Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading.

In Mandarin Chinese, an important manifestation of respectfulness is the use of different forms of second-person pronouns. Jiang et al. (2013) examined the event-related potential (ERP) correlates of processing respectful and plain pronouns in Chinese. However, this study suffered from a few methodological limitations, which restricted both the reliability and functional interpretations of the study's findings. In the present study, we resolved these limitations and further investigated the neurocognitive mechanisms of processing the respectfulness of pronouns. In the present study, participants read 160 critical Chinese sentences with a second-person pronoun (ni or nin) that was either consistent or inconsistent with its prior sentence context in terms of respectfulness, as well as 240 filler sentences. Unlike the previous study that reported a 300-500 ms negative response (N400) for both types of inconsistent pronouns, a sustained positive response for Nin inconsistent and a sustained negativity response for Ni inconsistent in the late time window, the present study found an N400 response and late sustained negativity for Nin inconsistent, but not for Ni inconsistent. Furthermore, the cluster-based permutation showed a significant negative cluster for Nin inconsistent, extending from 432-622 ms. We related this negative response for Nin inconsistent with recent accounts of the N400 and late negativity. Finally, the absence of the ERP effect for the Ni condition was linked to the role of the pragmatic property of Ni.

Introduction

Politeness is a significant feature of linguistic communication. Typically, people adjust their language according to the social status of the addressees to show politeness. Many languages, such as Japanese, Korean, and Spanish, use a very complex system of politeness reflected through language. One way to convey social status information during interpersonal communication is to use honorific forms [1].

Previous studies have investigated the underlying neural mechanism of verbal politeness expressed with honorific markers in Japanese and Korean [2-6]. For example, there are two honorific forms in Japanese: the exalted and humble verbs are used to represent respect for the person in the subject and object, respectively. In a recent study [6], Tokimoto et al. investigated the neural substrate of the processing of Japanese honorification by visually presenting appropriate and anomalous sentences containing the two types of verbs and analyzing the electroencephalogram (EEG) elicited by them. The results showed an N400 response for anomalous verbs compared with the appropriate verbs for the person in the subject and a frontocentral distributed N400 response and a P600 response for the anomalous verbs for the person in the object compared to the appropriate verbs. However, the politeness expressions differ in various languages. In Mandarin Chinese, an important manifestation of politeness is the use of different forms of singular second-person pronouns. However, the neural correlates associated with politeness processing in Mandarin Chinese are unclear.

In Mandarin Chinese, the status of the addressee can be reflected in the attitude of respectfulness showed by the second-person singular pronoun nin (“you [respectful]”) or ni (“you [plain]”). When a speaker of lower status talks to an addressee of higher status, they are expected to use the respectful form nin to show respect toward the addressee. Meanwhile, a speaker of higher status talking to an addressee of lower status is expected to use the less respectful form ni to show social dominance or implement a command. For example, a sentence like “The boy said to his grandfather: ‘I am very grateful for your care.’” is accurate at the semantic and syntactic levels. However, this is a violation of politeness. How is this violation detected by the brain? Does it differ from semantic and general world-knowledge violations? Thus, the present study aims to investigate the neural basis of respectfulness processing in Mandarin Chinese.

Only one study conducted by Jiang et al. [7] has examined the event-related potential (ERP) correlates of the processing of respectful and plain forms of second-person pronouns in Chinese. In their study, Jiang et al. found that with respect to the use of the pronoun nin[respectful], the status inconsistent condition (e.g., Professor Zhang said to student Lin: “your[respectful] …”) elicited anterior negativity at 300–500 ms and a late sustained positivity at 800–1600 ms window relative to the status consistent condition (e.g., Student Lin said to professor Zhang: “your[respectful] …”). In contrast, when compared to the ni[plain] status consistent condition (e.g., Professor Zhang said to student Lin: “your[plain]…”), the status inconsistent condition (e.g., Student Lin said to professor Zhang: “your[plain] …”) elicited broad negativity at 300–500 ms and a late sustained negativity effect in the 500–1600 ms window. The authors claimed that the N400 effect reflects the process of integrating semantic information into the context, with the late positivity expressing a non-literal (sarcastic) interpretation of the anomalous nin[respectful], and the late negativity reflecting revisions for the anomalous ni[plain]. However, there are a few methodological limitations in their study, which may restrict the theoretical implications of the ERP correlates observed by them.

Critique of Jiang et al.’s study

First, the necessary fillers are lacking, and all anomalies occur on the pronouns. In Jiang et al.’s study [7], all fillers are of the same structure: each experimental list has 270 critical sentences with 45 for each condition and 90 fillers of the same structure, including 45 each starting with first (wo-de, “my”) and third-person pronouns (ta-de, “his” or “her”), respectively. The fillers are all acceptable; thus, all unacceptable sentences occur in the critical sentence materials using the second-person pronouns. Furthermore, only critical sentences starting with position names allow readers to anticipate the pronoun from the presence of the speaker. In this way, participants understand the purpose of the study and form specific response strategies. Second, the experimental materials used by these authors include some inappropriate possessum objects in the epoch analyses. For example, the use of the word “future” in the sentence, “The grandson said to the grandfather: ‘I am worried about your future.’” which a junior would not usually say to an old person. Contrastingly, elders often say “future” to the junior; thus, this situation cannot be balanced among the four conditions. According to previous studies [8-10], compared to high expectation words, low expectation words induced more negative ERP responses. Consequently, the ERP response observed at critical target words is confounded by the effect of different possessum-object appropriateness across conditions. Third, the potential baseline problem (spillover effect) needs to be addressed: the effects elicited by the prior word, having a sustained time course into the post-target onset latency ranges [11]. In Jiang et al. [7] ‘s study, although the word before the critical word was the same across conditions, the potential baseline difference was likely due to the entire initial context, and the context among different conditions was unbalanced. This difference can spill over to the critical region. Thus, the N400 effect could be due to the baseline difference since they did not examine whether there were baseline differences.

