Dependent mechanism of Chinese prepositions processing in the brain: Evidence from event-related potentials

Neuroscience Bulletin

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 282-286

  Fang, Huan Hai ^a,d   Zhang, Rong Ping ^b   Fang, Huan Fei ^c   Gao, Ming Yang ^a,d   Zheng, Min ^a,d   Sun, Xiao Yu ^d  

^a Jiangsu Province Key Laboratory of Language Sciences and Neuro cognition Engineering   (China)

^b HUAIBEI NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d JIANGSU NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Chinese; Difference waves; Event related potentials; Prepositions; Verbs

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN DEPTH RECORDING; BRAIN FUNCTION; CONTINGENT NEGATIVE VARIATION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADULT; ASIAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; BRAIN; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; READING;

EID: 36549050760     PISSN: 16737067     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12264-007-0042-x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Liu DQ. Word order typology and preposition theory. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2003, 121-192. (Chinese)
2. Biassou N, Obler LK, Nespoulous JL, Dordain M, Harris KS. Dual processing of open- and closed-class words. Brain Lang 1997, 57: 360-373.
3. Bradley DC, Garret MF. Hemisphere differences in the recognition of closed and open class words. Neuropsychologia 1983, 21: 155-159.
4. Brid H, Franklin S, Howard D. 'Little words' - not really: function and content words in normal and aphasic speech. J Neurolinguist 2002, 15: 209-237.
5. Brown CM, Hagoort P, Ter Keurs M. Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: Open- and closed-class words. J Cogn Neurosci 1999, 3: 261-281.
6. Chen Y, Fu S, Iversen SD, Smith SM, Matthews PM. Testing for dual brain processing routes in reading: a direct contrast of Chinese character and Pinyin reading using fMRI. J Cogn Neurosci 2002, 14: 1088-1098.
7. Connolly JF, Phillips NA, Forbes KA. The effects of phonological and semantic features of sentence-ending words on visual event-related brain potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1995, 4: 276-187.
8. Coulson S, King J, Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain responses of morphosyntactic violations. Lang Cogn Process 1998, 13: 21-58.
9. Friederici AD, Meyer M. The brain knows the difference: two types of grammatical violations. Brain Res 2004, 1000: 72-77.
10. Friederici AD, Optiz B, von Cramon DY. Segregating semantic and syntactic aspects of processing in the human brain: an fMRI investigation of different word types. Cereb Cortex 2000, 10: 698-705.
11. Gordon B, Caramazza A. Lexical decision for open- and closed-class words: failure to replicate differential frequency sensitivity. Brain Lang 1982, 15: 143-160.
12. Grodzinsky Y. Syntactic representations in agrammatic aphasia: The case of prepositions. Lang Speech 1988, 31: 115-134.
13. Hopper PJ, Traugett EC. Grammaticalization. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001, 56-93.
14. Khorasani AA, Fadardi JS, Fadardi MS, Cox WM, Sharif JT. Effect of practice versus information on the visual illusion. Neurosci Bull 2007, 23: 30-34.
15. Fang HH, Zhang DP, Zhao M, Wang M. Comment on the Studies of the Cerebellum and Its Linguistic Function, Trends in Neurosciences. Beijing: High Education Press, 2006, 4: 307-314. (Chinese)
16. King JW, Kutas M. A Brain potential whose latency indexes the length and frequency of words. CRL Newsletter 1995, 10: 1-9.
17. Kortmann B, Koing E. Categorial reanalysis: The case of deverbal prepositions. Linguistics 1992, 30: 671-697.
18. Münte TF, Wieringa BM, Weyerts H, Szentkuti A, Matzke M, Johannes S. Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia 2001, 39: 91-102.
19. Neville H, Nicol JL, Barss A, Foster KI, Garret MF. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci 1991, 3: 151-165.
20. Neville HJ, Mills DL, Lawson DS. Fractionating language: different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cereb Cortex 1992, 2: 244-258.
21. Wen YD, Zhang HL, Qin ZH. Inflammatory mechanism in ischemic neuronal injury. Neurosci Bull 2006, 22: 171-182.
22. Nobre AC, McCarthyG.. Language-related ERPs: scalp distributions and modulation by word type and semantic priming. J Cogn Neurosci 1994, 6: 233-255.
23. Osterhout L, Bersick M, McKinnon R. Brain potentials elicited by words: word length and frequency predict the latency of an early negativities. Biol Psychol 1997, 46: 143-168.
24. Shou TD. Visual functional changes during acute elevation of intraocular pressure. Neurosci Bull 2006, 22: 235-238.
25. Pulvermuller F. Words in the brain's language. Behav Brain Sci 1999, 22: 253-336.
26. Segalowitz SJ, Lane KC. Lexical access of function versus content words. Brain Lang 2000, 75: 376-389.
27. Ye HY, Ye BP, Wang DY. Learning and learning choice in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Neurosci Bull 2006, 22: 355-360.
28. Froud K. Prepositions and lexical/functional divide: Aphasic evidence. Lingua 2001, 111: 1-28.
29. Tesak J, Hummer P. A note on prepositions in agrammatism. Brain Lang 1994, 46: 463-468.
30. Van Patten C, Kutas M. Ambiguous words in context: An event-related potential analysis of the time course of meaning activation. J Mem Lang 1987, 26: 188-208.
31. Fang HH, Song W. Neurolinguistic analysis of verb functional deficit in patients with Chinese aphasia. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res 2007, 11: 3251-3254. (Chinese, English Abstract)