ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Mandarin Chinese L1 and L2 complex sentence reading reveals a consistent electrophysiological pattern of highly interactive syntactic and semantic processing: An ERP study.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A hallmark of the human language faculty is processing complex hierarchical syntactic structures across languages. However, for Mandarin Chinese, a language typically dependent on semantic combinations and free of morphosyntactic information, the relationship between syntactic and semantic processing during Chinese complex sentence reading is unclear. From the neuropsychological perspective of bilingual studies, whether second language (L2) learners can develop a consistent pattern of target language (i.e., L2) comprehension regarding the interplay of syntactic and semantic processing, especially when their first language (L1) and L2 are typologically distinct, remains to be determined. In this study, Chinese complex sentences with center-embedded relative clauses were generated. By utilizing the high-time-resolution technique of event-related potentials (ERPs), this study aimed to investigate the processing relationships between syntactic and semantic information during Chinese complex sentence reading in both Chinese L1 speakers and highly proficient L2 learners from South Korea. Methods: Normal, semantically violated (SEM), and double-violated (containing both semantic and syntactic violations, SEM + SYN) conditions were set with regard to the nonadjacent dependencies of the Chinese complex sentence, and participants were required to judge whether the sentences they read were acceptable. Results: The ERP results showed that sentences with "SEM + SYN" did not elicit early left anterior negativity (ELAN), a component assumed to signal initial syntactic processing, but evoked larger components in the N400 and P600 windows than those of the "SEM" condition, thus exhibiting a biphasic waveform pattern consistent for both groups and in line with previous studies using simpler Chinese syntactic structures. The only difference between the L1 and L2 groups was that L2 learners presented later latencies of the corresponding ERP components. Discussion: Taken together, these results do not support the temporal and functional priorities of syntactic processing as identified in morphologically rich languages (e.g., German) and converge on the notion that even for Chinese complex sentence reading, syntactic and semantic processing are highly interactive. This is consistent across L1 speakers and high-proficiency L2 learners with typologically different language backgrounds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.