汉语单音节名词和动词的ERP研究

发布时间：2018-04-26 01:08

本文选题：汉语 + 单音节　；参考：《南京师范大学》2017年博士论文

【摘要】：由于汉语研究传统“向无文法之学”,从来不讲名词、动词、形容词和主语、谓语、宾语,因此,要建立汉语语法体系,便不得不向西方学习,即借鉴西方先进语言理论、研究方法来研究汉语语法结构。但实践过程中,研究者遇到的难题是:如何实现西方语言理论与汉语句法结构规律研究的有效结合。尽管研究者对此做出过大量努力,但结合的成效至今甚微,诸如词类划分等基本问题迟迟未能得到妥善解决,经常发生周期性争论。主要原因便在于以往研究往往存在“印欧语眼光”.:把印欧语所有而为汉语所无的东西强加给汉语。这使得研究者近来得出印欧语语法理论不大适合用于汉语语法研究的经验总结,并进一步提出以下研究共识:摆脱“印欧语眼光”,实现西方先进理论、方法与汉语研究有效结合的前提在于首先要弄清楚汉语的实际究竟是什么样子的。汉语词类研究也不例外:应从寻找我们碰巧熟悉的语言所重视的区分转向寻找汉语自身重视的区分。本研究不仅是对这一“转向”理念的实践,同时也是对这一理念的实证。由于单音节汉字词是汉语初始性结构单位,加之遵循由简及繁的研究顺序,本研究以单音节名词和动词为研究对象。另外,出于对相关学者提出的“根据词的意义划分词类是行不通的”(朱德熙1985: 10)理论主张的反思,本研究拟考察以下三个基本问题:(1)由单个汉字构成的汉语单音节名词和动词在词汇层面是否存在汉语说话者重视的区分?换言之,汉语单音节名词和动词的加工过程是否存在显著神经分离性,如存在,导致二者分离的因素是什么? (2)汉语和屈折语(主指英语和德语)词类加工过程是否存在显著神经类型学差异?(3)如存在,这种神经类型学差异在语言层面表现如何?研究者又应如何透过这些语言差异寻找语际普遍性词类?本研究共开展了两项事件相关电位(ERP)实验和一项问卷调查实验。两项ERP实验分别对汉语光杆单音节名词、动词和“名-动”兼类词(参见第四、五章)以及违反语境下汉语单音节名词和动词(第六章)的神经加工机制展开考察,旨在回答问题(1)和(2)。问卷调查实验(第七章)旨在基于汉语本族语说话者的自然语感,考察“名-动”词类跨语言普遍性概念基础的心理真实性、词类语言专属性和构式专属性,进而回答问题(3)。通过实验考察,得出以下研究发现和结论:(1)与以往研究(杨亦鸣等2002)未观察到汉语光杆单音节词语存在显著“名-动”词类效应不同,本研究发现光杆单音节名词和动词存在显著神经分离性,即后者比前者诱发更负的额叶N100,这表明后者获得更多的早期视觉注意加工。考察本实验所选构成单音节名词和动词的汉字特征后,我们发现,构成单音节动词的汉字具有更为鲜明一致的义符,据此推断,正是这些义符本身所具有的语义、句法功能提示性或其所致的汉字空间构字特征,导致单音节动词获得更多的早期视觉注意加工。这为义符可作为汉语单音节词语划类标准提供了实证依据。通过将光杆单音节“名-动”兼类词诱发的神经加工机制分别与相应名词和动词进行比较分析后发现,“名-动”兼类词与名词具有完全相同的神经加工机制;与动词存在早期视觉加工差异即动词比兼类词诱发更负的额叶N100,这依然与所选动词具有更为一致的义符相关。(2)通过对违反语境中汉语单音节名词和动词神经加工机制的考察发现,二者在“词类+语义”双违反条件下诱发相同的ERP反应型式,即均诱发一个标志词汇语义整合加工的N400成分。这与以往基于英语和德语等印欧语的实验发现相左:印欧语双违反句诱发的反应型式为“ELAN+P600”(Friederici 2002, 2011; Friederici et al. 1999; Hahne Friederici 1999, 2002)。基于上述 ERP成分的功能关联性推知:汉语单音节“名-动”词类确实存在与印欧语词类加工不相一致的神经类型学特点,上述神经类型学特点支持印欧语是语法型语言、汉语是语义型语言的汉印类型学差异观。(3)问卷调查结果证实基本语义范畴(物体vs.动作)可为主要词类(名词vs.动词)提供心理真实性和跨语言普遍性概念基础,这为寻找跨语言普遍性词类提供了可能。同时,上述调查结果也证实了词类的“形-义”符号本质,即词类并非结构主义语言学家所说的单纯的“形类”,而是“形式-意义”的配对。另外,汉语说话者的自然语感证实词类存在构式专属性:词语-构式组合存在原型效应,同一词语可因构式类型差异而表现出不同的句法功能,且这些功能之间存在程度差异。构式专属性进一步说明不同个体语言所含词类存在语际差异,该差异主要表现为词类形式表征手段存在的跨语言差异。因此,词类不仅存在构式专属性还存在语言专属性。词类的语言专属性和构式专属性要求:相关理论和实证研究必须为其所考察词语嵌入的构式语境提供详尽且具有理论基础的定义,以保证不同研究之间研究结果的可比性。基于上述实验发现,我们对汉语词类得出以下认识:(1)对于存在义符优势不对称性的汉语光杆单音节名词和动词而言,二者存在显著神经分离性,这说明,与印欧语一样,汉语也存在鲜明的名动分立关系。(2)与屈折语(主指英语和德语)说话者更多依赖形态信息进行词类加工操作不同,汉语说话者则更多依赖语义信息开展相关词类加工。(3)上述神经类型学差异在语言类型学层面具体表现为词类形式表征手段的跨语言差异——与屈折语词语基于鲜明形态标记标志其词类信息不同,标志汉语单音节词语词类信息的可以是具有鲜明词类提示性的义符;词类的跨语言形式表征手段差异表明,跨语言共性词类不可能在语言形式层面得以探寻,相反,词类“形-义”符号本质决定了语际普遍性词类只能在概念语义层面得以寻找。
[Abstract]:Because of the traditional Chinese study of the traditional "non grammar", it never speaks noun, verb, adjective, adjective and subject, predicate and object. Therefore, to establish a Chinese grammar system, we have to learn from the west, that is to learn from western advanced language theory and study methods to study the structure of Chinese language. The effective combination of western language theory and the study of the rules of Chinese syntactic structure has been achieved. Although the researchers have made a great deal of effort, the results of the combination have been very little, and the basic problems such as the division of words have not been properly solved, and there are often periodic disputes. The main reason is that the previous research often existed "Indo European eye". This makes the researchers nearly come to the conclusion that Indo European grammar theory is not suitable for the study of Chinese grammar, and further puts forward the following research consensus: to get rid of the "Indo European eye", to realize the advanced western theory, and to combine the Chinese research effectively. The premise is to find out what the reality of Chinese is like first. The