Please wait a minute...
 首页  期刊介绍 期刊订阅 联系我们 横山亮次奖 百年刊庆
 
最新录用  |  预出版  |  当期目录  |  过刊浏览  |  阅读排行  |  下载排行  |  引用排行  |  横山亮次奖  |  百年刊庆
清华大学学报(自然科学版)  2022, Vol. 62 Issue (12): 2053-2060    DOI: 10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2021.25.008
  计算语言 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
汉语[S+V+O]简单句式的语义和句法加工研究——ERPs实验证据
杨思琴, 江铭虎
清华大学 人文学院,计算语言学实验室,北京 100084
Semantic and syntactic processing of Chinese [S+V+O] simple sentence structures—ERPs evidence
YANG Siqin, JIANG Minghu
Lab of Computational Linguistics, School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
全文: PDF(3653 KB)   HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 句法优先说和语义中心论是句子加工理论中两大对立的观点。该文以N400和P600效应为主要观测和分析对象,探究汉语中没有修饰成分的“主语(名词)+谓语(动词)+宾语(名词)”句式(简称为汉语[S+V+O]简单句式)中语义违反句、句法违反句和语义句法双违反句在大脑中的认知加工机制。图像结果显示,语义违反句、句法违反句和语义句法双违反句在300~400 ms之间均引发了N400效应。其中,语义违反句和句法违反句的N400波幅近似,但是,语义句法双违反句的N400波幅明显比语义违反句和句法违反句的N400波幅更负。在4种类型句子中,只有语义违反句出现了P600趋势。实验结果表明,汉语[S+V+O]简单句式加工可能不契合句法优先说。同时也发现,该句式与“把”字句和“被”句所引发的脑电成分也有不同。基于此,该文推论大脑对句子的加工可能因语言种类和不同句子的结构形式而有所差异。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
杨思琴
江铭虎
关键词 句子语义句法N400P600事件相关脑电位(ERPs)    
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.
Key wordssentence    semantics    syntax    N400    P600    event-related brain potentials (ERPs)
收稿日期: 2020-10-19      出版日期: 2022-11-10
基金资助:江铭虎,教授,E-mail:jiang.mh@tsinghua.edu.cn
引用本文:   
杨思琴, 江铭虎. 汉语[S+V+O]简单句式的语义和句法加工研究——ERPs实验证据[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 62(12): 2053-2060.
YANG Siqin, JIANG Minghu. 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.
链接本文:  
http://jst.tsinghuajournals.com/CN/10.16511/j.cnki.qhdxxb.2021.25.008  或          http://jst.tsinghuajournals.com/CN/Y2022/V62/I12/2053
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
[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) 黄邵娟, 苏涛, 黄敏, 等. 句子理解中语言信息的整合加工机制[J]. 外语教学理论与实践, 2020(1): 34-40.
[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) 杨思琴, 江铭虎. 双语者加工汉语母语语义时对英语的ERP激活效应的研究[J]. 中文信息学报, 2016, 30(6): 117-125.
[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) 杨思琴, 徐文玉, 江铭虎, 等. 汉语谐音与语义双关语的认知神经加工差异——ERP证据[J]. 中文信息学报, 2020, 34(1): 1-9.
[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) 姚登峰, 江铭虎, 阿布都克力木·阿布力孜. 中国手语模态对句子加工的影响[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 56(9): 942-948.
[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) 张强, 杨亦鸣. 汉语宾语关系从句加工优势——来自神经电生理学研究的证据[J]. 语言科学, 2010, 9(4): 337-353.
[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) 苏裴, 江铭虎, 白晨. 汉语"的"字短语认知神经机制的ERP研究[J]. 中文信息学报, 2018, 32(1): 9-17.
[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) 王小艳, 钟毅平, 范伟, 等. 汉语句子加工中句法与语义交互作用的时间进程: 来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理科学, 2013, 36(4): 827-831.
[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) 阿布都克力木·阿布力孜, 江铭虎, 姚登峰, 等. 形态复杂词加工的认知神经机制[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2017, 57(4): 393-398.
[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) 臧传丽, 鹿子佳, 张志超. 语义和句法信息在副中央凹加工中的作用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019, 27(1): 11-19.
[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.
[1] 赵传君, 武美龄, 申利华, 上官学奎, 王彦婕, 李杰, 王素格, 李德玉. 基于句法结构迁移和领域融合的跨领域情感分类[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 63(9): 1380-1389.
[2] 张洋, 江铭虎. 基于句法树节点嵌入的作者识别方法[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 63(9): 1390-1398.
[3] 陈波, 张华, 陈永灿, 李永龙, 熊劲松. 基于特征增强的水工结构裂缝语义分割方法[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 63(7): 1135-1143.
[4] 黄玥诚, 张桎淮, 曹思涵, 李建华, 方东平. 基于语义分析的建筑业安全文化管理机制设计[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 63(2): 179-190.
[5] 逯波, 段晓东, 袁野. 面向跨模态检索的自监督深度语义保持Hash[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 62(9): 1442-1449.
[6] 黄颙昊, 杨新苗, 岳锦涛. 基于多尺度地理加权回归模型的城市道路骑行流量分析[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2022, 62(7): 1132-1141.
[7] 侯文惠, 曲维光, 魏庭新, 李斌, 顾彦慧, 周俊生. 面向中文AMR标注体系的兼语语料库构建及兼语结构识别[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 61(9): 920-926.
[8] 满志博, 毛存礼, 余正涛, 李训宇, 高盛祥, 朱俊国. 基于多语言联合训练的汉-英-缅神经机器翻译方法[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 61(9): 927-935.
[9] 曹来成, 吴琪瑞, 王娅菲, 吴蓉, 郭显. 基于语义的多用户高效搜索方案[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 61(11): 1228-1233.
[10] 夏吾吉, 华却才让. 基于依存树的藏语语义分析[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 59(9): 750-756.
[11] 钱揖丽, 张二萌. 基于句法依存和条件随机场的韵律短语识别[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 59(7): 530-536.
[12] 骆歆远, 陈欣, 寿黎但, 陈珂, 吴妍静. 面向室内空间的语义轨迹提取框架[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2019, 59(3): 186-193.
[13] 吕学强, 张学敬, 周强. 对话语篇中对话者的心理距离预测初探[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 58(4): 362-367.
[14] 王元龙, 李茹, 张虎, 王智强. 阅读理解中因果关系类选项的研究[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 58(3): 272-278.
[15] 张仰森, 郑佳, 黄改娟, 蒋玉茹. 基于双重注意力模型的微博情感分析方法[J]. 清华大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 58(2): 122-130.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《清华大学学报(自然科学版)》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn