句子理解过程中敬语加工和词类加工的交互作用：来自ERPs的证据

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2023.02.004

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用事件相关电位(ERPs)技术，通过同时操纵名词短语中听话人社会地位和话语中第二人称代词形式“你/您”的一致性以及名词短语中词类的一致性，考察句子理解过程中敬语加工和词类加工的交互作用。研究结果显示，在词类一致条件下，敬语违反在高语用能力组诱发P600，低语用能力组诱发左侧前部负波(LAN)和晚期负活动；词类违反的条件下，两组被试中均没有发现和敬语违反加工相关的ERP效应，词类违反和词类−敬语双重违反在两组被试中均诱发P600效应。结果表明，在语言理解过程中，敬语的加工必须在成功的、基于词类的短语结构建构的基础上进行；敬语一致性的加工策略受到个体语用能力的调节。

关键词: 词类, 第二人称代词, 敬语, 语用, 事件相关电位

Abstract: Using event-related potentials (ERPs), we examined how pragmatic information relevant to interlocutor identity interacts with syntactic category processing during Chinese sentence comprehension. We used a full factorial design that crossed pragmatic consistency with syntactic category coherence of a noun phrase (NP). The results showed that the interaction between syntactic category and the correctness of pragmatic was significant. The ERP effects for pragmatic violation could only be observed when the syntactic category was coherent. Pragmatic violation elicited a sustained positivity in a subset of the participants, half of the participants showed a LAN and late negativity for pragmatic violation. Taken together, these results suggest that the processing of syntactic category processing has a function primacy over pragmatic processing. Furthermore, the strategy of resolving the pragmatic violation and the corresponding brain activities varies according to participants’ pragmatic abilities.

Key words: word category, second person pronoun, honorifics, pragmatic, event-related potentials

中图分类号:

B842

纪丽燕, 冀爱爱. 句子理解过程中敬语加工和词类加工的交互作用：来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(2): 169-176.

JI Liyan, JI Aiai. The Interplay Between Honorific Processing and Syntactic Category Processing: ERPs to Written Mandarin Chinese[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2023, 21(2): 169-176.

参考文献

毛悦. (2003). 影响汉语第二人称代词使用的社会文化因素 (硕士学位论文). 北京语言文化大学.
王浩. (2014). 北京方言中“你”和“您”使用情况的社会语言学研究 (硕士学位论文). 北京外国语大学.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Neuroreport, 15(1), 165–169.
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., & Saddy, D. (2002). Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31(1), 45–63.
Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416–423.
Isel, F., Hahne, A., Maess, B., & Friederici, A. D. (2007). Neurodynamics of sentence interpretation: ERP evidence from French. Biological Psychology, 74(3), 337–346.
Ji, L. Y., & Cai, L. (2022). The interplay between respectfulness and lexical-semantic in reading Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 16(1), 101–115.
Jiang, X. M., Li, Y., & Zhou, X. L. (2013). Is it over-respectful or disrespectful? Differential patterns of brain activity in perceiving pragmatic violation of social status information during utterance comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 51(11), 2210–2223.
Kasparian, K., Vespignani, F., & Steinhauer, K. (2017). First language attrition induces changes in online morphosyntactic processing and re-analysis: An ERP study of number agreement in complex Italian sentences. Cognitive Science, 41(7), 1760–1803.
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164(1), 177–190.
Newman, A. J., Ullman, M. T., Pancheva, R., Waligura, D. L., & Neville, H. J. (2007). An ERP study of regular and irregular English past tense inflection. NeuroImage, 34(1), 435–445.
Nieuwland, M. S., Ditman, T., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2010). On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 324–346.
Nieuwland, M. S., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2008). The interplay between semantic and referential aspects of anaphoric noun phrase resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain and Language, 106(2), 119–131.
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.
Politzer-Ahles, S., Fiorentino, R., Jiang, X. M., & Zhou, X. L. (2013). Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing: An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification. Brain Research, 1490, 134–152.
Regel, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2011). Isn’t it ironic? An electrophysiological exploration of figurative language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(2), 277–293.
Regel, S., Meyer, L., & Gunter, T. C. (2014). Distinguishing neurocognitive processes reflected by P600 effects: Evidence from ERPs and neural oscillations. PLoS ONE, 9(5), e96840.
Tanner, D., Goldshtein, M., & Weissman, B. (2018). Individual differences in the real-time neural dynamics of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 68, 299–335.
Wang, S. P., Mo, D. Y., Xiang, M., Xu, R. P., & Chen, H. C. (2013). The time course of semantic and syntactic processing in reading Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(4), 577–596.
Yu, J., Zhang, Y. X., Boland, J. E., & Cai, L. (2015). The interplay between referential processing and local syntactic/semantic processing: ERPs to written Chinese discourse. Brain Research, 1597, 139–158.
Zhang, Y. X., Li, P., Piao, Q., Liu, Y. Y., Huang, Y. J., & Shu, H. (2013). Syntax does not necessarily precede semantics in sentence processing: ERP evidence from Chinese. Brain and Language, 126(1), 8–19.

[1]	金花, 严世振, 单金磊, 刘婷. 面孔生命性加工的时间进程：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 577-584.
[2]	贾磊, 陆家豪, 王逸, 张常洁. 权力概念隐喻映射中的冲突控制：特征与过程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 417-423.
[3]	陈衍, 江婷, 李玮, 陈取麟, 潘运, 胡思瑶. 合作中责任比较和分配评价差异的ERPs研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 152-159.
[4]	宋娟, 杜梦, 连涛, 张倩. 积极怀旧情绪对疼痛共情影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 466-473.
[5]	李骋诗, 白学军, 王永胜. 映射具体性和语境线索对新颖隐喻加工的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 153-160.
[6]	唐丹丹, 傅瑜, 吴燕京, 朱海. 视觉空间工作记忆组间差异的神经机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 176-184.
[7]	曾庆, 郑希付. 高低厌恶敏感性个体对不同情绪刺激的注意时程: 来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 743-749.
[8]	贾丽萍, 卢国华, 宋玉萍, 李福洪. 负性情绪启动对特质焦虑个体行为抑制的影响机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(5): 604-612.
[9]	宋娟, 魏艳秋, 杜梦, 解鸿宇, 连涛, 胡亚奇, 马欧. 眼部情绪信息对疼痛共情影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 326-332,347.
[10]	赵小淋, 张燕, 王建峰. 情绪对不同外倾水平个体行为抑制的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 449-457.
[11]	侯娟, 侯莹莹, 陈双艺, 方晓义. 网络成瘾者工作记忆能力的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(3): 384-393.
[12]	刘耀中, 刘敏, 彭滨. 任务框架和社会距离对风险决策的影响：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 13-21.
[13]	唐丹丹, 彭微微, 杨青松, 陈安涛, 陈雪飞. 刺激冲突和反应冲突的事件相关电位特征：中顶部P3[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 31-36.
[14]	吴晓刚, 施亮, 李乐源, 潘发达. 内隐情绪加工对返回抑制效应的调节[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(5): 619-625.
[15]	刘映杰, 刘耀中, 唐志文, 彭坚. 不当督导下员工对于奖惩的反馈：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2015, 13(6): 823-831.