Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials

Zheng Ye, Yue-kia Luo, Angela D. Friederici, Xiaolin Zhou

Presenter: Brian Lin

Two models in sentence processing

Syntax-first models Parser initially builds a syntactic structure on the basis

of word category information independent of lexical-semantic information. Thematic role assignment takes place during a second stage.

Interactive models Syntactic and semantic processes already interact at

an early stage.

Friederici’s Neurocognitive model of auditory sentence processing

Components

Components Early LAN (ELAN, 160 ms): word-category errors,

and has a maximum over the left anterior scalp. LAN (100-500 ms): morphosyntactic errors N400: semantic errors or integration into the

preceding context. P600 (600-1000 ms): outright syntactic violations Friederici claimed that phrase structural violations

are correlated with ELAN followed P600.

Syntactic + semantic

Syntactic + semantic condition? What would happen in a syntactic + semantic

conditions? Friederici’s predictions:

If syntactic and semantic processing occur in succession ELAN, N400 and P600

Lexical-semantic info is used early and interacts with syntactic info different ELAN from pure syntactic violations.

If semantic violation does not influence phrase structure building ELAN and N400 will be affected since lexical integration is not licensed.

Hahne & Friederici (2002)

Passive German sentences, auditory presented.

N = 15 adult German college students Grammaticality judgment task

Hahne & Friederici (2002)

Concerns about the 1st Expt Studies on word-word priming effects have

shown that a modulation of the N400 component is dependent on attentional mechanisms.

Thus the lack of N400 in the combined situation might be due to attentional aspect.

Hahne & Friederici’s Expt 2 N = 16 Procedures was identical to the first expt,

except that subjects were told to ignore syntactic violations and focus on semantic coherence of the sentences only.

Hahne & Friederici’s conclusions The task-induced emphasis on semantics did

not affect ELAN. In the case of phrase structure violation

semantic integration was not initiated automatically, but could still be initiated by attentional mechanisms.

No ELAN on Takazawa et al. (2002) N = 16 adult Japanese

speakers. Stimuli:

correct Semantic anomalies

Violating the dependency b/w a verb and it’s argument.

Syntactic anomalies What-phrase followed by

confirmative marker.

Stimuli were presented phrase-by-phrase visually. Each phrase was presented for 500ms. ISI also 500ms.

Grammaticality judgment task.

No ELAN on Takazawa et al. (2002) N400 for semantic anomalies and P600 for

syntactic anomalies. But NO ELAN or LAN. Why?

Due to visual presentation. Difference in syntactic violation types

Neither phrase structure violations nor morphosyntactic violations.

Ye et al.’s experiment procedures N=12 Chinese adult speakers Auditory presented stimuli (240 experimental BA

sentences and 120 filler sentences). Grammaticality judgment of experimental sentences and

only trials with correct responses were analyzed. Stimuli lasted for 1000 ms.

Ba construction (disposal sentence) SVO sentence

我 賣 了 車子。I sell le car

(I have sold the car.)

Ba construction (disposal sentence) SVO sentence

我 賣 了 車子。I sell le car

(I have sold the car.)

Ba sentence (S BA O V): the direct object is placed immediately after BA and before the verb. 我 把 車子 賣 了 I BA car sell le

(I have sold the car.)

Ba construction (disposal sentence) continued It’s not that simple! It’s ok to say…

他 買 了 一 輛 車。 He buy le a CL car

(He has bought a car.)

Ba construction (disposal sentence) It’s not that simple! It’s ok to say…

他 買 了 一 輛 車。 He buy le a CL car

(He has bought a car.)

But weird to use Ba construction here! *他 把 一 輛 車 買 了。 *He BA a CL car buy le

(He has bought a car.)

Ye et al.’s experimental conditions Correct 設計師 製作 新衣， 把 布料 裁 了。Stylist make new clothes BA cloth tailor le

(To make new dresses, the stylist tailored the cloth.)

Semantically incorrect伐木工 開採 森林， 把 松樹 裁 了。Timberjack exploit forest BA pine tailor le

(Exploiting the forest, the timberjack tailored pine trees.)

Syntactically incorrect設計師 製作 新衣， 把 裁 了。Stylist make new clothes BA tailor le

(To make new dresses, the stylist tailored.)

Combined incorrect伐木工 開採 森林， 把 裁 了。Timberjack exploit forest BA tailor le

(Exploiting the forest, the timberjack tailored.)

Predictions What would happen in a syntactic + semantic

conditions? If syntactic and semantic occur in succession E

LAN, N400 and P600 Syntactic phrase structure building independent of

semantic processing ELAN followed by P600 If semantic and syntactic processes interact in late

r processing stages N400 and P600 will be affected in some way.

Ye et al. result

Ye et al. resultELAN for syn +

Combined.

Ye et al. resultELAN for syn +

Combined.

P600 ?Not sig.

Ye et al. resultELAN for syn +

Combined.

P600 ?Not sig.

Early N400. Bigger for syn + combined

Ye et al. results Syntactic violation: ELAN but no P600 (no significant

main effect, and could be due to possible overlap of largely distributed later negativity and P600.)

Semantic violation: Early N400 May be due to monosyllabic words took less time to

process. Context dependency from the first clause.

Ye et al. results. Combined violations: pattern similar to syntactic

violation, but demonstrate a larger negativity in 250-400 time window. Suggest that semantic and syntactic information are

processed in parallel in an early phase of comprehension!

In Mandarin, semantic and syntactic processes seem to be independent in an early time window and interact in a

late processing phase.

Questions and Comments 1. The latency of a component only show the earliest time point when the

machine reveals the differences but not necessarily the onset of the cognitive process!

2. In this study, there were only 12 participants and they had all 4 conditions of each verb. Is this usual in ERP research?

3. “It takes less time to process the semantic information in monosyllabic than in polysyllabic.” Shorter words don't necessarily mean that they have simpler information.

4. In both syntactic violation and combined sentences, the violation word didn't exist in the sentence. The early negativity has already detected the violation. There is no need to do further analysis.

5. Visual vs. auditory presentation. Is it possible that the visual presentation affords some small amount of parafoveal processing, however miniscule, that may alter the timing of the phrase processing (and additionally if that is different across the languages)?