基于语义错觉效应的句子加工探索

摘要/Abstract

摘要： “语义错觉效应”是指读者在加工某些语义违例句子时，会暂时性地产生语义合理错觉，而只有通过继续加工或者再加工才能辨别出错误的现象，在脑电成分上表现为没有出现N400效应，却出现P600效应。“语义错觉效应”对传统的句子加工理论模型以及N400和P600的特异性功能意义提出了质疑。研究者在讨论此效应的基础上提出了多个句子加工模型，各模型对语义和句法加工的过程进行了探索，对语义和句法通道的关系做出了新的阐述，并对N400和P600的功能意义做出了新的解读。目前研究对N400功能的解释存在语义整合观和词汇激活观的分歧，而对P600功能的解释则从传统的句法功能转换到了更宽泛的加工过程。未来研究应关注词汇语义关系和跨语言差异，以期进一步揭示句子加工的认知及神经机制。

关键词: 语义错觉效应, 句法, 语义, P600, N400。

Abstract: Semantic Illusion Effect indicates that semantic-plausible illusion occurs when readers process semantically anomalous sentences and the errors could only be recognized when the sentence was reprocessed. This phenomenon, in which a semantically thematic anomalous, syntactically well-formed sentence elicits a P600 effect, but no N400 effect, called the Semantic Illusion Effect. This phenomenon challenged the traditional theory of sentence processing and the functional role of N400 component and P600 component. On the basis of exploring the Semantic Illusion Effect, researchers have proposed several models, each model proposed different architecture with different semantic/syntactic streams and illustrated the relationship between them in a brand-new perspective. They also reinterpreted the functional role of N400 and P600. There were different perspectives on N400, such as ″integration″ view and ″lexical pre-activation″ view. The P600 was seen as a component reflecting aspects of combinatorial processing, not just simple syntactic processing. We propose that future research should focus on lexical semantic relationship, similarity between P600 and P3 and cross-linguistic differences in Language processing.

Key words: semantic illusion effect, syntax, semantics, P600, N400.

中图分类号:

B842

马谐, 胡娜, 陈睿, 王晓曦, 王凯, 刘艳. 基于语义错觉效应的句子加工探索[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(4): 568-576.

Ma Xie, Hu Na, Chen Rui, Wang Xiaoxi, Wang Kai, Liu Yan. An Exploration of Sentence Processing on the Basic of Semantic Illusion Effect[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2016, 14(4): 568-576.