Rationale and results expectation of this study

In the present study, first, we used various fillers, including semantic and syntax anomalies, and ensured that items with and without violations were equal in number. Second, we modified the critical sentences in the study by Jiang et al. [7]. A half-sentence (only including the interlocutors and the possessum-object; the second person pronoun is consistent with the social status relation of the interlocutors. For example, Professor Zhang said to Student Lin: “your[plain] article…”) appropriateness rating test was conducted before the ERP experiment. We removed sentences with possessum-objects with a below-average score. Furthermore, only the critical word “your” was included in the epoch in the ERP analysis in the present study. Third, to determine whether contextual differences upstream of the critical word infect the target word’s ERPs, we examined the ERP response of pre-target words (time lock to the first word) using the blank interval before the presentation of the first word as a baseline (see Methods for more details).

Among the growing number of linguistically relevant ERP components, three seem to be most frequently reported in pragmatic studies: the N400, the late positivity component, and the late negative component. As mentioned above, the N400 is a well-established ERP component that is generally linked to context-based upcoming word expectations [12]. The processing of pragmatic inference also influences late ERP components. The late positivity component (LPC/P600) has been reported in studies on irony [13,14]. This component has been related to reflecting the truly pragmatic interpretive processes needed to derive the speaker’s intention. However, some studies have reported that the late positive ERP response is task-relevant [15,16]. Schacht et al. [16] investigated whether the P600 component to the syntactic violation would be affected by changing the task from correctness judgment to probe verification task. The results showed that P600 to syntactic violation was absent when using a probe verification task; instead, late frontal negativity was elicited. This indicates that the late positive activity reflects error monitoring, at least to some extent, influenced by participants’ processing strategies. The late negative component or sustained frontal negativity could also be observed in unexpected words that create an extralinguistic meaning [17,18] or a difficulty in understanding [19]. For example, Bambini et al. [17] investigated the neural basis of metaphor processing in a literary context. Their results showed that the critical word in the metaphorical condition elicited a larger N400, followed by sustained frontal negativity compared to the word in literal expressions. Further analysis using linear mixed models—which can take both by-item and by-participant random variation into account—showed that the late negativity effect is modulated by familiarity, with a more negative response for fewer familiar metaphors. Late negativity has been interpreted as a reflecting mechanism related to the drawing of an array of weak implicatures.

By using various fillers and a novel set of critical sentences as well as checking potential baseline problems, we set out to resolve the limitations of Jiang et al’s study and further investigate the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying the respectfulness processing of pronouns during language comprehension. In Jiang et al.’s study [7], they observed a negative response in the time window of 300 to 500 ms (N400) for both types of inconsistent pronouns, even a stronger and broader distribution of the N400 effect for ni[plain]. This result is opposite to our experience since ni[plain] can be used in scenarios where there is a close relationship between a speaker of a lower status and an addressee of higher status (e.g., between a daughter and her mother). However, nin[respectful] is typically used by people more carefully than the previously mentioned application. Therefore, we hypothesized that when a speaker of a higher social status (e.g., mother) used the respectful form “nin[respectful]” to an addressee of a lower social status (e.g., daughter), it would induce difficulty in understanding. In the current study, we expected to observe the N400 effect and perhaps a late negative activity for the Nin inconsistent condition, but not for Ni inconsistent condition. As mentioned above, late positivity is task-dependent, which may reflect strategy processing. In Jiang et al.’s study [7], every trial is followed by a comprehension question, and all anomalies occur on the second person pronoun. Under such circumstances, participants may adopt a specific strategy (e.g., error monitoring or guessing what question would be asked), which can increase the effects on the late component. In the present study, only 25% of the trials were randomly selected following a comprehension question task to ensure that participants read the sentences attentively, and the experimental environment was enriched to minimize the strategy processing. Therefore, we did not anticipate the presence of late positivity for any condition.

Method

Participants

A total of 43 undergraduate and graduate students provided informed written consent to participate in the experiment. All participants were native Mandarin speakers who were born and raised in Beijing, with no experience of living elsewhere for more than three months. They reported no reading disabilities or known neurological disorders and were all right-handed with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Data from 11 participants were discarded due to excessive artifacts in the ERP data. The remaining 32 were entered into the analyses (age range, 19–26 years; mean, 21.8 ± 2.53 years; 16 women). The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Peking University. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Design and materials

We used a full factorial design that crossed two within-subject factors: consistency between the status of the interlocutor and the form of the second person pronoun (consistent or inconsistent) and pronoun type (Nin or Ni), resulting in four types of sentences (Table 1). The critical word was the different form of the second-person pronoun (nin, ni). There is a high-frequency usage for both nin (515 per million) and ni (39629 per million) [20].

Table 1

Design and stimulus examples for all four critical conditions are given in Chinese, with English glosses and translations.

Sentence type	Example
Nin Consistent	林同学/对/张教授/说: “/您的/论文/我/已经/收到了。”/
	Gloss: Student Lin/ to/ Professor Zhang/ said: “/ nin-de, ‘your [respectful]’/ article/ I/ have received.”
	Translation: Student Lin said to Professor Zhang that I have received your article.
Nin Inconsistent	张教授/对/林同学/说: “/您的/论文/我/已经/收到了。”
	Gloss: Professor Zhang/ to/ Student Lin / said: “/ nin-de, ‘your [respectful]’/ article/ I/ have received.”
	Translation: Professor Zhang said to Student Lin that I have received your article.
Ni Consistent	张教授/对/林同学/说: “/你的/论文/我/已经/收到了。”
	Gloss: Professor Zhang / to/ Student Lin / said: “/ ni-de, ‘your [plain]’/ article/ I/ have received.”
	Translation: Professor Zhang said to Student Lin that I have received your article.
Ni Inconsistent	林同学/对/张教授/说: “/你的/论文/我/已经/收到了。”
	Gloss: Student Lin / to/ Professor Zhang / said: “/ ni-de, ‘your [plain]’/ article/ I/ have received.”
	Translation: Student Lin said to Professor Zhang that I have received your article.

The critical words were underlined.

