View in EDS

The child the apple eats: processing of argument structure in Mandarin verb-final sentences.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The child the apple eats: processing of argument structure in Mandarin verb-final sentences.
Authors: Wolpert M; Key Laboratory for Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, College of Biomedical Engineering and Instrument Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China. max.wolpert@zju.edu.cn.; Integrated Program in Neuroscience, McGill University, Room 302 Irving Ludmer Building, 1033 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada. max.wolpert@zju.edu.cn.; Centre for Research on Brain, Language and Music, 2001 Av. McGill College #6, Montreal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada. max.wolpert@zju.edu.cn., Ao J; Integrated Program in Neuroscience, McGill University, Room 302 Irving Ludmer Building, 1033 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A1, Canada., Zhang H; School of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Nanjing Normal University, Suiyuan Campus, Building 500, Nanjing, 210024, Jiangsu, China., Baum S; Centre for Research on Brain, Language and Music, 2001 Av. McGill College #6, Montreal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada.; School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, 2001 Av. McGill College #8, Montreal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada., Steinhauer K; Centre for Research on Brain, Language and Music, 2001 Av. McGill College #6, Montreal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada.; School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University, 2001 Av. McGill College #8, Montreal, QC, H3A 1G1, Canada.
Source: Scientific reports [Sci Rep] 2024 Sep 03; Vol. 14 (1), pp. 20459. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 03.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Language: English
Journal Info: Publisher: Nature Publishing Group Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101563288 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 2045-2322 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 20452322 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Sci Rep Subsets: MEDLINE
Imprint Name(s): Original Publication: London : Nature Publishing Group, copyright 2011-
MeSH Terms: Language* , Evoked Potentials*/physiology , Electroencephalography* , Comprehension*/physiology , Semantics*, Humans ; Female ; Male ; Young Adult ; Adult ; Cues
Abstract: Mandarin Chinese is typologically unusual among the world's languages in having flexible word order despite a near absence of inflectional morphology. These features of Mandarin challenge conventional linguistic notions such as subject and object and the divide between syntax and semantics. In the present study, we tested monolingual processing of argument structure in Mandarin verb-final sentences, where word order alone is not a reliable cue. We collected participants' responses to a forced agent-assignment task while measuring their electroencephalography data to capture real-time processing throughout each sentence. We found that sentence interpretation was not informed by word order in the absence of other cues, and while the coverbs BA and BEI were strong signals for agent selection, comprehension was a result of multiple cues. These results challenge previous reports of a linear ranking of cue strength. Event-related potentials showed that BA and BEI impacted participants' processing even before the verb was read and that role reversal anomalies elicited an N400 effect without a subsequent semantic P600. This study demonstrates that Mandarin sentence comprehension requires online interaction among cues in a language-specific manner, consistent with models that predict crosslinguistic differences in core sentence processing mechanisms.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
References: Coupé, C., Oh, Y. M., Dediu, D. & Pellegrino, F. Different languages, similar encoding efficiency: Comparable information rates across the human communicative niche. Sci. Adv. 5, 66 (2019). (PMID: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594)
Sainburg, T., Theilman, B., Thielk, M. & Gentner, T. Q. Parallels in the sequential organization of birdsong and human speech. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–11 (2019). (PMID: 10.1038/s41467-019-11605-y)
Hickok, G. Chapter 4—The dual stream model of speech and language processing. In Aphasia (eds. Hillis, A. E. & Fridriksson, J.) 185, 57–69 (Elsevier, 2022).
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science (80) 207, 203–205 (1980). (PMID: 10.1126/science.7350657)
Lau, E. F., Phillips, C. & Poeppel, D. A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 9, 920–933 (2008). (PMID: 1902051110.1038/nrn2532)
Costa, A., Strijkers, K., Martin, C. & Thierry, G. The time course of word retrieval revealed by event-related brain potentials during overt speech. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 21442 (2009). (PMID: 19934043279556410.1073/pnas.0908921106)
Ferreira, F. & Patson, N. D. The ‘Good Enough’ approach to language comprehension. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1, 71–83 (2007). (PMID: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x)
Christiansen, M. H. & Chater, N. The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behav. Brain Sci. 39, 66 (2015).
