AI Chat Paper
Note: Please note that the following content is generated by AMiner AI. SciOpen does not take any responsibility related to this content.
{{lang === 'zh_CN' ? '文章概述' : 'Summary'}}
{{lang === 'en_US' ? '中' : 'Eng'}}
Chat more with AI
PDF (3.6 MB)
Collect
Submit Manuscript AI Chat Paper
Show Outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Outline
Show full outline
Hide outline
Publishing Language: Chinese

Semantic and syntactic processing of Chinese [S+V+O] simple sentence structures—ERPs evidence

Siqin YANGMinghu JIANG( )
Lab of Computational Linguistics, School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Show Author Information

Abstract

Syntax-first models and semantic priority are two opposing views in sentence processing theory. This study took N400 and P600 effects as the main analysis objects to explore the cognitive processing mechanism of Chinese sentences with semantic violations, with syntax violations and with both semantic and syntax violations of the "subject (noun) + predicate (verb) + object (noun)" structure without modifiers (referred to as Chinese [S+V+O] simple sentence structure) in the brain. The results of figures showed that semantic violation sentences, syntactic violation sentences, and combined violation sentences all triggered the N400 effect between 300 and 400 ms. Among them, the N400 amplitude of the semantic violation sentence and the syntactic violation sentence were similar, but the N400 amplitude for sentences with both semantic and syntax violations were more negative than the N400 amplitude with only one semantic and sytax violation. Only the semantical violations produced the P600 tendency. The research results indicated that Chinese sentences with the [S+V+O] simple structure might not fit with syntax-first model. The results also showed that the brain response to this sentence structure differs from the EEG amplitude caused by the "ba" sentence and the "bei" sentence. Thus, this research concludes that sentence processing in brain might differ for language types and language structures.

CLC number: B849 Document code: A Article ID: 1000-0054(2022)12-2053-08

References

[1]

HUANG S J, SU T, HUANG M, et al. Mechanism of linguistic information integration in sentence comprehension[J]. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2020(1): 34-40. (in Chinese)

[2]

FERREIRA F, CLIFTON JR C. The independence of syntactic processing[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 1986, 25(3): 348-368.

[3]

FRIEDERICI A D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2002, 6(2): 78-84.

[4]

FRIEDERICI A D. The brain basis of language processing: From structure to function[J]. Physiological Reviews, 2011, 91(4): 1357-1392.

[5]

MACDONALD M C, PEARLMUTTER N J, SEIDENBERG M S. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution[J]. Psychological Review, 1994, 101(4): 676-703.

[6]

TRUESWELL J C, TANENHAUS M K, GARNSEY S M. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 1994, 33(3): 285-318.

[7]

YU J, ZHANG Y X. When Chinese semantics meets failed syntax[J]. Neuroreport, 2008, 19(7): 745-749.

[8]

ZHANG Y X, YU J, BOLAND J E. Semantics does not need a processing license from syntax in reading Chinese[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2010, 36(3): 765-781.

[9]

ZHANG Y X, LI P, PIAO Q H, et al. Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese[J]. Brain and Language, 2013, 126(1): 8-19.

[10]

ZENG T, LI Y X, WU M J. Syntactic and semantic processing of passive BEI sentences in Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from event-related potentials[J]. Neuroreport, 2020, 31(13): 979-984.

[11]

YANG S Q, JIANG M H. Chinese-English bilinguals' ERP activating effect for English during the mother tongue semantic processing[J]. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 2016, 30(6): 117-125. (in Chinese)

[12]

RABOVSKY M. Change in a probabilistic representation of meaning can account for N400 effects on articles: A neural network model[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2020, 143: 107466.

[13]

YANG S Q, XU W Y, JIANG M H, et al. The difference of cognitive processing between phonetic puns and semantic puns in Chinese: An ERP evidence [J]. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 2020, 34(1): 1-9. (in Chinese)

[14]

BROUWER H, CROCKER M W. On the proper treatment of the N400 and P600 in language comprehension[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2017, 8: 1327.

[15]

YAO D F, JIANG M H, ABULIZI A, et al. Effects of Chinese sign language modality on processing sentences[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 2016, 56(9): 942-948. (in Chinese)

[16]

HUANG Y L, JIANG M H, GUO Q, et al. N400 amplitude does not recover from disappearance after repetitions despite reinitiated semantic integration difficulty[J]. Neuroreport, 2018, 29(16): 1341-1348.

[17]

HUANG Y L, JIANG M H, GUO Q, et al. Dissociation of the confounding influences of expectancy and integrative difficulty residing in anomalous sentences in event-related potential studies[J]. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 2019(147): e59436. DOI:doi: 10.3791/59436.

[18]

ZHANG Q, YANG Y M. Object preference in the processing of relative clause in Chinese: ERP evidence[J]. Linguistic Sciences, 2010, 9(4): 337-353. (in Chinese)

[19]

SU P, JIANG M H, BAI C. An ERP study on cognitive neural mechanisms of Chinese DE phrases [J]. Journal of Chinese Information Processing, 2018, 32(1): 9-17. (in Chinese)

[20]

YE Z, LUO Y J, FRIEDERICI A D, et al. Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials[J]. Brain Research, 2006, 1071(1): 186-196.

[21]

WANG X Y, ZHONG Y P, FAN W, et al. The timing of interaction between syntax and semantic in the Chinese sentence processing: Evidence from ERP research [J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2013, 36(4): 827-831. (in Chinese)

[22]

YE Z, ZHAN W D, ZHOU X L. The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An ERP study[J]. Brain Research, 2007, 1142: 135-145.

[23]

WANG S P, MO D Y, XIANG M, et al. The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in reading Chinese: Evidence from ERPs[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2013, 28(4): 577-596.

[24]

ABULIZI A, JIANG M H, YAO D F, et al. Neurocognitive mechanism for morphological complex word processing[J]. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 2017, 57(4): 393-398. (in Chinese)

[25]

ZHOU X L, JIANG X M, YE Z, et al. Semantic integration processes at different levels of syntactic hierarchy during sentence comprehension: An ERP study[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2010, 48(6): 1551-1562.

[26]

CHAO Y R. A grammar of spoken Chinese[M]. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968.

[27]

SUN C F, GIVóN T. On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications[J]. Language, 1985, 61(2): 329-351.

[28]

ZANG C L, LU Z J, ZHANG Z C. The role of semantic and syntactic information in parafoveal processing during reading[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(1): 11-19. (in Chinese)

[29]

FRIEDERICI A D, STEINHAUER K, FRISCH S. Lexical integration: Sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information[J]. Memory & Cognition, 1999, 27(3): 438-453.

[30]

HAHNE A, FRIEDERICI A D. Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs[J]. Cognitive Brain Research, 2002, 13(3): 339-356.

Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology)
Pages 2053-2060
Cite this article:
YANG S, JIANG M. Semantic and syntactic processing of Chinese [S+V+O] simple sentence structures—ERPs evidence. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 2022, 62(12): 2053-2060. https://doi.org/10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2021.25.008

108

Views

1

Downloads

0

Crossref

0

Scopus

1

CSCD

Altmetrics

Received: 19 October 2020
Published: 15 December 2022
© Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology). All rights reserved.
Return