Critical materials comprised 160 sets of sentences containing direct speech. The critical materials were assigned to four lists using a Latin square procedure. In each list, 160 critical items (40 for each type of sentence) were pseudo-randomly mixed with 240 filler sentences. Of the filler items, 80 had almost the same sentence structure as critical items. However, the direct speech began with a first- (wo-de, "my") or third-person possessive pronoun (ta-de, "his" or "her") to prevent participants from predicting the appearance of a second-person pronoun based on their reading of the sentence context before the direct speech. The remaining 160 filler sentences had other sentence constructions (none containing direct speech) and consisted of 80 correct and incorrect sentences each. In half of these incorrect filler items, the subject or object noun phrase contained syntactic and semantic incoherence caused by the insertion of a degree adverb immediately before the subject or object noun. The other half contained a semantic incoherence that occurred either between an adjective and a noun or between the main verb and its object. For the 80 correct filler sentences, half of them had the same sentence structure as those containing semantic incoherence and/or syntactic incoherence sentences. The other half included an active marker ba or passive marker bei (examples of filler sentences can be found in Supplementary S1). While in Jiang et al. [7] each problematic sentence contained an anomaly on the second-person pronoun, in the current study, the problematic sentences contained various anomalies (syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic).

Procedure

Stimuli were presented and the responses were recorded using Presentation software (http://nbs.neuro-bs.com/). Participants were seated in a dimly lit and sound-attenuated room. Each participant was instructed to ensure minimal movement of the head or body and to keep their eyes fixated on a cross at the center of the computer screen before the onset of each scenario. At the start of each trial, a white fixation cross appeared at the center of a black screen for 800 ms, followed by a 400 ms blank screen. Sentences were presented in white characters on a black background, segment-by-segment (word or short phrase) in a rapid sequence in the center of the screen. The critical sentences consisted of a series of nine frames, with four segments each for the conversational context and utterance; the fillers included seven to nine frames. Each segment was presented for 400 ms, followed by a blank screen for 400 ms, and then another segment, until the final segment of the sentence. The screen was then left blank for 1300 ms, following which a verification sentence (either a paraphrase of a sentence within the discourse or a paraphrase sentence of information conflict with the critical sentence) was presented 25% of the time. Participants were asked to decide whether the verification sentence correctly expressed the content of the preceding discourse by using one of the two response buttons (the left and right buttons on the computer mouse) under the left and right thumbs. The number of consistent and inconsistent probes was equal for each condition. Each probe sentence remained on the screen until the participant made a “yes” or “no” response or for a maximum of 3000 ms. The next trial began after a 1000 ms blank interval.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental lists. The 400 sentences in each list were divided into five blocks of 80 sentences. For each list, trials were pseudo-randomized so that no more than three consecutive sentences contained the same condition, and at least one verification sentence appeared within five consecutive trials. At the beginning of each block, at least four fillers were presented in succession to warm up the participants. Before the experimental blocks, participants received a practice block of 24 trials, which had the same composition as the critical stimuli. The experimental session lasted for around two hours.

EEG recordings

The EEGs were recorded from 64 Ag/AgCl electrodes in a secured elastic cap (EASYCAP GmbH, Germany). The EEGs were referenced online to the nose tip. The vertical electrooculogram was monitored from an electrode located above the right eye, and a horizontal electrooculogram was placed at the outer canthus of the right eye. The electrode impedances were kept below 5 kΩ. EEG signals were sampled at 500 Hz with a band-pass filtered 0.016–100 Hz online and were filtered again offline with a band-pass of 0.1–40 Hz for data analysis.

EEG data preprocessing

Although the word before the critical word was the same across the four conditions, the context (relative social status of interlocutors was different among the four conditions) between consistent and inconsistent conditions could involve the processing of unbalanced reasoning. To rule out this potential impact of the pre-stimulus difference on the ERP effect for the critical word, we checked baseline differences by using blank intervals before the presentation of the first word. A long epoch was computed from 200 ms before the onset of the first word to 3200 ms after the onset of the first word. Then the time window of 3000–3200 ms was the 200-ms before presenting the critical word. Statistical analyses were conducted on the average amplitude during 3000–3200 ms. The results showed that there was no significant main effect or interaction involving factors of pronoun type or pronoun consistency (ps > 0.1; see Table 2). Thus, potential baseline differences among the four conditions could be excluded, and baseline correction was conducted in the following analyses. The raw EEG data were first corrected for eye-blink artifacts using the ocular artifact correction algorithm implemented in the BrainVision Analyzer 2.2 software package. The EEG data were then filtered with a band-pass of 0.1–40 Hz. Epochs were extracted from 200 ms before to 1000 ms after the onset of the critical words. Epochs contaminated by a lateral eye movement, voltage drift, or other artifacts were identified with semiautomatic artifact rejection (automatic criterion: amplitudes greater than ± 65 μV, followed by a manual check). The minimal number of trials for each condition was set at 30, and 11 participants were excluded after the artifact rejection. The overall rejection rate for participants included in the final analysis was 9.39%, and a 2 (consistency: consistent vs. inconsistent) ×2 (pronoun type: nin vs. ni) analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the rejection rate was equal for all four conditions (Nin-de consistent, 10.08%; Nin-de inconsistent, 7.58%; Ni-de consistent, 10.23%; Ni-de inconsistent, 9.06%).

Table 2

The overall analyses of variance for three time windows (in milliseconds) (N = 32).

Source	df	300–500 ms			500–800 ms			Baseline 3000–3200
		F	p	MSE	F	p	MSE	F	p	MSE
Con	1, 31	3.01	0.093	19.45	9.47	0.004	18.53	2.01	0.17	83.23
Pro	1, 31	8.63	0.006	28.20	2.28	0.14	31.58	< 1
Con × region	4, 124	< 1			1.37	0.25	1.16	1.04	0.38	6.23
Con × hem	2, 62	1.08	0.35	2.48	2.87	0.07	1.47	1.00	0.36	10.43
Con × region × hem	8, 248	< 1			1.16	0.33	0.43	< 1
Pro × region	4, 124	4.32	0.032	2.75	1.81	0.18	1.86	< 1
Pro × hem	2, 62	11.52	0.002	1.86	2.20	0.12	1.71	1.52	0.23	6.90
Pro × region × hem	8, 248	1.65	0.15	0.34	1.07	0.39	0.45	< 1
Con × Pro	1, 31	6.09	0.019	22.65	1.92	0.18	23.84	< 1
Con × Pro × region	4, 124	3.82	0.05	3.46	1.60	0.18	2.51	1.02	0.38	5.09
Con × Pro × hem	2, 62	< 1			< 1			< 1
Con × Pro × region × hem	8, 248	1.06	0.39	0.39	< 1			< 1

Con: Consistency, Pro: Pronoun type, hem: Hemisphere.

