Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Case, Word Order and Prominence pp 91–119Cite as

The Role of Animacy in Online Argument Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics ((SITP,volume 40))

Abstract

The present event-related brain potential (ERPs) study demonstrates that online argument interpretation in verb-final structures in Mandarin Chinese is modulated by two factors: a preference for Undergoer-before-Actor orders and a preference for animate Actor arguments. Participants listened to sentences with NP(animate)-NP(inanimate)-verb or NP(inanimate)-NP(animate)-verb orders embedded in minimal contexts. Sentences were disambiguated towards either an Actor-initial or an Undergoer-initial order by the clause-final verb. Between 450 and 700 ms post verb onset, we observed an anterior negativity for sentences violating both preferences (inanimate-Actor-initial structures) vs. sentences fulfilling both preferences (inanimate-Undergoer-initial). The two remaining structures (animate-Actor-initial and animate-Undergoer-initial) did not differ from one another but engendered a negativity in comparison to the preferred order (inanimate-Undergoer-initial). These results suggest that a preference for Undergoer-initial structures is only applied online when it is supported by animacy. When the two preferences are in conflict, by contrast, the processing system’s preference may not be stable across trials. Our findings thus show that animacy information plays a crucial role in argument interpretation in NP-NP-verb structures in Chinese.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Two examples which serve to illustrate the topic-prominence of Mandarin Chinese are given in (i) and (ii):

    (i)“Double subject” construction in Mandarin Chinese (from Li and Thompson 1976: 468)

    nàkēshùyèzidà

    that clf  tree leaves big

    ‘That tree (topic), the leaves are big.’

    (ii)Topic-controlled coreference in Mandarin Chinese (from Li and Thompson 1976: 463)

    nàkēshùyèzidà,suŏyǐ wŏ bùxĭhuān __.

    that clf tree leaves big soInot like

    ‘That tree (topic), the leaves are big, so I don’t like (it/*them). ’

  2. 2.

     An example for a subject reading of the argument in (1a) is given in (i):

    (i) Dün  adam          uyudu.

    yesterday man[nom] sleep-pst.3sg

    ‘Yesterday (the) man slept.’

  3. 3.

     Other previous studies on possible subject/object asymmetries during the online processing of Chinese have focused exclusively on the comprehension of subject and object relative clauses (Hsiao and Gibson 2003; Lin and Bever 2006; Packard et al. 2006). Because the processing of relative clauses is subject to a wider variety of influences than argument interpretation in simple sentences (e.g. parallel function or perspective taking), these findings are not directly relevant for the question under discussion here.

  4. 4.

     For arguments against a frequency-based account of the subject preference, see Fanselow et al. (1999) and Demiral (2007) for German and Turkish, respectively.

  5. 5.

     Note that this argument holds whether the dropped subject is represented syntactically as a phonologically null element (pro; Chomsky 1981) or not (e.g. Van Valin 2005). If a syntactic representation is assumed, the pro representing the null subject could simply be postulated and integrated as soon as the ambiguous argument is analysed as an object, thereby circumventing an additional prediction that must be maintained in working memory.

  6. 6.

    Note that this statement is not contradicted by the finding of animacy-based effects at the position of an initial argument (e.g. Weckerly and Kutas 1999; Kuperberg et al. 2003), since these could be due to lexical differences between animate and inanimate nouns. It is also compatible with the notion that the interpretation of an NP-V fragment is influenced by the animacy of the argument (e.g. Kuperberg et al. 2003; Kim and Osterhout 2005; see also Lamers and de Hoop 2005; Lamers 2007), as discussed, for example, in Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky (2008a). Rather, the crucial claim here is that there is no evidence to date that the inanimacy of an initial argument leads the processing system to adopt an Undergoer reading before the next constituent is encountered.

  7. 7.

    The notion that a more complex structural option can be supported by relational properties of the NPs in stage 2 of comprehension is supported by findings from Japanese (Miyamoto 2002). Miyamoto’s results indicate that a complex (biclausal) structure may be preferred when two arguments are highly similar to one another in terms of the features required for the assignment of [±dep], hence rendering argument hierarchisation too difficult within the same local domain (for discussion, see Bornkessel-Schlesewsky and Schlesewsky 2009a).