Krebs, J., Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B. & Roehm, D. Subject preference emerges as cross-modal strategy for linguistic processing. Brain Res. 1691, 105–117 (2018). (PMID: 2962748410.1016/j.brainres.2018.03.029)
Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Bickel, B. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. Exploring the nature of the ’subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Lang. Cogn. Process. 24, 1180–1226 (2009). (PMID: 10.1080/01690960802159937)
Evans, N. & Levinson, S. C. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 32, 429–448 (2009). (PMID: 1985732010.1017/S0140525X0999094X)
Friederici, A. D. & Frisch, S. Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. J. Mem. Lang. 43, 476–507 (2000). (PMID: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2709)
Levy, R. P. & Keller, F. Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 199–222 (2013). (PMID: 2455829410.1016/j.jml.2012.02.005)
Vasishth, S., Suckow, K., Lewis, R. L. & Kern, S. Short-term forgetting in sentence comprehension: Crosslinguistic evidence from verb-final structures. Lang. Cogn. Process. 25, 533–567 (2010). (PMID: 10.1080/01690960903310587)
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A. & Smith, S. Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11, 245–299 (1982). (PMID: 719941310.1016/0010-0277(82)90017-8)
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. et al. Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain Lang. 117, 133–152 (2011). (PMID: 2097084310.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.010)
Li, A., & Thompson, S. A. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. (University of California Press, 1989).
Wu, F. & He, Y. Some typological characteristics of Mandarin Chinese Syntax. In The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (Oxford University Press, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199856336.013.0020.
Chappell, H., Ming, L. & Peyraube, A. Chinese linguistics and typology: The state of the art. Linguist. Typol. 11, 187–211 (2007).
LaPolla, R. Arguments Against ‘Subject’ and ‘Direct Object’ as Viable Concepts (in Chinese) (1993).
Xu, L. Topic prominence. In The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics (Oxford University Press, 2015). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199856336.013.0072.
Lu, C.-C. et al. Judgements of grammaticality in aphasia: The special case of Chinese. Aphasiology 14, 1021–1054 (2000). (PMID: 10.1080/02687030050156593)
Su, I. R. Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Appl. Psycholinguist. 22, 83–112 (2001). (PMID: 10.1017/S0142716401001059)
Pylkkänen, L. The neural basis of combinatory syntax and semantics. Science (80) 366, 62–66 (2019). (PMID: 10.1126/science.aax0050)
Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I. & Garrett, M. F. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 3, 151–165 (1991). (PMID: 2397209010.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151)
Chomsky, N. Chapter 2. Subsystems of core grammar. 2.6. LF-representation and θ-theory (2). In Lectures on Government and Binding 101–117 (DE GRUYTER MOUTON, 1993). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110884166.101.
Druks, J. Verbs and nouns—A review of the literature. J. Neurolinguistics 15, 289–315 (2002). (PMID: 10.1016/S0911-6044(01)00029-X)
Dowty, D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547 (1991). (PMID: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021)
Bisang, W. From meaning to syntax—Semantic roles and beyond. In Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking 191–236 (Mouton de Gruyter, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219272.191.
Rissman, L. & Majid, A. Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26, 1850–1869 (2019). (PMID: 31290008686394410.3758/s13423-019-01634-5)
Mahowald, K., Diachek, E., Gibson, E., Fedorenko, E. & Futrell, R. Grammatical cues are largely, but not completely, redundant with word meanings in natural language. CoRR abs/2201.1 (2022).
Li, P., Bates, E., Liu, H. & MacWhinney, B. Cues as functional constraints on sentence processing in Chinese. In Language Processing in Chinese (eds. Chen, H. C. & Tzeng, O.) 207–234 (North-Holland, 1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61893-2.
Bender, E. The syntax of Mandarin Ba: Reconsidering the verbal analysis. J. East Asian Ling. 9, 105–145 (2000). (PMID: 10.1023/A:1008348224800)
Ting, J. Deriving the bei-construction in Mandarin Chinese. J. East Asian Ling. 7, 319–354 (1998). (PMID: 10.1023/A:1008340108602)
Li, C. & Thompson, S. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs of prepositions?. J. Chin. Linguist. 2, 257–278 (1974).
Deng, X., Mai, Z. & Yip, V. An aspectual account of ba and bei constructions in child Mandarin. First Lang. 38, 243–262 (2018). (PMID: 10.1177/0142723717743363)
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y.-H. A. & Li, Y. The Syntax of Chinese (Cambridge University Press, 2009). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935.
MacWhinney, B. The competition model: Past and future. In Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (ed. MacWhinney, B.) 3–16 (Psychology Press, 2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_1.
Martin, A. E. Language processing as cue integration: Grounding the psychology of language in perception and neurophysiology. Front. Psychol. 7, 1–17 (2016). (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00120)
MacWhinney, B. Chapter 14. A Unified Model of First and Second Language Learning. In 287–312 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22.15mac.
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. J. Mem. Lang. 31, 785–806 (1992). (PMID: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z)
Hoeks, J. C., Stowe, L. A. & Doedens, G. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cogn. Brain Res. 19, 59–73 (2004). (PMID: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2003.10.022)
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., Van Herten, M. & Oor, P. J. W. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain Lang. 85, 1–36 (2003). (PMID: 1268134610.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5)
Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. J. Mem. Lang. 52, 205–225 (2005). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002)
Kolk, H. H. J. & Chwilla, D. Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain Lang. 100, 257–261 (2007). (PMID: 1691932410.1016/j.bandl.2006.07.006)
Kuperberg, G. R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Res. 1146, 23–49 (2007). (PMID: 1740019710.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063)
Van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. J. & Chwilla, D. J. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cogn. Brain Res. 22, 241–255 (2005). (PMID: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002)
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H. & Hoeks, J. Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Res. 1446, 127–143 (2012). (PMID: 2236111410.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.055)
Brouwer, H., Delogu, F., Venhuizen, N. J. & Crocker, M. W. Neurobehavioral correlates of surprisal in language comprehension: A neurocomputational model. Front. Psychol. 12, 1–16 (2021). (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.615538)
Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychol. Rev. 113, 787–821 (2006). (PMID: 1701430310.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787)
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. The argument dependency model. In Neurobiology of Language 357–369 (Elsevier, 2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407794-2.00030-4.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. An alternative perspective on ‘semantic P600’ effects in language comprehension. Brain Res. Rev. 59, 55–73 (2008). (PMID: 1861727010.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003)
Bornkessel, I. & Schlesewsky, M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychol. Rev. 113, 787–821 (2006). (PMID: 1701430310.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787)
Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Res. 1506, 76–93 (2013). (PMID: 2342267610.1016/j.brainres.2013.02.016)
Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E. & Phillips, C. A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 577–596 (2016). (PMID: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1066832)
Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S. & Phillips, C. Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 33, 803–828 (2018). (PMID: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1427878)
Chow, W.-Y., Momma, S., Smith, C., Lau, E. & Phillips, C. Prediction as memory retrieval: Timing and mechanisms. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 31, 617–627 (2016). (PMID: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1160135)
Liao, C. H., Lau, E. & Chow, W.-Y. Towards a processing model for argument-verb computations in online sentence comprehension. J. Mem. Lang. 126, 104350 (2022). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2022.104350)
Bourguignon, N., Drury, J. E., Valois, D. & Steinhauer, K. Decomposing animacy reversals between agents and experiencers: An ERP study. Brain Lang. 122, 179–189 (2012). (PMID: 2269499710.1016/j.bandl.2012.05.001)
Kyriaki, L., Schlesewsky, M. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. Semantic reversal anomalies under the microscope: Task and modality influences on language-associated event-related potentials. Eur. J. Neurosci. 52, 3803–3827 (2020). (PMID: 3253779510.1111/ejn.14862)
Liu, H., Bates, E. & Li, P. Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Appl. Psycholinguist. 13, 451–484 (1992). (PMID: 10.1017/S0142716400005762)
Skalicky, S. & Chen, V. Forward and backward transfer of sentence processing cues in English and Mandarin Chinese: A call for approximate replication of Liu, Bates, and Li (1992) and Su (2001). Lang. Teach. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000464 (2020). (PMID: 10.1017/S0261444820000464)
Steinhauer, K., Pancheva, R., Newman, A. J., Gennari, S. & Ullman, M. T. How the mass counts: An electrophysiological approach to the processing of lexical features. Neuroreport 12, 66 (2001). (PMID: 10.1097/00001756-200104170-00027)
Meteyard, L. & Davies, R. A. I. Best practice guidance for linear mixed-effects models in psychological science. J. Mem. Lang. 112, 104092 (2020). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104092)
Brysbaert, M. & Stevens, M. Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. J. Cogn. 1, 66 (2018).