参考文献

[1] 王路明.(2015). 优势语序还是优势解读?利用ERP考察汉语双论元歧义句的解歧过程. 心理学报, 47(7), 869-877.
[2] 张秀平, 杨晓虹, 杨玉芳.(2015). 语篇理解中语义整合的神经机制及其影响因素. 心理科学进展, 23(7), 1130-1141.
[3] Bever, T. G.(1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the Development of Language. 279-362.
[4] Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M.(2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787-821.
[5] Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Gen?觭, S., Philipp, M., ... Schlesewsky, M.(2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 117(3), 133-152.
[6] Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M.(2008). An alternative perspective on“semantic P600”effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55-73.
[7] Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J.(2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446(2), 127-143.
[8] Brouwer, H., & Hoeks, J. C.(2013). A time and place for language comprehension: mapping the N400 and the P600 to a minimal cortical network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(16), 758.
[9] Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W.(2016). On the organization of the perisylvian cortex: Insights from the electrophysiology of language: Comment on“towards a computational comparative neuroprimatology: Framing the language-ready brain”by MA Arbib. Physics of Life Reviews, 16, 58-60.
[10] Chen, Q., Ye, C., Liang, X., Cao, B., Lei, Y., ... Li, H.(2014). Automatic processing of taxonomic and thematic relations in semantic priming-Differentiation by early N400 and late frontal negativity. Neuropsychologia, 64, 54-62.
[11] Chow, W., & Phillips, C.(2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76-93.
[12] Cook, A. E.(2014). Processing anomalous anaphors. Memory & Cognition, 42(7), 1171-1185.
[13] DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M.(2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(8), 1117-1121.
[14] Domahs, U., Wiese, R., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M.(2008). The processing of German word stress: Evidence for the prosodic hierarchy. Phonology, 25(1), 1-36.
[15] Gouvea, A. C., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Poeppel, D.(2010). The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(2), 149-188.
[16] Hagoort, P., Baggio, G., & Willems, R. M.(2009). Semantic unification. In The cognitive neurosciences(4th ed., pp. 819-836). MIT press.
[17] Hagoort, P., & Brown, C.(1994). Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In Perspectives on sentence processing(pp. 45-81). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[18] Hagoort, P., & van Berkum, J.(2007). Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1481), 801-811.
[19] Hannon, B.(2015). Conscious and unconscious detection of semantic anomalies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(7), 1-22.
[20] Hoeks, J. C., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G.(2004). Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59-73.
[21] Kim, A., & Osterhout, L.(2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205-225.
[22] Kos, M., Vosse, T. G., Van Den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P.(2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1(6), 101-109.
[23] Kuperberg, G. R.(2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146(3), 23-49.
[24] Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R.(2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685-2701.
[25] Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D.(2011). Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the n400 component of the event related brain potential (erp). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621-647.
[26] Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A.(1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203-205.
[27] Meltzer, J. A., & Braun, A. R.(2013). P600-like positivity and left anterior negativity responses are elicited by semantic reversibility in nonanomalous sentences. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(1), 129-148.
[28] Nieuwland, M. S., Martin, A. E., & Carreiras, M.(2013). Event-related brain potential evidence for animacy processing asymmetries during sentence comprehension. Brain & Language, 126(2), 151-158.
[29] Nieuwland, M. S., & Kuperberg, G. R.(2008).When the truth is not too hard to handle an event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213-1218.
[30] Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J.(1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785-806.
[31] Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R.(2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 426-448.
[32] Sa, K. M. H.(1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161-163.
[33] Sassenhagen, J., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.(2014). The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain and Language, 137c, 29-39.
[34] Shen, W., Fiori-Duharcourt, N., & Isel, F.(2016). Functional significance of the semantic P600: Evidence from the event-related brain potential source localization. NeuroReport, 27(7), 548-558.
[35] Spotorno, N., Cheylus, A., Van Der Henst, J., & Noveck, I. A.(2013). What′s behind a p600? integration operations during irony processing. PloS one, 8(6), e66839.
[36] 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), 96840.
[37] Stroud, C., & Phillips, C.(2012). Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language, 120(2), 108-126.
[38] Tune, S., Schlesewsky, M., Small, S. L., Sanford, A. J., Bohan, J., Sassenhagen, J., ... Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I.(2014). Cross-linguistic variation in the neurophysiological response to semantic processing: Evidence from anomalies at the borderline of awareness. Neuropsychologia, 56(2), 147-166.
[39] Umanath, S., Dolan, P. O., & Marsh, E. J.(2014). Ageing and the Moses Illusion: Older adults fall for Moses but if asked directly, stick with Noah. Memory, 22(5), 481-492.
[40] van de Meerendonk, N., Kolk, H. H., Vissers, C. T. W., & Chwilla, D. J.(2010). Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(1), 67-82.
[41] Van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H.(2006).When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181-1197.
[42] Van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J.(2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241-255.
[43] Vissers, C. T. W. M., Chwilla, U. G., Egger, J. I. M., & Chwilla D. J.(2013). The interplay between mood and language comprehension: Evidence from P600 to semantic reversal anomalies. Neuropsychologia, 51(6), 1027-1039.
[44] Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G.(2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language Cognition & Neuroscience, 30(6), 648-672.
[45] Yang, Y., Wu, F., & Zhou, X.(2015). Semantic Processing Persists despite Anomalous Syntactic Category: ERP Evidence from Chinese Passive Sentences. Plos One, 10(6), 0131936.