Statistical analysis

We analyzed the EEG data in two ways. We first conducted repeated-measures ANOVAs on the time window of N400 (300–500 ms) and P600 (500–800 ms), as Jiang et al. [7] did intended for a direct comparison of results. A 2 (pronoun type) × 2 (pronoun consistency) × 3 (hemisphere) × 5 (region) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the average amplitude of the selected time windows. The chosen topographical factors were the same as in Jiang et al. [7] including a hemisphere with three levels (left, medial, and right) and regions with five levels (frontal, frontocentral, central, centroparietal, and parietal). The region and the hemisphere were crossed, resulting in 15 regions of interest (ROIs), each having three representative electrodes: left frontal (F3, F5, F7), left frontocentral (FC3, FC5, FT7), left central (C3, C5, T7), left centroparietal (CP3, CP5, TP7), left parietal (P3, P5, P7), medial frontal (F1, FZ, F2), medial frontocentral (FC1, FCZ, FC2), medial central (C1, CZ, C2), medial centroparietal (CP1, CPZ, CP2), medial parietal (P1, PZ, P2), right frontal (F4, F6, F8), right frontocentral (FC4, FC6, FT8), right central (C4, C6, T8), right centroparietal (CP4, CP6, TP8), and right parietal (P4, P6, P8). Comparisons were planned for each ROI if the interactions were significant. The Greenhouse-Geisser correction was applied for evaluating the effects with more than one degree of freedom in the numerator. The Bonferroni correction was used for the planned comparisons.

In the second analysis, we used a data-driven approach: cluster-based permutation tests implemented in the Fieldtrip software package [21], and custom-built scripts adopted from Wang and Zhang [22]. This non-parametric test optimally handles the multiple comparisons problem and effectively controls for type I error. With ERP amplitude as the dependent factor, the cluster-based permutation test was performed on each electrode and time point. All t-values neighboring in space and time that cross a predefined threshold (p < 0.05) were summed up and grouped as a cluster. For each cluster, the number of significant points was used as the cluster-level test statistic. Next, a null distribution of cluster-level test statistics was created using the Monte Carlo method with 1000 random draws. Finally, the observed cluster-level statistics were compared against the null distribution to assess the significance. This method allowed for the identification of small sustained and large transient effects that might remain undetected by subjectively choosing the time window and electrodes.

To examine the interaction between pronoun type and consistency, cluster-based permutation tests were performed to compare the amplitudes of the two difference-difference waves (Nin inconsistent minus Nin consistent vs. Ni inconsistent minus Ni consistent), with significant differences indicating the presence of a two-way interaction. In case this interaction reached significance, we further examined the simple effects of pronoun consistency at the different levels of pronoun types (“Nin inconsistent vs. Nin consistent” and “Ni inconsistent vs. Ni consistent”). The grand average ERP waveforms and topographic distributions are shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

ERPs time locked to the onset of the critical words for all 32 participants.

(a) Grand average ERPs for all four critical conditions at nine scalp sites; epoch from 200 ms before to 1000 ms after the onset of the critical words. In this figure, the onset of the critical words is at 0 ms, negativity is plotted upwards, and waveforms are filtered (15 Hz low pass, 24 dB/oct). (b) The scalp topographies of the two difference waves in the time windows of N400 and P600.

Results

Behavioral results

Average accuracy was computed as the percentage of correct responses. The overall average accuracy was 94.38%, suggesting that participants read the sentences attentively. The average accuracy was 94.06 ± 7.98% for Nin consistent, 92.19 ± 6.59% for Nin inconsistent, 95.00 ± 6.22% for Ni consistent, and 95.31 ± 6.21% for Ni inconsistent. An ANOVA with consistency and pronoun type as within-subjects factors revealed a marginally significant main effect of pronoun type (F (1,31) = 4.12, p = 0.05, MSE = 32.03), and the percentage of correct responses for Nin was lower than that for Ni (93.13% vs. 95.16%). Neither was the main effect of consistency significant (F(1,31) < 1), nor did it show an interaction between the two factors (F (1,31) < 1). These results indicate that comprehension of sentences with Nin is more difficult than that of Ni.

Results of the ANOVA analysis

The 300 to 500 ms time window

Repeated-measures ANOVA with pronoun type, consistency, hemisphere, and region as within-subject factors revealed a significant effect of the pronoun type (F (1,31) = 8.62, p = 0.006, MSE = 28.19, η = 0.22). A two-way interaction between the pronoun type and consistency (F (1,31) = 6.09, p = 0.019, MSE = 22.65, η = 0.16) indicated that the consistency effect differed between pronoun types. Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons showed that the Nin inconsistent condition (mean = 0.16 μV) elicited a significant larger N400 than the Nin consistent condition (mean = 1.05 μV, p = 0.004). However, there was no significant difference between the Ni consistent (mean = –0.20 μV) and Ni inconsistent condition (mean = -0.01 μV, p > 0.1). A three-way interaction of pronoun type, consistency, and region was significant (F (4,124) = 1.09, p = 0.049, MSE = 3.46, η = 0.11). Pairwise comparisons showed that the interactions between pronoun type and consistency were significant in all five regions (ps < 0.05). Nin inconsistent elicited a larger N400 response than Nin consistent condition in all five regions, and there was no significant difference between the Ni consistent and Ni inconsistent condition.

The 500 to 800 ms time window

The overall ANOVA revealed a significant effect of consistency (F (1,31) = 9.47, p = 0.004, MSE = 18.52, η = 0.23). The amplitude was significantly more negative in the inconsistent (mean = -0.40 μV) than in the consistent conditions (mean = 0.21 μV). Although the interaction between the pronoun type and consistency was not significant (F (1,31) = 1.92, p = 0.18, MSE = 23.84), the amplitude difference between Nin inconsistent and Nin consistent (-0.36 vs. 0.56μV) was numerically larger than that between Ni inconsistent and Ni consistent (-0.43 vs. -0.14μV). To further examine these differences, Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons were performed, and the result showed that the difference between Nin inconsistent and consistent was significant (p = 0.04); conversely, the difference between Ni inconsistent and consistent was not significant(p > 0.1).