study of Chinese word class is no exception: it is necessary to shift from finding the distinction between our familiar language and the distinction of Chinese attention. This study is not only a practice of this "turn" concept, but also an empirical study of this idea. The syllabic Chinese word is the initial structural unit of Chinese, and the study of the monosyllabic nouns and verbs is the object of study in this study. In addition, this study intends to examine the following three points out of the reflection on the theory of "the classification of words is not practicable according to the meaning of words" (Zhu Dexi 1985: 10). Basic questions: (1) is there a distinction between Chinese monosyllabic nouns composed of single Chinese characters and verbs at the lexical level? In other words, there are significant neural separations in the processing of monosyllabic nouns and verbs in Chinese, for example, what are the factors that lead to the separation of the two? (2) Chinese and flexion (main finger English) Is there a significant neurotypic difference in the process of word processing? (3) how does this neurologic difference show at the language level, and how should the researchers look for interlingual universal words through these differences? Two ERP experiments and a questionnaire survey have been carried out in this study. Two items have been carried out in this study. In the ERP experiment, the single syllable noun, verb and "name verb" concurrently (see fourth, fifth chapters) and the neural processing mechanism of Chinese monosyllabic nouns and verbs (sixth chapters) in violation of context are investigated to answer the questions (1) and (2). The seventh chapter is based on the natural language of Chinese native speakers. Feeling, it examines the psychological authenticity of the conceptual foundation of the "name and motion" word class across the language, and then answers the question (3). Through the experimental investigation, the following findings and conclusions are found: (1) and the previous study (Yang Yiming and other 2002) did not observe the existence of the prominent "name move" words of the Chinese single syllable words. The effect is different. This study found that the monosyllabic nouns and verbs have significant neural separateness, that is, the latter induces more negative frontal N100 than the former, which indicates that the latter obtains more early visual attention processing. With a more consistent meaning, it is inferred that the semanteme of the meaning itself, the hint of syntactic function, or the character of the Chinese character space, can lead to more early visual attention processing of the monosyllabic verbs. This provides an empirical basis for the classification of Chinese monosyllabic words. After comparing with the corresponding nouns and verbs, the neural processing mechanism induced by the single syllables of the single syllable of the single syllable of the single syllable has been compared with the corresponding nouns and verbs. It is found that the "noun verb" concurrently and nouns have exactly the same mechanism of neural processing; and the verbs have early visual processing differences, that is, the verb is more negative than the verb N100, which is still selected as the choice. Verbs have more consistent semantic correlation. (2) through the investigation of Chinese monosyllabic nouns and verbs in the context of context, the two ones induce the same type of ERP reaction under the "word class + semantic" double violation, that is, to induce a N400 component of the