“基于规则”还是“基于网络”——形态复杂词的神经表征研究现状

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2024.01.007

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

关于形态复杂词认知机制的主要辩论一直围绕着“基于规则”还是“基于网络”的方法展开。虽然这两种方法内部各自又包含不同观点,但它们之间的基本争议均涉及语言规律是否由基于规则的知识产生的问题。本文对三种形态类别(屈折、派生、复合)及三种相关的形态加工模型(强制分解、双路径、联结主义观点)进行梳理,说明对形态处理神经机制研究的最新进展。

关键词: 屈折, 派生, 复合, 形态

Abstract:

The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview on the state-of-the-art of the research on the neural mechanisms of morphological processing. The main debates regarding the neurocognition of morphology at the word level have revolved around the distinction between “rule-based” & “network-based” approaches. Whereas both of these model types come in several different flavours, the basic controversy between them pertains to the question of whether linguistic regularities are generated by rule-based knowledge or not. We summarize findings on inflected, derived and compound words, their interpretations with respect to current neurolinguistic models, and discuss methodological approaches as well as their possible limitations.

Key words: inflection, derivation, compounding, morphology

中图分类号:

H041

李佐文, 王玉玲. “基于规则”还是“基于网络”——形态复杂词的神经表征研究现状[J]. 当代外语研究, 2024, 24(1): 89-101.

LI Zuowen, WANG Yuling. “Rule-based” or “Network-based” :State of the Art in the Neural Representation of Morphologically Complex Words[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2024, 24(1): 89-101.

图/表 3

参考文献 28

[1]	Baayen R. H., C. Shaoul J. Willits & M. Ramscar. 2016. Comprehension without segmentation: a proof of concept with naive discriminative learning[J]. Language Cognition and Neuroscience 31(1): 106-128. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1065336 URL
[2]	Beyersmann E., D. Bolger C. Pattamadilok B. New J. Grainger & J. C. Ziegler. 2019. Morphological processing without semantics: An ERP study with spoken words[J]. Cortex 116: 55-73. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2019.02.008 URL
[3]	Brouwer H., M. W. Crocker N. J. Venhuizen & J. C. J. Hoeks. 2017. A Neurocomputational Model of the N400 and the P600 in Language Processing[J]. Cognitive Science 41(S6): 1318-1352. doi: 10.1111/cogs.2017.41.issue-S6 URL
[4]	Chomsky N. 2017. Language architecture and its import for evolution[J]. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 81: 295-300. doi: S0149-7634(16)30579-6 pmid: 28188889
[5]	Cox C. R., M. S. Seidenberg & T. T. Rogers. 2014. Connecting functional brain imaging and Parallel Distributed Processing [J]. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(4): 380-394.
[6]	Davis C. P., G. Libben & S. J. Segalowitz. 2019. Compounding matters: Event-related potential evidence for early semantic access to compound words[J]. Cognition 184: 44-52. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.12.006 URL
[7]	Diependaele K., J. A. Dunabeitia J. Morris & E. Keuleers. 2011. Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition[J]. Journal of Memory and Language 64(4): 344-358. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2011.01.003 URL
[8]	Gonnerman L. M.,M. S. Seidenberg & E. S. Andersen. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General 136(2): 323-345.
[9]	Hauk O., C. Coutout A. Holden & Y. Chen. 2012. The time-course of single-word reading: evidence from fast behavioral and brain responses[J]. Neuroimage 60(2): 1462-1477. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.061 URL
[10]	Jared D., O. Jouravlev & M. F. Joanisse. 2017. The effect of semantic transparency on the processing of morphologically derived words: Evidence from decision latencies and event-related potentials [J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory & Cognition 43(3): 422-450.
[11]	Justus T., J. Larsen J. Yang P. d. M. Davies N. Dronkers & D. Swick. 2011. The role of Broca's area in regular past-tense morphology: An event-related potential study[J]. Neuropsychologia 49(1): 1-18. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.10.027 URL
[12]	Kaczer L., K. Timmer L. Bavassi & N. O. Schiller. 2015. Distinct morphological processing of recently learned compound words: An ERP study[J]. Brain Research 1629: 309-317. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.10.029 URL
[13]	Leminen A., E. Smolka J. A. Dunabeitia & C. Pliatsikas. 2019. Morphological processing in the brain: The good (inflection), the bad (derivation) and the ugly (compounding)[J]. Cortex 116: 4-44. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2018.08.016 URL
[14]	McClelland J. L. & K. Patterson. 2002. ‘Words or Rules’ cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions - Reply to Pinker and Ullman[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11): 464-465. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02012-0 URL
[15]	Pinker S. & M. T. Ullman. 2002. The past and future of the past tense[J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11): 456-463. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3 URL
[16]	Plaut D. C. & L. M. Gonnerman. 2000. Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4-5): 445-485. doi: 10.1080/01690960050119661 URL
[17]	Rastle K. & M. H. Davis. 2008. Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 23(7-8): 942-971. doi: 10.1080/01690960802069730 URL
[18]	Rumelhart D. E. & J. L. McClelland. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs [A]. In J. McClelland, D. Rumethart & the PDP Research Group (eds.). Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol.4, Psychological and Biological Models [C]. Cambridge: MIT Press. 216-271.
[19]	Smolka E. & G. Libben. 2017. ‘Can you wash off the hogwash?’ - semantic transparency of first and second constituents in the processing of German compounds[J]. Language Cognition and Neuroscience 32(4): 514-531. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2016.1256492 URL
[20]	Taft M., S. Li & E. Beyersmann. 2018. What Cross-morphemic Letter Transposition in Derived Nonwords Tells us about Lexical Processing[J]. Journal of Cognition 1(1): 1-13. doi: 10.5334/joc.1 URL
[21]	Taft M. & M. Nguyen-Hoan. 2010. A sticky stick? The locus of morphological representation in the lexicon[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(2): 277-296. doi: 10.1080/01690960903043261 URL
[22]	Ullman M. T. 2001. A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model[J]. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2(10): 717-726. doi: 10.1038/35094573 pmid: 11584309
[23]	Wang Y., M. Jiang Y. Huang & P. Qiu. 2021a. An ERP Study on the Role of Phonological Processing in Reading Two-Character Compound Chinese Words of High and Low Frequency[J]. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 637238. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.637238 URL
[24]	Wang Y., M. Jiang X. Xu & Y. Huang. 2021b. Interaction between Phonological and Semantic Processes in Visual Word Recognition using Electrophysiology[J]. Journal of Visualized Experiments 172:e62673.
[25]	Wang Y., Z. Li M. Jiang F. Long Y. Huang & X. Xu. 2023. Time course of Chinese compound word recognition as revealed by ERP data[J]. Language Cognition and Neuroscience 39(1): 55-75. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2023.2245074 URL
[26]	Zhou X. & W. D. Marslen-Wilson. 2000. Lexical representation of compound words: Cross-linguistic evidence[J]. Psychologia 43(1): 47-66.
[27]	Zwitserlood P. 2018. Processing and representation of morphological complexity in native language comprehension and production[A]. In G. Booij (ed.). Studies in Morphology. Vol.4, The Construction of Words [C]. Berlin: Springer, Cham. 583-602.
[28]	李佐文、梁国杰. 2022. 语言智能学科的内涵与建设路径[J]. 外语电化教学 (5):88-93.