Results of the cluster-based permutation tests

The cluster-based permutation tests revealed a significant interaction between the pronoun type and consistency, extending from 432 to 516 ms (cluster statistic = 2097.3, p = 0.038). Further simple analyses were conducted to compare Nin inconsistent and Nin consistent. A significant negative cluster was detected. F4, F5, FC1, FC2, FC3, FC4, FC5, FC6, FT7, FT8, C1, C2, C3, Cz, C4, C5, C6, T7, T8, CP1, CP2, CP3, CPz, CP4, CP5, CP6, TP7, TP9, P1, P2, P3, Pz, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, PO3, PO4, POz, PO7, PO8, O1, Oz, and O2 were grouped as a significant negativity cluster for Nin inconsistent compared to Nin consistent condition with the time interval ranging from 432 to 622 ms (cluster statistic = 5442.3, p = 0.004, the significant electrodes have been highlighted in Fig 2). However, no significant cluster was detected in the comparison between Ni inconsistent and Ni consistent (ps > 0.1).

Fig 2

The results of the cluster-based permutation tests to compare the consistency effect of different pronoun types.

(a) Difference waves and topography for Nin inconsistent minus Nin consistent. The asterisks in the topography indicate the electrodes that the difference between the two conditions reaches significance. (b) Difference waves and topography for Ni inconsistent minus Ni consistent.

Discussion

To address the limitations of the previous study [7], we revisited the processing of different forms of second-person singular pronouns to further elucidate the neural basis of respectfulness processing in Mandarin Chinese. Traditional ANOVA analysis and cluster-based permutation tests were conducted on the data, and both analyses revealed similar ERP patterns. The purpose of the ANOVA analysis was to compare the results of the present study with those of Jiang et al.’s study [7]. Our ANOVA results showed a broadly distributed N400 and a late negativity response for the Nin inconsistent condition, but not for the Ni inconsistent condition. Unlike the findings of Jiang et al., which reported the N400 effect for both Nin and Ni inconsistent conditions, our findings demonstrated early distinct neural activities for these conditions during Chinese sentence comprehension. Furthermore, Jiang et al. [7] observed a sustained negative activity for the Ni inconsistent and sustained positive activity for the Nin inconsistent in the late time window, which reflects participants’ strategies for resolving the inconsistency, varying according to different types of pronouns. In this study, we only observed late negativity for Nin inconsistent, not for Ni inconsistent. Consistent with our expectations, these results suggest that participants’ strategies can be minimized by using various fillers and an implicit comprehension task. Notably, the cluster-based permutation tests showed similar results: a cluster of significant negativity for the Nin inconsistent compared to the Nin consistent condition was detected, extending from approximately 432 to 622 ms over the central and posterior regions. Additionally, no significant cluster was found between the Ni consistent and inconsistent conditions.

Compared with the conventional ANOVA analysis, the cluster-based permutation tests can provide more reliable ERP results because they considered all time points and electrodes. Thus, we believe that the N400 component and the late negative component reported in the ANOVA analysis should belong to one ERP component. In the present study and the study of Jiang et al. [7], there are insufficient reasons to subjectively divide the time window of 300–800 ms into two time windows of 300–500 ms and 500–800 ms because the pattern of ERP waveforms for different conditions is not clear cut. As shown in results from cluster-based permutation tests, Nin inconsistent elicited a larger negative activity compared to Nin consistent, whereas there was no significant difference between Ni inconsistent and consistent. The more negative cluster for Nin inconsistent compared to Nin consistent can be labeled as N400 because its topographical distribution was the same as the typical N400 response, despite the identified time window of N400 (432–622 ms) was a little later than that identified in previous studies (starting at ~300 ms). The ERPs result for Nin inconsistent is partly consistent with that for the different forms of verbs in Japanese [6]. Both Nin inconsistent condition in this study and inappropriate verbs in Japanese in the previous study [6] elicited larger N400 responses. This consistency suggests that the processing of honorific expressions is, partly, cross-linguistically common.

In a review on the context of language comprehension, Schumacher [12] proposed that the N400 seems to intrinsically be an index of a mismatch between the upcoming word and the prediction based on the context (the context including mutual knowledge, genre-specific properties, the identities of the speaker and the addressee, and the truth value of the sentence) [12,23–27, for a review see 12]. For example, the mismatch between the semantic meaning of the upcoming word and one’s world knowledge (e.g., “the Dutch trains are white”, actually, the trains in Dutch are yellow) elicited a larger N400 response than the match one (e.g., “the Dutch trains are yellow”) [26]. In the current study, the critical words in the Nin inconsistent condition constituted a violation of global social knowledge: a speaker of lower social status was expected to use the respectful form nin[respectful] with a listener of higher social status. Thus, the respectful form of the second-person pronoun “Nin” used by a speaker of higher social status for a listener of lower social status in the inconsistent condition was unexpected, resulting in a more pronounced N400 in the Nin inconsistent than in the consistent condition. Distinguished from the classic N400 response to semantic violation, the late latency of the current N400 response may reveal that the processing of the relative social status of the speaker and the addressee requires more inference, resulting in a delay in the processing of the second person pronoun.

The sustained late negativity that is related to inference intention found in the present study has been frequently reported in previous studies. This implies a second-pass process and computationally costly pragmatic inference [18,19,28-31]. A speaker of higher status used the respectful form of the second-person pronoun toward an addressee of lower status, which could have some specific purposes. For example, to ridicule the addressee, make jokes, or express a distant relationship with the addressee. An investigation from Mao [32] showed that, in addition to using the respectful form of the second person pronoun “Nin” to show respect, people use “Nin” to express ridicule (13%), make jokes (40%), or for serving other purposes (15%). In the present study, building a coherent interpretation requires one to construct a new meaning that goes beyond the lexical meaning of upcoming words. Therefore, the additional information that “the respectful form of the second-person pronoun can be used to emphasize ironic intention or make jokes” has been searched. This extra effort in elaborating the speaker’s intention to yield contextually appropriate meaning could cause a larger negative activity. This explanation is consistent with that in Bambini et al.’s study [17]. They reported a similar ERP pattern for literary metaphors (an N400 followed by sustained negativity) to the results of ANOVA in the present study. They proposed that the negative activity for literary metaphors reflected an enduring effort in inferring the figurative meaning.

