) 南京师范大学文学院, 南京 210097
收稿日期:2019-01-14出版日期:2020-01-15发布日期:2019-11-21通讯作者:梁丹丹E-mail:ldd233@sina.com基金资助:江苏高校优势学科建设工程资助项目(PAPD);和江苏高校哲学社会科学优秀创新团队建设项目(2017STD006)The cognitive neural mechanisms of verb argument structure complexity processing
WANG Xin, HANG Mingli, LIANG Dandan() School of Chinese Language and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
Received:2019-01-14Online:2020-01-15Published:2019-11-21Contact:LIANG Dandan E-mail:ldd233@sina.com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。
图/表 3
表1动词论元结构复杂性、功能脑区、认知神经加工对应关系
| 动词论元结构复杂性 | 功能脑区 | 所涉认知神经加工 |
|---|---|---|
| 多论元 | 外侧裂周后部 | 论元语义表征 |
| 左侧额下回 | 初始句法加工 | |
| 选择性论元范畴 | 左侧颞上回和颞叶中后部 | 表层句法加工 |
| 左侧额下回 | 初始句法加工 | |
| 左侧额叶中后部 | 初始句法加工 | |
| 选择性题元角色指派 | 外侧裂周后部 | 论元语义表征 |
| 左侧额下回 | 初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定 | |
| 左侧额叶中后部 | 初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定 | |
| 非典型映射 | 左侧颞上回、颞中回和颞叶后部 | 表层论元句法-语义整合 |
| 左侧额下回 | 句法移位、非宾格动词语义加工 |
表1动词论元结构复杂性、功能脑区、认知神经加工对应关系
| 动词论元结构复杂性 | 功能脑区 | 所涉认知神经加工 |
|---|---|---|
| 多论元 | 外侧裂周后部 | 论元语义表征 |
| 左侧额下回 | 初始句法加工 | |
| 选择性论元范畴 | 左侧颞上回和颞叶中后部 | 表层句法加工 |
| 左侧额下回 | 初始句法加工 | |
| 左侧额叶中后部 | 初始句法加工 | |
| 选择性题元角色指派 | 外侧裂周后部 | 论元语义表征 |
| 左侧额下回 | 初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定 | |
| 左侧额叶中后部 | 初始句法加工、动词次范畴确定 | |
| 非典型映射 | 左侧颞上回、颞中回和颞叶后部 | 表层论元句法-语义整合 |
| 左侧额下回 | 句法移位、非宾格动词语义加工 |
图1动词论元结构产出过程中复杂性交互作用示意图
图1动词论元结构产出过程中复杂性交互作用示意图
图2动词论元结构理解过程中复杂性交互作用示意图 注：图中黑体字表示动词论元结构复杂性各方面, 楷体字表示动词论元结构加工过程各环节, 较粗黑色直线用来联系各环节, 较细黑色箭头表示“影响”。
图2动词论元结构理解过程中复杂性交互作用示意图 注：图中黑体字表示动词论元结构复杂性各方面, 楷体字表示动词论元结构加工过程各环节, 较粗黑色直线用来联系各环节, 较细黑色箭头表示“影响”。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., & Pylkk?nen 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. |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 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. |
| [2] | 王润洲, 毕鸿燕. 发展性阅读障碍的听觉时间加工缺陷[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(7): 1231-1238. |
| [3] | 隋雪, 史汉文, 李雨桐. 语言加工过程中的观点采择及其认知机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(6): 990-999. |
| [4] | 何蔚祺, 李帅霞, 赵东方. 群体面孔情绪感知的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 761-772. |
| [5] | 汪钰涵, 马国杰, 庄想灵. 手机分心对行人过街中信息加工及行为的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(5): 806-814. |
| [6] | 丛凤娇, 陈宝国. 第二语言学习者形态复杂词的加工机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 438-439. |
| [7] | 程羽慧, 袁祥勇, 蒋毅. 社会互动加工的认知特性及脑机制——第三人称的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 472-480. |
| [8] | 岳童, 黄希庭, 傅安国. 人们何以能够“舍生取义”?基于保护性价值观认知神经机制的解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(3): 540-548. |
| [9] | 郭滢, 龚先旻, 王大华. 错误记忆产生的认知与神经机制：信息加工视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2021, 29(1): 79-92. |
| [10] | 吕小康, 刘洪志, 付春野. 医疗信息的风险感知[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(8): 1307-1324. |
| [11] | 杨晓梦, 王福兴, 王燕青, 赵婷婷, 高春颍, 胡祥恩. 瞳孔是心灵的窗口吗?——瞳孔在心理学研究中的应用及测量[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1029-1041. |
| [12] | 江俊, 张伟霞, 王莞琪. 声乐与器乐情绪加工的ERP研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(7): 1133-1140. |
| [13] | 伍可, 陈杰, 李雯婕, 陈洁佳, 刘雷, 刘翠红. 人声加工的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(5): 752-765. |
| [14] | 诸彦含, 陈国良, 徐俊英. 组织中的正念：基于认知的动态衍生过程及干预[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(3): 510-522. |
| [15] | 万楠, 朱树青, 贾世伟. 反馈间隔影响反馈加工：整合行为和电生理研究的视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2020, 28(2): 230-239. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4920
