Semantic Processing Persists despite Anomalous Syntactic Category: ERP Evidence from Chinese Passive Sentences

Abstract

The syntax-first model and the parallel/interactive models make different predictions regarding whether syntactic category processing has a temporal and functional primacy over semantic processing. To further resolve this issue, an event-related potential experiment was conducted on 24 Chinese speakers reading Chinese passive sentences with the passive marker BEI (NP1 + BEI + NP2 + Verb). This construction was selected because it is the most-commonly used Chinese passive and very much resembles German passives, upon which the syntax-first hypothesis was primarily based. We manipulated semantic consistency (consistent vs. inconsistent) and syntactic category (noun vs. verb) of the critical verb, yielding four conditions: CORRECT (correct sentences), SEMANTIC (semantic anomaly), SYNTACTIC (syntactic category anomaly), and COMBINED (combined anomalies). Results showed both N400 and P600 effects for sentences with semantic anomaly, with syntactic category anomaly, or with combined anomalies. Converging with recent findings of Chinese ERP studies on various constructions, our study provides further evidence that syntactic category processing does not precede semantic processing in reading Chinese.

Verbing nouns and nouning verbs: Using a balanced design provides ERP evidence against “syntax-first” approaches to sentence processing

“….]' [32]. However, in these two studies, target nouns were always associated with a syntactic violation condition while target verbs were always correct, resulting in unbalanced designs that may affect ERPs independent of syntactic category processing in addition to promoting participant strategies.…”

“…As is the case for the ELAN, the semantic blocking effect has not always been replicated [4,[30][31][32][33]. For example, in some studies N400s have been observed in response to SCVs when the participants were instructed to ignore syntax [22].…”

Reduced Syntactic Processing Efficiency in Older Adults During Sentence Comprehension

“…The exact processes may include but are not limited to the following: categorical violation, disruption of argument structure building, and/or failure in syntactic integration ( Hagoort et al, 1993 ; Friederici, 2002 ; Bornkessel and Schlesewsky, 2006 ). Because the syntactic clue highly depends on sentence context, the violation of syntactic information is typically in a later time window, such as the P600 ( Zhou et al, 2010 ; Jiang and Zhou, 2012 ; Wang et al, 2012 ; Zhang et al, 2013 ; Yang et al, 2015 ).…”

“…The BA and BEI constructions are specific structures, in which the object and subject noun phrase (NP) occur before the verb but after the BA or BEI marker, respectively. If the expected object NP or subject NP in BA and BEI sentences is replaced by a verb, a larger P600 would be found, relative to the P600 if the expected word had indeed been an NP ( Zhang et al, 2013 ; Yang et al, 2015 ). Thus, the ERPs could further help us to test this specific syntactic effect.…”

“…Syntactic processing in Chinese has also been associated with the P600 effect ( Yu and Zhang, 2008 ; Wang et al, 2012 ). Chinese BA and BEI constructions, which have been commonly used in research ( Zhang et al, 2013 ; Yang et al, 2015 ) represent SVO and OSV sentences respectively. The BA and BEI constructions are specific structures, in which the object and subject noun phrase (NP) occur before the verb but after the BA or BEI marker, respectively.…”