Finally, although the cluster-based permutation tests revealed that the difference between Nin inconsistent and consistent conditions extended from approximately 432 to 622 ms over the central and posterior regions, as shown by the waveforms and topographic distributions in Figs 1 and 2, it seems that this negative activity starts from an earlier time point and is sustained at a very late time point. Therefore, the N400 effect may be a Nref-like effect. The Nref effect is a sustained negative shift that has been reported in cases in which two antecedents are equally plausible referents for an anaphor [33,34], or when the definitional gender of the pronoun is inconsistent with the stereotypical gender of the antecedent [35,36], such as “herself” in the sentence “the architect saw herself in the mirror,” relative to the “himself” [36]. In this study, readers must link the form of the second-person pronoun to the social status of the speaker in the prior context. The inconsistency between the form of the second-person pronoun and the prior context caused difficulty in the anaphora. Consistent with previous studies [36], this negative activity could be an index of more effort spent in bounding the pronoun “nin” to the inconsistent antecedent (a speaker of lower social status).

Meanwhile, the absence of an N400 effect and the late negativity for the Ni inconsistent condition could be due to the pragmatic property of ni[plain]. Ni[plain] can be used in scenarios where there is a close relationship between a speaker of a lower status and an addressee of a higher status (e.g., between a daughter and her mother) [29,37,38]. Liang [38] studied the basic principles that govern the usage of ni[plain] and nin[respectful] and reported the use of nin[respectful] to show emotions other than respect, such as indignation and sarcasm. She also found people are more willing to address others with ni[plain] to show intimacy and familiarity. Therefore, ni[plain] violation may be more acceptable and would not cause difficulty in semantic meaning integration. To examine this possibility, we asked 20 more participants (age range, 18–31 years; mean, 22.5 ± 4.75 years; 10 women) to rate the acceptability of the sentence segment from the critical materials (e.g., Professor Zhang said to student Lin: “your…”) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 representing totally unacceptable and 5 representing totally acceptable). The results of paired sample t test showed that the rate score difference between Ni consistent and inconsistent (4.18 vs. 3.55) was significantly smaller than the difference between Nin consistent and inconsistent conditions (4.25 vs. 2.64, p < 0.001), indicating that readers perceived the Ni violation as more acceptable than the Nin violation.

The presence of an N400 for Ni inconsistent in Jiang et al. [7] might be due to methodological limitations, such as the baseline problem. As noted earlier, the context in that study was unbalanced across conditions. Moreover, Jiang et al. [7] reported a P200 effect: compared to ni[plain], an increased P200 response was elicited by nin[respectful]. They attributed this difference to the more complex orthography of nin[respectful], but this effect may also result from the baseline spillover effect, which could further balance out the nin[respectful] effect, or exaggerate the ni[plainl] effect in the later time range. Additionally, Jiang et al. [7] found a sustained positivity in the 800–1600 ms time window to the Nin inconsistent condition. They interpreted the late positivity as being associated with a non-literal (sarcastic) interpretation of the anomalous nin[respectful]. As noted in the introduction, the appearance of late positivity is influenced by the experimental task and environment [14,15,33]. Furthermore, according to the extended argument dependency model, a late positivity component could be elicited because of the well-formedness computation depending on the overall experimental task and environment [33]. Related to these findings, we questioned the explanation by Jiang et al. [7] (that the late positivity reflects a non-literal interpretation). Possibly, their late positivity for anomalous nin[respectful] could simply reflect an evaluation of the well-formedness of sentences that were specific to their experimental environment.

Conclusions

In summary, we failed to replicate the main results of Jiang et al. [7]. Thus, our findings highlight the importance of various experimental materials in language studies. Future research should design and control experimental materials elaborately, such as the degree of plausibility of sentences, otherwise, the behavior patterns and neural activities underlying language comprehension are easily distorted. The current findings suggest that the Nin inconsistent condition causes difficulty in integrating the critical word with the prior context, reflected by an N400 response, whereas no neural difference is found between the Ni consistent and inconsistent conditions due to people being more likely to use the plain form ni[plain]. Therefore, we believe that the differential neurocognitive processes underlying the representation of the appropriate form of the second-person pronoun according to the rank relationship of the interlocutors provide a novel insight into the linguistic processing of politeness.

Examples of filler sentences, and the number of sentences of each type.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

27 May 2021

PONE-D-21-12659

Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ji,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The Reviewers identified a number of points that should be clarified in your Manuscript. The literature is not properly covered and the implications of the present findings should be strengthened. Additional data could be added in an appendix. Finally, the statistical approach could be improved.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicola Molinaro, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 4 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study on pragmatic respectfulness effects on processing second person pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. The study seems appropriately motivated and described and well conducted. The results are fairly clear. I have some comments that the authors should consider when producing a new version of the paper:

· What are the (written and spoken) corpus frequencies of the two pronouns nin/ni? Can frequency effects explain the observed ERPs in the first time window (for inconsistent nin but not for inconsistent ni)?

· Please provide details about artifact rejection. How were artifacts identified? What counts as “excessive artifacts”?

· Please provide examples and a more detailed description of fillers. Please provide an analysis of ERP data for fillers (e.g., in appendix)

· Filtering (lines 202-203): be explicit about which filters were on-line (during recording) and which filters were applied off-line (during preprocessing)

· “Depending on the results of the baseline time window…”: this part was the least clear to me; please describe clearly how the baseline data were analysed and how results impacted the analysis of the main ERP comparisons

· On selecting windows for statistical analysis: I recommend using a clustering approach in the time/channel dimensions (e.g., Maris & Ostenveld 2007) to identify effects

· Some discussion about late negativities in ERP research is missing: several studies have reported such effects (e.g., Nref: Nieuwland & van Berkum 2008; SAN: Baggio et al. 2008 etc.), it would be important to discuss how the process of resolving respectfulness inconsistencies relates to other processes associated with similar ERP effects.