References

  • Bader, M., and M. Meng. 1999. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28: 121–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisang, W. 2008. Precategoriality and syntax-based parts of speech: The case of Late Archaic Chinese. Studies in Language 32: 568–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I. 2002. The argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation. Leipzig: MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2006. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113: 787–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., B. McElree, M. Schlesewsky, and A.D. Friederici. 2004. Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language 51: 495–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel, I., S. Zysset, A.D. Friederici, D.Y. von Cramon, and M. Schlesewsky. 2005. Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage 26: 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2007. The wolf in sheep’s clothing: Against a new judgement-driven imperialism. Theoretical Linguistics 33: 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2008a. An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 59: 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2008b. Unmarked transitivity: A processing constraint on linking. In Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface, ed. R.D. Van Valin Jr., 413–434. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2009a. Minimality as vacuous distinctness: Evidence from cross-linguistic sentence comprehension. Lingua 119(10): 1541–1559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2009b. The role of prominence information in the real time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 19–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2009c. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casado, P., M. Martín-Loeches, F. Muñoz, and C. Fernández-Frías. 2005. Are semantic and syntactic cues inducing the same processes in the identification of word order? Cognitive Brain Research 24: 526–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrie, B. 1989. Linguistic universals and language typology. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, M.W. 1994. On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, 245–266. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, M.W. 1995. Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Hoop, H., and M.J.A. Lamers. 2006. Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In Case, valency and transitivity, ed. L. Kulikov, A. Malchukov, and P. de Swart, 269–287. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vincenzi, M. 1991. Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Demiral, Ş.B. 2007. Incremental argument interpretation in Turkish sentence comprehension. PhD thesis., University of Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demiral, Ş.B., M. Schlesewsky, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition 106: 484–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernst, T., and C. Wang. 1995. Object preposing in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4: 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fanselow, G., R. Kliegl, and M. Schlesewsky. 1999. Processing difficulty and principles of grammar. In Constraints on language: Aging, grammar and memory, ed. S. Kemper and R. Kliegl, 171–202. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiebach, C.J., S.H. Vos, and A.D. Friederici. 2004. Neural correlates of syntactic ambiguity in sentence comprehension for low and high span readers. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16: 1562–1575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5: 519–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., and J.D. Fodor. 1978. The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6: 291–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., and K. Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14: 178–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, S., and M. Schlesewsky. 2001. The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport 12: 3391–3394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, T.C., A.D. Friederici, and H. Schriefers. 2000. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12: 556–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haupt, F.S., M. Schlesewsky, D. Roehm, A.D. Friederici, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 54–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemforth, B., L. Konieczny, and G. Strube. 1993. Incremental syntax processing and parsing strategies. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 539–545. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiao, F., and E. Gibson. 2003. Processing relative clauses in Chinese. Cognition 90: 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, H., and L.S. Feldt. 1970. Conditions under which the mean-square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 65: 1582–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäger, G. 2007. Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language 83: 74–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G. 1991. Design and analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, A., and L. Osterhout. 2005. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 52: 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, J. 1973. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2: 15–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuperberg, G.R., T. Sitnikova, D. Caplan, and P. Holcomb. 2003. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 17: 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., C. Van Petten, and R. Kluender. 2006. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994–2005). In Handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. M. Traxler and M.A. Gernsbacher, 659–724. London: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lamers, M.J.A. 2007. Verb type, animacy and definiteness in grammatical function disambiguation. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007, ed. B. Los and M. van Koppen, 125–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamers, M.J.A., and H. de Hoop. 2005. Animacy information in human sentence processing: An incremental optimization of interpretation approach. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3438: 158–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPolla, R. 1993. Arguments against “subject” and “object” as viable concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 63: 759–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C.N., and S.A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Subject and topic, ed. C.N. Li, 457–489. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, C.N., and S.A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley/Los Angeles: The University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, P., E. Bates, and B. MacWhinney. 1993. Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 32: 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C.-J.C., and T.G. Bever. 2006. Subject preference in the processing of relative clauses in Chinese. In Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics,ed. D. Baumer, D. Montero and M. Scanlon, 254–260. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, W.M., W. Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, W.M., W. Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54: 466–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W. 1973. Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244: 522–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mecklinger, A., H. Schriefers, K. Steinhauer, and A.D. Friederici. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 23: 477–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miao, X.-C., G. Chen, and H. Ying. 1986. Sentence comprehension in Chinese. In Studies in child language development, ed. M. Zhu. Shanghai: East China Normal University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, E.T. 2002. Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 307–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muralikrishnan, R., M. Schlesewsky, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. Universal and cross-linguistic influences on the processing of word order and animacy: Neurophysiological evidence from Tamil. 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield, R.C. 1971. The assessment and analysis the assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packard, J., Z. Ye, and X. Zhou. 2006. ERP evidence for verb selectional restrictions in Mandarin relative clauses. Paper presented at the Chicago Workshop on Chinese Linguistics, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, M., I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, W. Bisang, and M. Schlesewsky. 2008. The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 105: 112–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, M.J., and S. Garrod. 2004. Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Primus, B. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rietveld, A.C.M., and C. Gussenhoven. 1985. On the relation between pitch excursion size and prominence. Journal of Phonetics 13: 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roehm, D., M. Schlesewsky, I. Bornkessel, S. Frisch, and H. Haider. 2004. Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Neuroreport 15: 409–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers, C., B. Hemforth, and L. Konieczny. 2000. Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych-verbs and the resolution of subject-object ambiguity. In German sentence processing, ed. B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny, 95–135. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesewsky, M., and I. Bornkessel. 2004. On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension. Lingua 114: 1213–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesewsky, M., and I. Bornkessel. 2006. Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject-object ambiguities in language comprehension. Brain Research 1098: 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlesewsky, M., and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2009. When semantic P600s turn into N400s: On cross-linguistic differences in online verb-argument linking. In Papers from BrainTalk. The 1st Birgit Rausing Language Program Conference in Linguistic, ed. M. Horne, M. Lindgren, M. Roll, K. Alter and J. von Koss Torkildsen, 75–97. Lund: Lund University, Media Tryck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesewsky, M., G. Fanselow, R. Kliegl, and J. Krems. 2000. The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In German sentence processing, ed. B. Hemforth and L. Konieczny, 65–93. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schriefers, H., A.D. Friederici, and K. Kühn. 1995. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 499–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stabler, E. 1994. The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In Perspectives on sentence processing, ed. C. Clifton Jr., L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, 303–336. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, C.-F., and T. Givón. 1985. On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications. Language 61: 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • t’Hart, J., R. Collier, and A. Cohen. 1990. A perceptual study of intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Traxler, M., M.J. Pickering, and C. Clifton Jr. 1998. Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 558–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gompel, R.P.G., M.J. Pickering, and M.J. Traxler. 2001. Reanalysis in sentence processing: Evidence against current constraint-based and two-stage models. Journal of Memory and Language 45: 225–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gompel, R.P.G., M.J. Pickering, J. Pearson, and S.P. Liversedge. 2005. Evidence against competition during syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 52: 284–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin Jr., R.D. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin Jr., R.D., and R. LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Form, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosse, T., and G.A.M. Kempen. 2000. Syntactic assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75: 105–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., M. Schlesewsky, B. Bickel, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2009. Exploring the nature of the subject preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(7-8): 1180–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., M. Schlesewsky, B. Bickel, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2010. The influence of topicality on Chinese word order processing. 23rd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weckerly, J., and M. Kutas. 1999. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36: 559–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, S., M. Schlesewsky, M. Hirotani, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language 107: 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was performed while L.W. and I.B.-S. were at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany. The research reported here was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation (BO 2471/3–1) and was conducted in collaboration with the Clinic for Audiology and Phoniatry (Prof. Manfred Gross) of the Charité Berlin. We are grateful to Katja Bruening for invaluable assistance in data acquisition.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English and Linguistics, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany

    Luming Wang & Matthias Schlesewsky

  2. Institute for German Language and Literature I, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Markus Philipp

  3. Department of Germanic Linguistics, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany

    Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky

Authors
  1. Luming Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Schlesewsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Philipp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luming Wang .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Language & Communication, Vrij Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    Monique Lamers

  2. , Center for Language & Cognition, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Oude Kijk in 'tJatstraat 26, Groningen, 9712 EK, Netherlands

    Peter de Swart

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Philipp, M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2012). The Role of Animacy in Online Argument Interpretation in Mandarin Chinese. In: Lamers, M., de Swart, P. (eds) Case, Word Order and Prominence. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1463-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation