Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36910827›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

The neurocognitive basis of Chinese idiomatic constructions and processing differences between native speakers and L2 learners of Mandarin.

Te-Hsin Liu, Chia-Ho Lai, Tai-Li Chou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Te-Hsin LiuGraduate Program of Teaching Chinese as a Second Language, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chia-Ho LaiDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, United States.
Tai-Li ChouDepartment of Psychology, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classic linguistic analyses assume that syntax is the center of linguistic system. Under this assumption, a finite set of rules can produce an infinite number of sentences. By contrast, construction grammar posits that grammar emerges from language use. Chinese quadrisyllabic idiomatic expressions (QIEs) offer a testing ground for this theoretical construct owing to their high productivity. To understand the cognitive processing of structure and meaning during reading comprehension, we used a semantic judgment task to measure behavioral performance and brain activation (functional MRI). Participants were 19 Mandarin native speakers and 19 L2 learners of intermediate and advanced levels of Mandarin. In the task, participants were instructed to indicate whether the interpretation of a QIE was correct. Our behavioral results showed that L2 learners processed high frequency QIEs faster than low frequency ones. By contrast, low frequency QIEs were processed faster than high frequency ones by native speakers. This phenomenon may be attributed to semantic satiation which impedes the interpretation of high frequency QIEs. To unravel the puzzle, a further functional MRI experiment on native speakers was conducted. The results revealed that the comparison of high-frequency and low-frequency QIEs promoted significant anterior cingulate activation. Also, the comparison of idiomatic and pseudo-idiomatic constructions exhibited significant activation in the bilateral temporal poles, a region that computes semantics rather than syntactic structure. This result indicated that, for native speakers, processing Chinese idiomatic constructions is a conceptually driven process.

Indexed as

anterior cingulate cortexChinese idiomsleft anterior temporal lobesecond language acquisitionsemanticssyntax

Identifiers

PMID36910827
PMCPMC9996060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.