Reviewer #2: The study investigates the use of plain vs respectful second-person pronouns in Mandarin. The use of the pronoun is guided by politeness factors. It closely moves from the results of another work showing that the use of respectful-pro in an inconsistent context elicited an anterior negativity 300-500 and a sustained positivity 800-1600. the use of plain-pro in an inconsistent context instead elicited a broad negativity and a sustained negativity. Authors observe that the study has a few issues (lack of appropriate fillers and baseline problems), and want to assess the replicability of the findings. Differently from the study of Jiang et al 2013 authors report an asymmetry between pronoun types during the N400 time window: inconsistent (compared to consistent) use of the respectful-pro elicited a larger N400, which was not observed with plain-pro.

The study may be of interest, for PLOS readership, but its scope is rather narrow, considering that it closely moves from a previous work. Still, I think it has same merits in these times of replication crisis, but before being apt for publication I thinks authors should revise it, focusing on the writing quality and on the interpretation of the results, which may be more nuanced in several sections of the text. A few specific comments follow:

introduction

- perhaps the focus of the introduction could be more on the use of respectful forms of in chinese and on the reasons why it is an important topic. the analysis and critique of Jiang et al, should be a subsection of the introduction on its own. following the critique, authors should describe how "the present study" will overcome the previous study's limits and then clearly spell out the experimental predictions

method

- I cannot see anything wrong in the analysis of the ERP data. the only thing is that the details on the artifact rejection procedure should be moved in the ERP analysis section

- baseline correction is not explained clearly enough: it seems that instead of using 200 ms before pro, authors chose 200 ms before the onset of the whole sentence. if this is how it was done, it is fine for me, but it could be explained better.

discussion

- it is true that anterior negativities are quite often reported in the study of pragmatic phenomena. They are also found in literary metaphor comeprehension (Bambini, Canal, Resta & Grimaldi 2019 - Discourse processes), and when ambiguous anaphoric relations are computed (e.g., Nieuwland 2014, Neuropsychologia ; Canal, Garnham & Oakhill, 2015, Frontiers). In metaphor it has been interpreted as reflecting mechanisms related to the drawing of an array of weak implicatures, rather than one straightforward implicature (which is instead associated with larger P600/LPC). in anaphor procesing the Nref is associated with the search for additional information in the mental representation of the discourse.

These studies may help the authors in elaborating a little bit more on the functional meaning of their findings, which as it is now has very limited implications. Also discourse linking and update mechanisms proposed by Petra Schumacher may help in the interpretation of the N400 effect in the context of pronoun resolution (Schumacher, P. B. (2012). Context in neurolinguistics. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a Context?: Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 33–53).

There are many typos, and the writing quality should be improved

- to make data fully available they should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Paolo Canal

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Jul 2021

We thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions concerning revisions to the manuscript. The revised parts of the main text are highlighted in blue. We detailed our responses to the reviewers’ points below.

Reviewers' comments:

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting study on pragmatic respectfulness effects on processing second person pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. The study seems appropriately motivated and described and well conducted. The results are fairly clear. I have some comments that the authors should consider when producing a new version of the paper:

1. What are the (written and spoken) corpus frequencies of the two pronouns nin/ni? Can frequency effects explain the observed ERPs in the first time window (for inconsistent nin but not for inconsistent ni)?

Response: The present study reported a more negative response for Nin inconsistent than Nin consistent, but not for the comparison between Ni inconsistent and Ni consistent. These results can not be due to the frequency difference of the two pronouns. First, the usage frequency for nin is 515 per million and 39629 per million for ni (Cai and Brysbaert, 2010). Generally, words with a word frequency greater than 50 per million are considered high frequency words, so both critical words (ni and nin) are high frequency words (Wang and Zhang, 2021). Furthermore, we didn’t compare the pronoun Nin with Ni directly in the present study, but compared the effect for Nin consistency (the difference between Nin inconsistent and Nin consistent) with the effect for Ni consistency (the difference between Ni inconsistent and Ni consistent). Therefore, the frequency effects can not explain the observed ERPs in the present study.

We have added this information on page 9 (lines 170-171) as follows:

“ There is a high-frequency usage for both nin (515 per million) and ni (39629 per million) [20].”

2. Please provide details about artifact rejection. How were artifacts identified? What counts as “excessive artifacts”?

Response: The obvious artifacts (over 150 μV) were first deleted by visual inspection before the data analysis. After epoching, trials with a voltage, relative to the 200 ms baseline, exceeding ±65μV at any electrode were excluded through artifact rejection. Participants with less than 30 trials for each condition left were identified as participants with excessive artifacts and were excluded from further data analysis.

We have supplemented these details in the EEG data Preprocessing section on page 12, lines 237-244.

3. Please provide examples and a more detailed description of fillers. Please provide an analysis of ERP data for fillers (e.g., in appendix)

Response: We apologize for the unclear descriptions of fillers. We have added a table of example sentences of fillers in supplementary materials (see Table S1), and provided a more detailed description of fillers on page 10. line 186-189.

We didn’t conduct ERP analysis on the ERP data of fillers since the critical word in the fillers did not counterbalanced. Furthermore, the result of fillers won’t help for the explanation of the present results.

4. Filtering (lines 202-203): be explicit about which filters were on-line (during recording) and which filters were applied off-line (during preprocessing).

Response: We apologize for the unclear descriptions. We have added the information about filtering on page 11(lines 222-224) as follows:

“The EEG signals were sampled at 500 Hz with a band-pass filtered 0.016–100 Hz online and were filtered again offline with a band-pass of 0.1–40 Hz for data analysis. ”

5. “Depending on the results of the baseline time window…”: this part was the least clear to me; please describe clearly how the baseline data were analysed and how results impacted the analysis of the main ERP comparisons.

Response: We apologize for the unclear descriptions. In order to rule out the potential influence of prior context on the ERP effect for the critical word, we checked baseline differences by using the blank interval prior to the presentation of the first word as the baseline. A long epoch was conducted from 200 ms prior to the first word and 3200 ms before presenting the critical word, then the time window of 3000-3200 ms was the baseline for the critical word analysis (see figure in "response to reviewers" for illustration). Statistical analyses were conducted on the average amplitude during the 3000-3200ms time window. The result showed that there was no significant main effect or interaction involving factors of pronoun type and pronoun consistency. Thus, the potential baseline problem could be excluded and then baseline correction could be conducted in the following analyses. Otherwise, baseline correction would not be conducted and instead a high pass filtering would be applied as suggested by Widmann et al. (2014).

We have rewritten the description of baseline correction in the revised manuscript (page 12, lines 230-234).

