格标记线索的有效性较低。而语序线索具有高有效性(Starosta, 1985)。因此, 即使存在介词“对”的格标记线索汉语读者仍然依赖语序线索。相反, 对于语序相对自由的语言, 语序线索可靠性较低, 但是格标记线索的可得性和可靠性较高, 因此读者更依赖格标记线索。需要注意的是, 依据竞争模型, 论元线索权重不仅存在跨语言差异, 而且可能也存在语言内的差异。当前研究发现汉语读者依赖语序线索是基于介词“对”的格标记线索不够明确时的线索权重。如果格标记线索更为明确(例如“把”和“被”, 见: 王欣, 2013), 它的线索有效性较高, 语序与格标记线索权重可能会不同于当前研究结果。因此, 尚需更多研究探讨汉语格标记线索和语序线索权重及其语言特异性。
4.2 论元线索与控制动词论元表征的线索整合
本研究发现, 宾语控制动词条件的注视时间和回视次数多于主语控制动词条件。主要反映在动词区域早期眼动指标(第一遍阅读时间)和晚期眼动指标(回视路径时间、总回视入次数)以及动词后区域晚期眼动指标(第二遍阅读时间、总回视入次数和总回视出次数)。
本研究控制了两类动词的词汇特性(词频、笔画数), 却发现宾语控制动词的第一遍阅读时间长于主语控制动词。这可能是由于宾语控制动词的论元表征比主语控制动词更为复杂。宾语控制动词(“提醒”)的论元表征为“NP1+V+NP2+从句”, 主语控制动词(“懊悔”)的论元表征为“NP1+V+从句”, 前者带有两个论元(施事NP1和受事NP2), 后者带有一个论元(施事NP1)。动词带有的论元数量越多, 论元结构表征越复杂(Thompson et al., 2013; 王鑫 等, 2020)。有研究(Meltzer-Asscher et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2010)发现动词论元表征复杂程度与外侧裂周后部的激活程度相互关联:与带有一个论元的动词(“sleep”)相比, 被试加工带有两个论元的动词(“chase”)和带有三个论元的动词(“put”)时外侧裂周后部的激活程度更高。当前研究的眼动行为结果与脑成像研究结果相互印证, 共同表明复杂的动词论元表征带来更大加工负荷。
宾语控制动词条件在反映句子整合加工的晚期眼动指标上的注视时间和回视次数多于主语控制动词条件, 表现出更大的加工负荷。该结果符合预期(2), 表明论元线索与宾语控制动词论元表征线索不一致时的题元角色再分析诱发更大的加工困难, 符合扩展论元依存模型。Zhai的研究发现读者对宾语控制动词条件的动词区域和动词后区域的反应时长于主语控制动词条件, 但是采用自定步速阅读法无法确定该差异究竟源于动词论元表征差异还是论元线索与动词论元表征的不一致。动词论元表征属于词汇加工, 反映在早期眼动指标; 论元线索与动词论元表征的线索整合属于句子整合加工, 反映在晚期眼动指标。本研究通过早期眼动指标和晚期眼动指标对二者进行区分, 证实了汉语论元线索与控制动词论元表征不一致时的题元角色再分析。关于题元角色再分析的时间进程, Gattei等人(2017)的研究也发现论元线索与动词论元表征不一致时的题元角色再分析发生在晚期加工阶段:语序线索与心理动词论元表征不一致时动词区域及动词后区域的回视路径时间、总注视时间和总回视入次数更多。此外, ERP研究也发现, 题元角色再分析发生在句子加工的晚期阶段, 诱发了更大的N400和P600成分(Frisch & Schlesewsky, 2001; Gattei, Tabullo, et al. 2015; Weckerly & Kutas, 1999)。
与本研究结果相似, 来自英语和西班牙语的研究也发现论元线索与动词论元表征不一致时有更大加工困难(Gattei, Dickey, et al., 2015; Gattei et al., 2017; Manouilidou & de Almeida, 2013)。这些研究结果共同支持扩展论元依存模型, 为该模型所主张的题元角色再分析机制的跨语言普遍性提供了证据支持。
如前所述, 本研究发现汉语题元角色指派非常依赖语序线索, 是基于介词“对”的格标记线索不明确时汉语母语读者的论元线索的权重。未来研究还需探索格标记线索明确时的汉语论元线索的权重, 对比在不同线索有效性的格标记条件下的语序与格标记线索权重, 以探究语序线索依赖在汉语论元线索权重中的普适性。另外, 汉语二语学习者的语序与格标记线索权重是否以及如何受母语线索权重的影响也是值得探究的问题。Bates和MacWhinney (1987)认为初学者对第二语言的题元角色指派仍然依据母语的论元线索权重, 但熟练者则转向依据第二语言的论元线索权重。该观点已得到来自汉语等不同语言的证据支持(Harrington, 1987; McDonald & Heilenman, 1991; Su, 2001; Morett & MacWhinney, 2013), 但这些研究主要考察的是语序和生命性线索(即, 论元是有生命客体还是无生命客体)的权重。未来研究还需探究不同汉语习得水平的二语学习者对语序和格标记线索的权重以及该权重如何受母语论元线索权重影响。
5 结论
在本研究条件下发现:(1)即使存在介词“对”的格标记线索, 汉语题元角色指派仍然依赖语序线索; (2)汉语论元线索与控制动词论元表征不一致时读者产生题元角色再分析。研究结果支持扩展论元依存模型。
参考文献
Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4
Competition, variation, and language learning
Functionalism and the competition model
In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.),
Processing controlled PROs in Spanish
Two experiments were carried out to investigate the processing of the empty category PRO and the time-course of this in Spanish. Eye movements were recorded while participants read sentences in which a matrix clause was followed by a subordinate infinitival clause, so that the subject or the object of the main clause could act as controller of PRO, and therefore as implicit grammatical subject of the infinitive. In Experiment 1, verb control information was manipulated: The matrix clause contained either subject-control verbs like prometer ('promise') or object-control verbs like forzar ('force'). In Experiment 2, the preposition that headed adverbial subordinate clauses was manipulated: Two different kinds of infinitival adverbial clauses were used, expressing purpose (preposition para) and reason (preposition por) and in which control information is primarily induced by the prepositions (para tends to trigger subject-control; por object-control). Experiment 1 showed that readers make immediate use of verb control information to recover the antecedent of the empty category PRO in Spanish obligatory control constructions. The data obtained in Experiment 2 suggest that during the processing of the empty category PRO in purpose vs. reason adverbial subordinate infinitival clauses the control information induced by the prepositions por vs. para is not initially used as a constraint to guide the selection of the nominal antecedent of PRO. In addition, both experiments showed that PRO antecedent selection is a very fast process and that, together with verb control information, recency played an important role. The results are discussed in terms of current psycholinguistic hypotheses about empty categories and in relation to formal linguistic hypotheses about PRO control. We argue that obligatory control ties (which are co-referential ties) are processed fast because they are launched from the same lexical platform that launches all fast syntactic connections (complements, as opposed to modifiers). In short, that such lexically-specified co-referential ties are regulated by linguistic form.
Evidence for the immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing
DOI:10.1016/0749-596X(90)90064-7 URL [本文引用: 1]
The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages
Real-time language comprehension is a principal cognitive ability and thereby relates to central properties of the human cognitive architecture. Yet how do the presumably universal cognitive and neural substrates of language processing relate to the astounding diversity of human languages (over 5,000)? The authors present a neurocognitive model of online comprehension, the extended argument dependency model (eADM), that accounts for cross-linguistic unity and diversity in the processing of core constituents (verbs and arguments). The eADM postulates that core constituent processing proceeds in three hierarchically organized phases: (1) constituent structure building without relational interpretation, (2) argument role assignment via a restricted set of cross-linguistically motivated information types (e.g., case, animacy), and (3) completion of argument interpretation using information from further domains (e.g., discourse context, plausibility). This basic architecture is assumed to be universal, with cross-linguistic variation deriving primarily from the information types applied in Phase 2 of comprehension. This conception can derive the appearance of similar neurophysiological and neuroanatomical processing correlates in seemingly disparate structures in different languages and, conversely, of cross-linguistic differences in the processing of similar sentence structures.Copyright 2006 APA.
An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension
DOI:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003
PMID:18617270
[本文引用: 1]
The literature on the electrophysiology of language comprehension has recently seen a very prominent discussion of "semantic P600" effects, which have been observed, for example, in sentences involving an implausible thematic role assignment to an argument that would be a highly plausible filler for a different thematic role of the same verb. These findings have sparked a discussion about underlying properties of the language comprehension architecture, as they have generally been viewed as a challenge to established models of language processing and specifically to the notion that syntax precedes semantics in the comprehension process. In this paper, we review the literature on semantic P600 effects and discuss a number of challenges--both conceptual and empirical--to existing approaches in this domain. We then provide a new perspective on these effects by showing how they can be derived within an independently motivated, hierarchically organised neurocognitive model of language comprehension in which syntactic structuring precedes argument interpretation (the extended Argument Dependency Model, eADM; Bornkessel and Schlesewsky, 2006). In addition to straightforwardly deriving the phenomenon of a "semantic P600," the basic architectural properties of the eADM account for existing empirical puzzles within the semantic P600 literature.
The argument dependency model
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.)
Thematic proto-roles and argument selection
DOI:10.1353/lan.1991.0021 URL [本文引用: 1]
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses
DOI:10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 URL [本文引用: 1]
Filling gaps: Decision principles and structure in sentence comprehension
DOI:10.1016/0010-0277(83)90022-7 URL [本文引用: 1]
The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing
The thematic hierarchy in sentence comprehension: A study on the interaction between verb class and word order in Spanish
DOI:10.1080/17470218.2014.1000345 URL [本文引用: 2]
The role of prominence in Spanish sentence comprehension: An ERP study
DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2015.08.001 URL [本文引用: 1]
Prominence in Spanish sentence comprehension: An eye-tracking study
Processing transfer: Language-specific processing strategies as a source of interlanguage variation
DOI:10.1017/S0142716400000370 URL [本文引用: 1]
Two-stage interaction between word order and noun animacy during online thematic processing of sentences in Mandarin Chinese
The competition model: The input, the context, and the brain
Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian
DOI:10.1016/S0022-5371(84)90093-8 URL [本文引用: 3]
Processing correlates of verb typologies: Investigating internal structure and argument realization
Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French
DOI:10.1017/S0142716400009255 URL [本文引用: 1]
How the brain processes different dimensions of argument structure complexity: Evidence from fMRI
DOI:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.12.005
PMID:25658635
[本文引用: 1]
Verbs are central to sentence processing, as they encode argument structure (AS) information, i.e., information about the syntax and interpretation of the phrases accompanying them. The behavioral and neural correlates of AS processing have primarily been investigated in sentence-level tasks, requiring both verb processing and verb-argument integration. In the current functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, we investigated AS processing using a lexical decision task requiring only verb processing. We examined three aspects of AS complexity: number of thematic roles, number of thematic options, and mapping (non)canonicity (unaccusative vs. unergative and transitive verbs). Increased number of thematic roles elicited greater activation in the left posterior perisylvian regions claimed to support access to stored AS representations. However, the number of thematic options had no neural effects. Further, unaccusative verbs elicited longer response times and increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus, reflecting the processing cost of unaccusative verbs and, more generally, supporting the role of the IFG in noncanonical argument mapping. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comparison of “dui construction” in Chinese and French
汉法“对字结构”对比
Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners
DOI:10.1017/S1366728912000107 URL [本文引用: 1]
Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension
DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.026 URL [本文引用: 2]
The possible role of entropy in processing argument dependencies in Hungarian
Comparative analysis of case marking and lexicase in Chinese
格标记的对比辨析及汉语的词格探讨
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research
Recent studies of eye movements in reading and other information processing tasks, such as music reading, typing, visual search, and scene perception, are reviewed. The major emphasis of the review is on reading as a specific example of cognitive processing. Basic topics discussed with respect to reading are (a) the characteristics of eye movements, (b) the perceptual span, (c) integration of information across saccades, (d) eye movement control, and (e) individual differences (including dyslexia). Similar topics are discussed with respect to the other tasks examined. The basic theme of the review is that eye movement data reflect moment-to-moment cognitive processes in the various tasks examined. Theoretical and practical considerations concerning the use of eye movement data are also discussed.