Kuperberg, G. R., Brothers, T. & Wlotko, E. W. A tale of two positivities and the N400: Distinct neural signatures are evoked by confirmed and violated predictions at different levels of representation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 32, 12–35 (2020). (PMID: 3147934710.1162/jocn_a_01465)
Miao, X. Word order and semantic strategies in Chinese sentence comprehension. Int. J. Psycholinguist. 8, 109–122 (1981).
Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Philipp, M. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. The role of Animacy in online argument interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. Case Word Order Promin. 40, 91–119 (2012). (PMID: 10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_5)
Yu, S. & Tamaoka, K. Age-related differences in the acceptability of non-canonical word orders in Mandarin Chinese. Ling. Sin. 4, 66 (2018).
Hsien-Yi, G. W. The Syntax-Semantics Interface: The BA and BEI Constructions in Mandarin (National University of Singapore, 1998).
Scorolli, C. et al. Abstract and concrete sentences, embodiment, and languages. Front. Psychol. 2, 66 (2011). (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00227)
Barsalou, L. W., Dutriaux, L. & Scheepers, C. Moving beyond the distinction between concrete and abstract concepts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 373, 20170144 (2018). (PMID: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0144)
Borghi, A. M. et al. Words as social tools: Language, sociality and inner grounding in abstract concepts. Phys. Life Rev. 29, 120–153 (2019). (PMID: 3057337710.1016/j.plrev.2018.12.001)
Lowder, M. W., Zhou, A. & Gordon, P. C. The lab discovered: Place-for-institution metonyms appearing in subject position are processed as agents. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001314 (2023). (PMID: 10.1037/xlm000131438095949)
Lowder, M. W. & Gordon, P. C. Natural forces as agents: Reconceptualizing the animate–inanimate distinction. Cognition 136, 85–90 (2015). (PMID: 2549751810.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.021)
Schendan, H. E. & Kutas, M. Neurophysiological evidence for transfer appropriate processing of memory: Processing versus feature similarity. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 14, 612–619 (2007). (PMID: 1797272210.3758/BF03196810)
Potts, G. F. An ERP index of task relevance evaluation of visual stimuli. Brain Cogn. 56, 5–13 (2004). (PMID: 1538087010.1016/j.bandc.2004.03.006)
Potts, G. F. & Tucker, D. M. Frontal evaluation and posterior representation in target detection. Cogn. Brain Res. 11, 147–156 (2001). (PMID: 10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00075-6)
Philipp, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Bisang, W. & Schlesewsky, M. The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain Lang. 105, 112–133 (2008). (PMID: 1799628710.1016/j.bandl.2007.09.005)
Kutas, M. & Federmeier, K. D. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annu. Rev. Psychol. 62, 621–647 (2011). (PMID: 20809790405244410.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123)
Friederici, A. D. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain Lang. 50, 259–281 (1995). (PMID: 758319010.1006/brln.1995.1048)
Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain Lang. 137, 29–39 (2014). (PMID: 2515154510.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.010)
Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J. & Hoeks, J. C. J. A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cogn. Sci. 41, 1318–1352 (2017). (PMID: 2800096310.1111/cogs.12461)