6. On selecting windows for statistical analysis: I recommend using a clustering approach in the time/channel dimensions (e.g., Maris & Ostenveld 2007) to identify effects

Response: Thanks for your suggestions on the statistical methods. We have conducted the cluster-based permutation tests, and added the details of these tests and the results in the updated manuscript (pages 13-14, page 17).

7. Some discussion about late negativities in ERP research is missing: several studies have reported such effects (e.g., Nref: Nieuwland & van Berkum 2008; SAN: Baggio et al. 2008 etc.), it would be important to discuss how the process of resolving respectfulness inconsistencies relates to other processes associated with similar ERP effects.

Response: We have reorganized the Discussion section and incorporated related studies in the revision (pages 18-22).

Reviewer #2: The study investigates the use of plain vs respectful second-person pronouns in Mandarin. The use of the pronoun is guided by politeness factors. It closely moves from the results of another work showing that the use of respectful-pro in an inconsistent context elicited an anterior negativity 300-500 and a sustained positivity 800-1600. the use of plain-pro in an inconsistent context instead elicited a broad negativity and a sustained negativity. Authors observe that the study has a few issues (lack of appropriate fillers and baseline problems), and want to assess the replicability of the findings. Differently from the study of Jiang et al 2013 authors report an asymmetry between pronoun types during the N400 time window: inconsistent (compared to consistent) use of the respectful-pro elicited a larger N400, which was not observed with plain-pro.

The study may be of interest, for PLOS readership, but its scope is rather narrow, considering that it closely moves from a previous work. Still, I think it has same merits in these times of replication crisis, but before being apt for publication I thinks authors should revise it, focusing on the writing quality and on the interpretation of the results, which may be more nuanced in several sections of the text. A few specific comments follow:

introduction

1. perhaps the focus of the introduction could be more on the use of respectful forms of in chinese and on the reasons why it is an important topic. the analysis and critique of Jiang et al, should be a subsection of the introduction on its own. following the critique, authors should describe how "the present study" will overcome the previous study's limits and then clearly spell out the experimental predictions

Response: We have reorganized the introduction section in the updated manuscript.

method

2. I cannot see anything wrong in the analysis of the ERP data. the only thing is that the details on the artifact rejection procedure should be moved in the ERP analysis section

Response: We have moved the details on the artifact rejection to the section of EEG data preprocessing on page 12, lines 230-237.

3. baseline correction is not explained clearly enough: it seems that instead of using 200 ms before pro, authors chose 200 ms before the onset of the whole sentence. if this is how it was done, it is fine for me, but it could be explained better.

Response: We apologize for this unclear description. In the present study, we used the 200ms before the critical word as a baseline. In order to rule out the potential influence of prior context on the ERP effect for the critical word, we first checked baseline differences by using the blank interval prior to the presentation of the first word as the baseline. Then a long epoch was conducted from 200 ms prior to the first word and 3200 ms before presenting the critical word (time-locked to the first word), thus the time window of 3000-3200 ms was the baseline for the critical word analysis (see figure in "response to reviewers" for illustration). Statistical analyses were conducted on the average amplitude during the 3000-3200ms time window. The result showed that there was no significant main effect or interaction involving factors of pronoun type and pronoun consistency. Therefore, the potential baseline problem could be excluded, and it is safe to use the 200-ms before the critical word as a baseline, then baseline correction was conducted on the analysis of the epoch time locked to the critical word.

We have rewritten the description of baseline correction in the revised manuscript (page 12, lines 230-234).

discussion

4. it is true that anterior negativities are quite often reported in the study of pragmatic phenomena. They are also found in literary metaphor comeprehension (Bambini, Canal, Resta & Grimaldi 2019 - Discourse processes), and when ambiguous anaphoric relations are computed (e.g., Nieuwland 2014, Neuropsychologia ; Canal, Garnham & Oakhill, 2015, Frontiers). In metaphor it has been interpreted as reflecting mechanisms related to the drawing of an array of weak implicatures, rather than one straightforward implicature (which is instead associated with larger P600/LPC). in anaphor procesing the Nref is associated with the search for additional information in the mental representation of the discourse.

These studies may help the authors in elaborating a little bit more on the functional meaning of their findings, which as it is now has very limited implications. Also discourse linking and update mechanisms proposed by Petra Schumacher may help in the interpretation of the N400 effect in the context of pronoun resolution (Schumacher, P. B. (2012). Context in neurolinguistics. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, & P. B. Schumacher (Eds.), What is a Context?: Linguistic Approaches and Challenges (pp. 33–53).

Response: Thank you very much for these helpful suggestions. We have rewritten the section of Discussion and incorporated these related studies in the Discussion section on pages 18-22.

5. There are many typos, and the writing quality should be improved

Response: The revised manuscript has been checked by professional language editing services.

6. to make data fully available they should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository.

Response: The original data and relevant supporting information in the present study are available at https://osf.io/zf35p

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-12659R1

Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ji,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

While superficially reading the Manuscript I noticed a couple of typos:

- lines 232-233: - A long epoch was "conducted" from 200 ms before the onset - I would write - A long epoch was "computed" from 200 ms before the onset -

- line 401:  - resulting in a delay the processing of the second - I would write - resulting in a delay "of" the processing of the second -

I am wondering if other typos are present and I invite the authors to carefully revise the whole Manuscript before final acceptance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see:  http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at  https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicola Molinaro, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

28 Sep 2021

Review Comments to the Author

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

While superficially reading the Manuscript I noticed a couple of typos:

- lines 232-233: - A long epoch was "conducted" from 200 ms before the onset - I would write - A long epoch was "computed" from 200 ms before the onset -

- line 401: - resulting in a delay the processing of the second - I would write - resulting in a delay "of" the processing of the second -

I am wondering if other typos are present and I invite the authors to carefully revise the whole Manuscript before final acceptance.

Response: Thank you very much for your careful reading. We have double checked the typos and grammar of the manuscript, and the revised parts of the manuscript are highlighted in red.

1 Oct 2021

Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading

PONE-D-21-12659R2

Dear Dr. Ji,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marte Otten, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

16 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-12659R2

Respectfulness-processing revisited: An ERP study of Chinese sentence reading

Dear Dr. Ji:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marte Otten

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE