Brain responses to agreement violations of Chinese grammatical aspect.

Department of Psychology, Peking University, Key Laboratory of Machine Perception, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China.
Neuroreport (Impact Factor: 1.64). 08/2008; 19(10):1039-43. DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e328302f14f
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Grammatical aspect captures ways in which a language uses grammatical markers to describe the temporal structure of an event. An event-related potential experiment was conducted to investigate event-related potential correlates of agreement violations of Chinese grammatical aspect. Participants read sentences containing either aspect agreement violations, semantic violations, or no violations. Semantic violations elicited an N400, whereas aspectual violations elicited a 200-400 ms posterior and left central negativity, followed by a P600, instead of left anterior negativity or N400, suggesting that left anterior negativities may not reflect a general, rule-governed, syntactically compositional process, and that grammatical aspect processing is at least not completely semantically driven. The negativity mostly reflects a failure to bind aspect markers or the detection of aspectual errors.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: a b s t r a c t The present study used magnetoencephalographic neuroimaging to examine the neural correlates supporting the processing of a negative polarity item (NPI) (renhe) in Mandarin Chinese. Participants monitored the appearance of a catch word in sen-tences while their brain activities during the processing of the NPI or a perfective aspect marker (-le) were recorded. The results revealed that the NPI in a non-downward entailing context elicited a larger M350 component, possibly reflecting the cost of semantic integration. As a contrast, sentences violating grammatical aspects elicited greater brain responses in a later time window between 500 and 600 ms. The present findings not only demonstrate a clear distinction between semantic and syntactic processing in disso-ciable time courses, but further indicate that the processing of negative polarity items in Chinese is mainly constrained by the conditions imposed by semantic context.
    Journal of Neurolinguistics 03/2013; 26(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.09.002 · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Chinese language possesses linguistic properties that are distinct from those of the most widely studied European languages. Given such uniqueness, research on the neurocognitive processing of Chinese not only contributes to our understanding of language-specific cognitive processes but also sheds light on the universality of psycholinguistic models developed on the basis of these European languages. In this Introduction, we briefly review neurocognitive studies on the processing of Chinese in the past ten years, summarizing existing findings concerning lexical, sentential, and discourse processing in Chinese.
    Language and Cognitive Processes 12/2009; 24(7/8):929-946. · 1.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although there is broad agreement that error signals generated during an unexpected linguistic event are reflected in event-related potential (ERP) components, there are at least two distinct aspects of the process that the ERP signals may reflect. The first is the content of an error, which is the local discrepancy between an observed form and any expectations about upcoming forms, without any reference to why those expectations were held. The second aspect is the cause of an error, which is a context-aware analysis of why the error arose. The current study examines the processes involved in prediction of morphological marking on verbal forms in Hindi, a split ergative language. This is a case where an error with the same local characteristics (illicit morphology) can arise from very different cues: one syntactic in origin (ergative case marking), and the other semantic in origin (a past tense adverbial). Results suggest that the parser indeed tracks the cause in addition to the content of errors. Despite the fact that the critical manipulation of verb marking was identical across cue types, the nature of the cue led to distinct patterns of ERPs in response to anomalous verbal morphology. When verbal morphology was predicted based upon semantic cues, an incorrect future tense form elicited an early negativity in the 200–400 ms interval with a posterior distribution along with a marginally significant P600 effect. In contrast, when verbal morphology was predicted based upon morphosyntactic cues, an incorrect future tense form elicited a right-lateralised anterior negativity (RAN) during the 300–500 ms interval, as well as a P600 response with a broad distribution.
    Language and Cognitive Processes 01/2011; DOI:10.1080/01690965.2010.544582 · 1.54 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014