word semantic integration processing, which is based on English and in the past. The experimental findings of Indo European language such as German are disconnected: the reaction pattern induced by Indo European double sentence is "ELAN+P600" (Friederici 2002, 2011; Friederici et al. 1999; Hahne Friederici 1999, 2002). Based on the functional relevance of the above ERP components, the Chinese Monosyllabic "name movement" category does exist with Indo European word classes do not process. The characteristics of the same neurotypology, the characteristics of the neurotypology support Indo European language is grammatical language, Chinese is the semantic language of Chinese and Indian typology differences. (3) the result of the questionnaire survey confirmed that the basic semantic category (object vs. action) can provide psychological authenticity and the conceptual basis of cross language universality for the main part of speech (noun vs. verb). It is possible to find universal words in cross language. At the same time, the above results also confirm the "form meaning" sign essence of the word class, that is, the word class is not the simple "form" that the structuralist linguist says, but the pairing of "form meaning". In addition, the natural sense of the Chinese speaker's natural sense of language has a constructional attribute. The word structure combination has the prototype effect, and the same word can show different syntactic functions due to the difference of the structure type, and there is a degree difference between these functions. The structure specificity further illustrates the interlingual difference in the parts of speech of different individual languages, which is mainly a cross language difference in the means of word class representation. Therefore, word classes not only exist in structural exclusivity but also in language specificity. Language specificity and constructional specific properties of word classes require that relevant theories and empirical studies have to provide a detailed and theoretical basis for the contexts embedded by the words they examine to ensure the comparability of research results between different studies. The experiment shows that we get the following understanding of Chinese word classes: (1) there are significant neural separations in the two of Chinese light pole monosyllabic nouns and verbs which have asymmetric advantage asymmetry, which shows that, like Indo European, there is a distinct relationship between Chinese and Chinese. (2) more than the inflectional language (main finger English and German) speaker Chinese speakers rely more on morphological information to process different word classes, and Chinese speakers rely more on semantic information to process related parts of speech. (3) the differences in neurotypology at the level of language typology represent the cross language differences in the means of word class representation -- and the word category information is marked by the distinctive morphological markers of the inflectional words. Different, the word class information that marks the Chinese monosyllabic word class can be a symbol with distinct lexical hints, and the difference in the means of representation of the cross language form shows that the cross language generic words can not be explored in the language form. On the contrary, the "form meaning" symbol of the word class determines that the interlingual universal words can only be in the conceptual semantics. The level is sought.

【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H146.2

【参考文献】