Brouwer, H. & Crocker, M. W. On the proper treatment of the N400 and P600 in language comprehension. Front. Psychol. 8, 66 (2017). (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01327)
Li, J. & Ettinger, A. Heuristic interpretation as rational inference: A computational model of the N400 and P600 in language processing. Cognition 233, 105359 (2023). (PMID: 3654912910.1016/j.cognition.2022.105359)
Ryskin, R. et al. An ERP index of real-time error correction within a noisy-channel framework of human communication. Neuropsychologia 158, 107855 (2021). (PMID: 3386584810.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107855)
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. Toward a neurobiologically plausible model of language-related, negative event-related potentials. Front. Psychol. 10, 1–17 (2019). (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00298)
Baggio, G. & Hagoort, P. The balance between memory and unification in semantics: A dynamic account of the N400. Lang. Cogn. Process. 26, 1338–1367 (2011). (PMID: 10.1080/01690965.2010.542671)
Royle, P., Drury, J. E. & Steinhauer, K. ERPs and task effects in the auditory processing of gender agreement and semantics in French. Ment. Lex. 8, 216–244 (2013). (PMID: 10.1075/ml.8.2.05roy)
Schacht, A., Sommer, W., Shmuilovich, O., Martínez, P. C. & Martín-Loeches, M. Differential task effects on N400 and P600 elicited by semantic and syntactic violations. PLoS ONE 9, 1–7 (2014). (PMID: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091226)
Deacon, D. & Shelley-Tremblay, J. How automatically is meaning accessed: A review of the effects of attention on semantic processing. Front. Biosci. 5, e82 (2000). (PMID: 10966871)
Lau, E. F., Holcomb, P. J. & Kuperberg, G. R. Dissociating N400 effects of prediction from association in single-word contexts. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 25, 484–502 (2013). (PMID: 2316341010.1162/jocn_a_00328)
Levshina, N. et al. Why we need a gradient approach to word order. Linguistics 61, 825–883 (2023). (PMID: 10.1515/ling-2021-0098)
MacWhinney, B. The competition model: Past and future. In A Life in Cognition (eds. Gervain, J., Csibra, G. & Kovács, K.) 3–16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_1.
Tang, J., LeBel, A., Jain, S. & Huth, A. G. Semantic reconstruction of continuous language from non-invasive brain recordings. bioRxiv 26, 66 (2022).
Cao, L., Huang, D., Zhang, Y., Jiang, X. & Chen, Y. Brain decoding using fNIRS. In 35th AAAI Conference Artificial Intelligence AAAI 2021, vol. 14A 12602–12611 (2021).
Gueorguieva, R. & Krystal, J. H. Move over ANOVA. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 61, 310 (2004). (PMID: 1499311910.1001/archpsyc.61.3.310)
Yang, N., Waddington, G., Adams, R. & Han, J. Translation, cultural adaption, and test–retest reliability of Chinese versions of the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory and Waterloo Footedness Questionnaire. Laterality Asymm. Body Brain Cogn. 23, 255–273 (2018). (PMID: 10.1080/1357650X.2017.1357728)
Yang, J. Learners and users of English in China. English Today 22, 3–10 (2006). (PMID: 10.1017/S0266078406002021)
Yan, J. & Huizhong, Y. The English proficiency of college and university students in China: As reflected in the CET. Lang. Cult. Curric. 19, 21–36 (2006). (PMID: 10.1080/07908310608668752)
Lemhöfer, K. & Broersma, M. Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid Lexical Test for Advanced Learners of English. Behav. Res. Methods 44, 325–343 (2012). (PMID: 2189815910.3758/s13428-011-0146-0)
Chan, I. L. & Chang, C. B. LEXTALE_CH: A quick, character-based proficiency test for Mandarin Chinese. Proc. Annu. Bost. Univ. Conf. Lang. Dev. 42, 114–130 (2018).
Cai, Q. & Brysbaert, M. SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PLoS ONE 5, e10729 (2010). (PMID: 20532192288000310.1371/journal.pone.0010729)
Her, O.-S. Argument-function mismatches in Mandarin resultatives: A lexical mapping account. Lingua 117, 221–246 (2007). (PMID: 10.1016/j.lingua.2006.01.002)
Van Casteren, M. & Davis, M. H. Mix, a program for pseudorandomization. Behav. Res. Methods 38, 584–589 (2006). (PMID: 1739382810.3758/BF03193889)
Winkler, I., Debener, S., Muller, K. R. & Tangermann, M. On the influence of high-pass filtering on ICA-based artifact reduction in EEG-ERP. In Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society EMBS 2015-Novem 4101–4105 (2015).
Steinhauer, K. & Drury, J. E. On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain Lang. 120, 135–162 (2012). (PMID: 2192448310.1016/j.bandl.2011.07.001)
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (2017).
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 66 (2015). (PMID: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01)
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Softw. 82, 66 (2017). (PMID: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13)
Voeten, C. C. buildmer: Stepwise Elimination and Term Reordering for Mixed-Effects Regression (2021).
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. & Bates, D. Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. J. Mem. Lang. 94, 305–315 (2017). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001)
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C. & Tily, H. J. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J. Mem. Lang. 68, 255–278 (2013). (PMID: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001)
Russell, L. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.4.2 (2019).
Loken, E. & Gelman, A. Measurement error and the replication crisis—The assumption that measurement error always reduces effect sizes is fals. Science (80) 355, 582–584 (2017).
Lüdecke, D. sjPlot: Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science (2021).
Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1686 (2019). (PMID: 10.21105/joss.01686)
Inkscape Project. Inkscape (2020).
Ratcliff, R. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychol. Bull. 114, 510–532 (1993). (PMID: 827246810.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510)
Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, 2006). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790942.
Lo, S. & Andrews, S. To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Front. Psychol. 6, 66 (2015). (PMID: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01171)
Morís Fernández, L. & Vadillo, M. A. Flexibility in reaction time analysis: Many roads to a false positive?. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7, 190831 (2020). (PMID: 32257303706210810.1098/rsos.190831)
Cunnings, I. & Fujita, H. Quantifying individual differences in native and nonnative sentence processing. Appl. Psycholinguist. 42, 579–599 (2021). (PMID: 10.1017/S0142716420000648)
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S. & Christiansen, M. H. Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 154–169 (2018). (PMID: 2927725610.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006)
Kaan, E. Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Lang. Linguist. Compass 1, 571–591 (2007). (PMID: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00037.x)
Herbay, A. ERPscope (2022).
Contributed Indexing: Keywords: Argument structure; Bag of arguments; Competition model; EEG; ERP; Extended argument dependency model; Mandarin; Role reversals; Semantic P600; Sentence processing
Entry Date(s): Date Created: 20240903 Date Completed: 20240903 Latest Revision: 20240906
Update Code: 20250114
PubMed Central ID: PMC11372106
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-70318-5
PMID: 39227638
Database: MEDLINE
Description
Abstract:Mandarin Chinese is typologically unusual among the world's languages in having flexible word order despite a near absence of inflectional morphology. These features of Mandarin challenge conventional linguistic notions such as subject and object and the divide between syntax and semantics. In the present study, we tested monolingual processing of argument structure in Mandarin verb-final sentences, where word order alone is not a reliable cue. We collected participants' responses to a forced agent-assignment task while measuring their electroencephalography data to capture real-time processing throughout each sentence. We found that sentence interpretation was not informed by word order in the absence of other cues, and while the coverbs BA and BEI were strong signals for agent selection, comprehension was a result of multiple cues. These results challenge previous reports of a linear ranking of cue strength. Event-related potentials showed that BA and BEI impacted participants' processing even before the verb was read and that role reversal anomalies elicited an N400 effect without a subsequent semantic P600. This study demonstrates that Mandarin sentence comprehension requires online interaction among cues in a language-specific manner, consistent with models that predict crosslinguistic differences in core sentence processing mechanisms.<br /> (© 2024. The Author(s).)
ISSN:2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-024-70318-5