Neural Signatures of Intervention Effects in Korean way ‘why’ Questions: An ERP Study
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In this paper we use event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the time course of comprehending the so-called intervention effect (IE) that negative polarity items (NPIs) induce on the wh-adverbial way ‘WHY’ in Korean. In keeping with Tomioka’s (2009) presupposition-based account for Ko’s (2005) paradigm of empirical data on the IE of NPIs on WHY, we construct three types of minimal pairs involving the WHY − NPI or the reverse orders. Type [1] with an NPI in the matrix clause and with WHY in the embedded clause elicited sustained positivity or P3b and P600. Type [2] with an NPI and WHY in the embedded clause evoked only P3b. Type [3] with negation on an embedded verb complex and Q-particle on a matrix one recorded sustained negativity. Following the lead by Jouralvlev et al. (2016), the P3b is taken as a neural marker of accommodating the presupposition or focus reduction on the NPI occurring before WHY, while the P300 is a neural signature of extending the domain of presupposition from embedded to matrix clause. On the other hand, the sustained negativity observed in Type [3] is a neural index of retaining the result from processing the embedded anomalous NPI-WHY order. Taken together, from experimental perspectives this paper demonstrates that presupposition accommodation interacting with word order and structural make-up plays an instrumental role in accounting for the various aspects of the IE in WHY questions.
Abstract
In this paper we use event-related potentials (ERPs) to investigate the time course of comprehending the so-called intervention effect (IE) that negative polarity items (NPIs) induce on the wh-adverbial way ‘WHY’ in Korean. In keeping with Tomioka’s (2009) presupposition-based account for Ko’s (2005) paradigm of empirical data on the IE of NPIs on WHY, we construct three types of minimal pairs involving the WHY − NPI or the reverse orders. Type [1] with an NPI in the matrix clause and with WHY in the embedded clause elicited sustained positivity or P3b and P600. Type [2] with an NPI and WHY in the embedded clause evoked only P3b. Type [3] with negation on an embedded verb complex and Q-particle on a matrix one recorded sustained negativity. Following the lead by Jouralvlev et al. (2016), the P3b is taken as a neural marker of accommodating the presupposition or focus reduction on the NPI occurring before WHY, while the P300 is a neural signature of extending the domain of presupposition from embedded to matrix clause. On the other hand, the sustained negativity observed in Type [3] is a neural index of retaining the result from processing the embedded anomalous NPI-WHY order. Taken together, from experimental perspectives this paper demonstrates that presupposition accommodation interacting with word order and structural make-up plays an instrumental role in accounting for the various aspects of the IE in WHY questions.
참고문헌 (30)
- Beck, Sigrid, "On wh-and operator scope in Korean", Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 6, pp.339~384 (1997)
- Korean Linguistics 8, "Japanese", pp.1998, Cho, Eun
- Choi, Young-Sik, "Intervention effect in Korean wh-questions revisited", A paper presented at Glow in Asia 4 (2003), Seoul National University
- Cinque, Guglielmo, "Adverbs and functional heads : A cross-linguistic perspective" (1999), Oxford University Press
- Debener, Stefan, "What is novel in the novelty oddball paradigm? Functional significance of the novelty P3 event-related potential as revealed by independent component analysis", Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), pp.309~321 (2005)
- Dien, Joseph, "Parsing the late positive complex : mental chronometry and the ERP components that inhabit the neighborhood of the P300", Psychophysiology, 41(5), pp.665~678 (2004)
- Donchin, Emanuel, "Is the P300 component a manifestation of cognitive updating?", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11(03), pp.357~427 (1988)
- Donchin, Emanuel, "Surprise! … Surprise?", Psychophysiology, 18(5), pp.493~513 (1981)
- Fiebach, Christian, "Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: the processing of German wh-questions", Journal of Memory and Language, 47, pp.250~272 (2002)
- Friederici, Angela D., "Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions : A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials", Cognitive Brain Research, 11(2), pp.305~323 (2001)
- Friedman, David, "The novelty P3 : An event-related brain potential(ERP)sign of the brain’s evaluation of novelty", Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 25(4), pp.355~373 (2001)
- Goldstein, Abraham, "The influence of stimulus deviance and novelty on the P300 and novelty P3", Psychophysiology, 39(6), pp.781~790 (2002)
- Hoji, Hajime, "Logical form constraints and configurational structures in Japanese", PhD, pp.1985
- Jouravlev, Olessia, "Processing temporal presuppositions: An event-related potential study", Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(10), pp.1245~1256 (2016)
- Kim, Soo-Won., "Chain scope and quantificational structure", PhD, pp.1991
- in the overt syntax, "Natural Language and Linguistic Theory", 2005, 867~916
- Kuwabara, Kazuki, "Report (2): Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language", pp.115~127 (1998), Kanda University of International Studies
- Lee, Mina, "Why is ‘why’ different?", Paper presented at Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.38~ (2002)
- Leuthold, H., "The on-line processing of socio-emotional information in prototypical scenarios : Inferences from brain potentials", Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(4), pp.457~466 (2012)[DOI]
- Li, Xiaoqian, "Who is zij ? ERP responses to the Chinese reflexive pronoun during sentence comprehension", Brain Research, 1331(1981), pp.96~104 (2010)
- Miyagawa, Shigeru, "On the nature of wh-scope", ~ (1997)
- Nakano, Hiroko, "Electrophysiological response to omitted stimulus in sentence processing", Neuroreport, 25(14), pp.1169~1174 (2014)
- Phillips, Colin, "ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies", Cognitive Brain Research, 22, pp.407~428 (2005)
- Polich, John, "Updating P300 : an integrative theory of P3a and P3b", Clinical Neurophysiology: Official Journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), pp.2128~2148 (2007)
- Politzer-Ahles, S., "Distinct neural correlates for pragmatic and semantic meaning processing : An event-related potential investigation of scalar implicature processing using picture-sentence verification", Brain Research, 1490, pp.134~152 (2013)[DOI]
- Sohn, Keun-Won., "Negative polarity items, scope, and economy", PhD, pp.1995
- Tomioka, Satoshi, "Pragmatics of LF intervention effects : Wh-interrogatives in Japanese and Korean", Journal of Pragmatics, 39, pp.1570~1590 (2007)
- Tomioka, Satoshi, "Why questions, presuppositions, and intervention effects", Journal of East Asian Linguist, 18, pp.253~271 (2009)
- Absorption: Interpretability and Feature Strength. In Grant-in-Aid for COE Research Report (4): Researching and Verifying an Advanced Theory of Human Language: Explanation of the Human Faculty for Constructing and Computing Sentences on the Basis of Lexical Conceptual Features, "Watanabe, Akira", Kanda University of International Studies, 253~296 (2000)
- Zhao, Ming, "Are scalar implicatures automatically processed and different for each individual? A mismatch negativity (MMN) study", Brain Research, 1599, pp.137~ (2015)[DOI]