Contrastive analysis of Chinese-English case marking and its translation strategies
汉英格标记对比与翻译策略研究
Mandarin case marking: A localistic lexicase analysis
Young children’s sentence comprehension: Neural correlates of syntax- semantic competition
DOI:S0278-2626(18)30030-7
PMID:30442450
[本文引用: 1]
Sentence comprehension requires the assignment of thematic relations between the verb and its noun arguments in order to determine who is doing what to whom. In some languages, such as English, word order is the primary syntactic cue. In other languages, such as German, case-marking is additionally used to assign thematic roles. During development children have to acquire the thematic relevance of these syntactic cues and weigh them against semantic cues. Here we investigated the processing of syntactic cues and semantic cues in 2- and 3-year-old children by analyzing their behavioral and neurophysiological responses. Case-marked subject-first and object-first sentences (syntactic cue) including animate and inanimate nouns (semantic cue) were presented auditorily. The semantic animacy cue either conflicted with or supported the thematic roles assigned by syntactic case-marking. In contrast to adults, for whom semantics did not interfere with case-marking, children attended to both syntactic and to semantic cues with a stronger reliance on semantic cues in early development. Children's event-related brain potentials indicated sensitivity to syntactic information but increased processing costs when case-marking and animacy assigned conflicting thematic roles. These results demonstrate an early developmental sensitivity and ongoing shift towards the use of syntactic cues during sentence comprehension.Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English
DOI:10.1017/S0142716401001059 URL [本文引用: 1]
The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing
R: A language and environment for statistical computing
Neural mechanisms of verb argument structure processing in agrammatic aphasic and healthy age-matched listeners
DOI:10.1162/jocn.2009.21334
PMID:19702460
[本文引用: 1]
Processing of lexical verbs involves automatic access to argument structure entries entailed within the verb's representation. Recent neuroimaging studies with young normal listeners suggest that this involves bilateral posterior peri-sylvian tissue, with graded activation in these regions on the basis of argument structure complexity. The aim of the present study was to examine the neural mechanisms of verb processing using fMRI in older normal volunteers and patients with stroke-induced agrammatic aphasia, a syndrome in which verb, as compared to noun, production often is selectively impaired, but verb comprehension in both on-line and off-line tasks is spared. Fourteen healthy listeners and five age-matched aphasic patients performed a lexical decision task, which examined verb processing by argument structure complexity, namely, one-argument [i.e., intransitive (v1)], two-argument [i.e., transitive (v2)], and three-argument (v3) verbs. Results for the age-matched listeners largely replicated those for younger participants studied by Thompson et al. [Thompson, C. K., Bonakdarpour, B., Fix, S. C., Blumenfeld, H. K., Parrish, T. B., Gitelman, D. R., et al. Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1753-1767, 2007]: v3 - v1 comparisons showed activation of the angular gyrus in both hemispheres and this same heteromodal region was activated in the left hemisphere in the (v2 + v3) - v1 contrast. Similar results were derived for the agrammatic aphasic patients, however, activation was unilateral (in the right hemisphere for three participants) rather than bilateral, likely because these patients' lesions extended to the left temporo-parietal region. All performed the task with high accuracy and, despite differences in lesion site and extent, they recruited spared tissue in the same regions as healthy subjects. Consistent with psycholinguistic models of sentence processing, these findings indicate that the posterior language network is engaged for processing verb argument structure and is crucial for semantic integration of argument structure information.
Neural correlates of verb argument structure processing
Neuroimaging and lesion studies suggest that processing of word classes, such as verbs and nouns, is associated with distinct neural mechanisms. Such studies also suggest that subcategories within these broad word class categories are differentially processed in the brain. Within the class of verbs, argument structure provides one linguistic dimension that distinguishes among verb exemplars, with some requiring more complex argument structure entries than others. This study examined the neural instantiation of verbs by argument structure complexity: one-, two-, and three-argument verbs. Stimuli of each type, along with nouns and pseudowords, were presented for lexical decision using an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging design. Results for 14 young normal participants indicated largely overlapping activation maps for verbs and nouns, with no areas of significant activation for verbs compared to nouns, or vice versa. Pseudowords also engaged neural tissue overlapping with that for both word classes, with more widespread activation noted in visual, motor, and peri-sylvian regions. Examination of verbs by argument structure revealed activation of the supramarginal and angular gyri, limited to the left hemisphere only when verbs with two obligatory arguments were compared to verbs with a single argument. However, bilateral activation was noted when both two- and three-argument verbs were compared to one-argument verbs. These findings suggest that posterior peri-sylvian regions are engaged for processing argument structure information associated with verbs, with increasing neural tissue in the inferior parietal region associated with increasing argument structure complexity. These findings are consistent with processing accounts, which suggest that these regions are crucial for semantic integration.
Training verb argument structure production in agrammatic aphasia: Behavioral and neural recovery patterns
DOI:10.1016/j.cortex.2013.02.003
PMID:23514929
[本文引用: 1]
Neuroimaging and lesion studies indicate a left hemisphere network for verb and verb argument structure processing, involving both frontal and temporoparietal brain regions. Although their verb comprehension is generally unimpaired, it is well known that individuals with agrammatic aphasia often present with verb production deficits, characterized by an argument structure complexity hierarchy, indicating faulty access to argument structure representations for production and integration into syntactic contexts. Recovery of verb processing in agrammatism, however, has received little attention and no studies have examined the neural mechanisms associated with improved verb and argument structure processing. In the present study we trained agrammatic individuals on verbs with complex argument structure in sentence contexts and examined generalization to verbs with less complex argument structure. The neural substrates of improved verb production were examined using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).Eight individuals with chronic agrammatic aphasia participated in the study (four experimental and four control participants). Production of three-argument verbs in active sentences was trained using a sentence generation task emphasizing the verb's argument structure and the thematic roles of sentential noun phrases. Before and after training, production of trained and untrained verbs was tested in naming and sentence production and fMRI scans were obtained, using an action naming task.Significant pre- to post-training improvement in trained and untrained (one- and two-argument) verbs was found for treated, but not control, participants, with between-group differences found for verb naming, production of verbs in sentences, and production of argument structure. fMRI activation derived from post-treatment compared to pre-treatment scans revealed upregulation in cortical regions implicated for verb and argument structure processing in healthy controls.Training verb deficits emphasizing argument structure and thematic role mapping is effective for improving verb and sentence production and results in recruitment of neural networks engaged for verb and argument structure processing in healthy individuals.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese
DOI:10.1080/01690960802159937 URL [本文引用: 1]
A treatment of the ba-sentence and the bei-sentence by type-logical grammar
把字句和被字句的类型逻辑语法处理方案
The cognitive neural mechanisms of verb argument structure complexity processing
DOI:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2020.00062 URL [本文引用: 1]
动词论元结构复杂性加工的认知神经机制
An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences
Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were used to investigate how and when a semantic factor (animacy) affects the early analysis of a difficult syntactic structure, namely, object relative sentences. We contrasted electrophysiological and behavioral responses to two object relative types that were syntactically and lexically identical and varied only in the order of the component animate and inanimate nouns [Inanimate (Animate) vs. Animate (Inanimate)]. ERPs were recorded from 40 subjects to each word of 30 I(A) and 30 A(I) sentences that occurred randomly among a set of various other sentence types read for comprehension. ERP effects to the early noun animacy manipulation were observed beginning with the initial noun and extending past the main clause verbs. We interpret the timing and multitude of electrophysiological effects, including the N400, P600, and left-anterior negativity, as evidence that both semantic and syntactic, and perhaps other types of information, are used early during structural analysis and message-level computations as needed for comprehension.
The research of “Dui”-sentence in modern Chinese from the cognitive-function perspective (Unpublished doctorial dissertation)
认知-功能视角下的现代汉语“对”字句研究(博士学位论文)
How is pronoun resolution modulated by topic structures and verb-based implicit causality in Mandarian Chinese? An ERP investigation
汉语话题回指如何受动词语义关系约束: 来自脑电研究的证据
The influence of topic structure and verb-based implicit causality on pronoun resolution in Mandarian Chinese: Evidence from sentence production and comprehension
话题结构和动词语义对代词回指的影响: 一项基于语言产生和语言理解任务的实证研究
The effects of word-order and case marking information on the processing of Japanese
DOI:10.1023/A:1025009615473 URL [本文引用: 2]
The processing of Dui-construction in Chinese
DOI:10.4236/psych.2011.26086 URL [本文引用: 1]
The influence of foveal lexical processing load on parafoveal preview and saccadic targeting during Chinese reading
DOI:10.1037/xhp0000644 URL [本文引用: 1]
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
