| Literature DB >> 31749722 |
Chuanli Zang1,2, Li Zhang1, Manman Zhang1, Xuejun Bai1, Guoli Yan1, Xiaoming Jiang3, Zhewen He4, Xiaolin Zhou4,5,6,7,8.
Abstract
An event-related potential (ERP) study demonstrated that construction-based pragmatic constraints in Chinese (e.g., lian…dou that constrains a low-likelihood event and is similar to even in English) can rapidly influence sentence comprehension and the mismatch of such constraints would lead to increased neural activity on the mismatching word. Here we examine to what extent readers' eye movements can instantly reveal the difficulties of mismatching constraints when participants read sentences with the structure lian + determiner phrase + object noun + subject noun + dou + verb phrase (VP) + final commenting clause. By embedding high-likelihood or neutral events in the construction, we created incongruent and underspecified sentences and compared such sentences with congruent ones describing events of low expectedness. Relative to congruent sentences, the VP region of incongruent sentences showed no significant differences on first-pass reading time measures, but the total fixation duration was reliably longer. Moreover, readers made more regressions from the VP and the sentence-final region to previous regions in the incongruent than the congruent condition. These findings suggest that the effect of pragmatic constraints is observable during naturalistic sentence reading, reflecting the activation of the construction-based pragmatic information for the late integration of linguistic and extra-linguistic information at sentential level.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese reading; eye movements; pragmatic constraint; pragmatic inference; sentence construction
Year: 2019 PMID: 31749722 PMCID: PMC6842951 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02211
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
An example of a set of sentences used in the experiment.
Eye movement measures for regions of interest, including adjective phrase (AP), dou + modal verb (MV), the main VP and commenting clause (CC) areas.
| FFD (ms) | 224(79) | 233(83) | 222(78) |
| GD (ms) | 288(151) | 337(183) | 279(146) |
| TFD (ms) | 558(339) | 635(388) | 643(423) |
| REG-IN (probability) | 0.57(0.50) | 0.70(0.46) | 0.63(0.48) |
| FFD (ms) | 252(88) | 244(82) | 249(88) |
| GD (ms) | 324(168) | 319(167) | 325(172) |
| TFD (ms) | 491(285) | 513(316) | 553(334) |
| REG-IN (probability) | 0.32(0.47) | 0.32(0.47) | 0.38(0.49) |
| REG-OUT (probability) | 0.25(0.43) | 0.24(0.43) | 0.29(0.45) |
| FFD (ms) | 255(95) | 256(96) | 256(94) |
| GD (ms) | 354(193) | 354(196) | 349(191) |
| TFD (ms) | 512(317) | 524(343) | 548(348) |
| REG-OUT (probability) | 0.78(0.42) | 0.81(0.39) | 0.84(0.37) |
| FFD (ms) | 284(123) | 285(127) | 291(126) |
| GD (ms) | 436(235) | 436(250) | 440(230) |
| TFD (ms) | 547(307) | 559(327) | 608(323) |
Fixed effect estimates for the eye movement measures across pre-critical regions including adjective phrase (AP) and modal verbs (MV).
| Congruent vs. Underspecified | 0.03 | 0.02 | 1.39 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.82 | 0.20 | |||
| Congruent vs. Incongruent | –0.01 | 0.01 | –0.68 | –0.03 | 0.02 | –1.49 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.28 | 0.11 | ||
| Congruent vs. Underspecified | –0.03 | 0.01 | − | –0.02 | 0.02 | –0.79 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 1.17 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.08 |
| Congruent vs. Incongruent | –0.01 | 0.01 | –0.83 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.10 | ||
Fixed effect estimates for the eye movement measures across critical and post-critical regions including main VP and commenting clause (CC).
| Congruent vs. Underspecified | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.24 |
| Congruent vs. Incongruent | 0.32 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.34 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.35 | 0.06 | 0.03 | ||
| Congruent vs. Underspecified | 0.37 | 0.16 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.15 | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.52 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.41 | |
| Congruent vs. Incongruent | 0.68 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.01 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.03 | ||