Cover not available
Part of
Cognitive Linguistics and the Study of Chinese
Edited by Dingfang Shu, Hui Zhang and Lifei Zhang
[Human Cognitive Processing 67] 2019
► pp. 227–259

Chapter 8
A neurocognitive approach to Chinese idiom comprehension

An ERP study

| Nanjing Normal University
In Chinese, three-character idioms abound, represented by a ‘base’ form as well as variants according to the context in which they are embedded. How base-forms and their variants are contextually processed is controversial. In the present study, event-related potentials (ERPs) data were collected to investigate time course and neural activity in the processing of Chinese three-character idioms and their variants in discourse dialogic contexts (e.g. literally biased and figuratively biased contexts). The results are discussed in regard to three proposed models of idiom processing and theories of idiom variations elaborated by Cognitive Linguistics, Relevance Theory and Glucksberg’s proposals. The data provide neural evidence that different types of discourse context play a facilitative role in the processing of base-forms and variants.
Keywords: discourse context, ERP, three-character idioms, idiom variants
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Models of idiom processing
    • 1.2ERP studies of Chinese idiom processing
    • 1.3Perspectives on idioms and their variants
    • 1.4The goals and hypotheses of the present study
    • 1.5ERP components in the present study
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and design
    • 2.3Experimental procedure
    • 2.4EEG recording
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Visual inspection of ERPs
    • 3.2Results
      • A. Base-forms VS variants in literally biased contexts
      • B. Base-forms VS variants in figuratively biased contexts
      • C. Base-forms in literally biased context VS in figuratively biased context
      • D. Variants in literally biased contexts VS in figuratively biased contexts
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions and limitations
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 20 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.67.10zha
References (50)
References
Baggio, G., & Hagoort, P. 2011. The balance between memory and unification in semantics, A dynamic account of the N400. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26, 1338–1367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barkema, H. 1996. Idiomaticity and terminology: A multi-dimensional descriptive model. Studia Linguistica, 50(2), 125–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, S. A., & Bell, S. M. 1973. On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory & Language, 1, 343–346.Google Scholar
Boudewyn, M., Gordon, P., Long, D., Polse, L., & Swaab, T. Y. 2012. Does discourse congruence influence spoken language comprehension before lexical association? Evidence from event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 27(5), 698–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Tabossi, P. 1988. The comprehension of idioms. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 668–683. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caillies, S., & Butcher, K. 2007. Processing of idiomatic expressions: Evidence for a new hybrid view. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 79–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camblin, C. C., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. 2007. The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERP and eye-tracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 03–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chi, Q. T. 2004. On the stability of three-character idioms (浅析三字格惯用语的稳固性). Guangxi Social Science, 8, 177–179.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., & Van Petten, C. 2002. Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study. Memory & Cognition, 30(6), 958–968. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Federmeier, K. D., & Laszlo, S. 2009. Time for meaning: Electrophysiology provides insight into the dynamics of representation and processing in semantic memory. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51,1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., & Colston, H. L. 2012. Interpreting figurative meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R., & Fein, O. 1999. On understanding familiar and less-familiar figurative language. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1601–1618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, R. 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glucksberg, S. 2001. Understanding figurative language: From metaphors to idioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. 1959. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horváth, J., Czigler, I., Birkás, E., & Gervai, J. 2007. Age-related differences in distraction and reorientation in an auditory task. Neurobiology of Aging, 30(7), 1157–1172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayser, J., & Tenke, C. E. 2006a. Principal components analysis of Laplacian waveforms as a generic method for identifying ERP generator patterns: I. Evaluation with auditory oddball tasks. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117(2), 348–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayser, J., &Tenke, C. E. 2006b. Principal components analysis of Laplacian waveforms as a generic method for identifying ERP generator patterns: II. Adequacy of low-density estimates. Clinical Neurophysiology, 117(2), 369–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1998. Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, J. W., & Kutas, M. 1995. Who did what adn when? Using word- and claue- level ERPs to monitor working momory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. 2011. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of event related potentials (ERPs). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. 1984. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. 1988. Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Kluender, R. 2006. Psycholinguistics electrified III: 1994–2005. In M. Traxler, & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd edition) (pp. 659–724). New York: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langlotz, A. 2006a. Occasional adnominal idiom modification: A cognitive linguistic approach. International Journal of English Studies, 6(1), 85–108.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Idiomatic creativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, C-L., & Federmeier, K. D. 2009. Wave-ering: An ERP study of syntactic and semantic context effects on ambiguity resolution for noun/verb homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 61, 538–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, P., & Shu, H. 2010. Language and brain: Computational and neuro imaging evidence from Chinese. In M. Bond (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Psychology (pp. 69–92). Oxford: Oxford Universitty Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Li, P., Hua, H., Zhang, Q., & Chen, L. 2010. Structure and meaning in Chinese: An ERP study of idioms. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 615–630. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lou, L. G., Fan, S. L., & Kuang, P. Z. 1989. ERP reflects the mismatch between Chinese characters and their mental templates. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 3, 321–327.Google Scholar
McGlone, S., Matthew, G., Glucksberg, S., & Cacciari, S. 1994. Semantic productivity and idiom comprehension. Discourse Processes, 17, 167–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. 2006. When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1098–1111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reale, R. A., Calvert, G. A., Thesen, T., Jenison, R. L., Kawasaki, H. Oya, H., Howard, M. A., & Brugge, J. F. 2007. Auditory-visual processing represented in the human superior temporal gyrus. Neuroscience, 145, 162–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, J. H. 2007. A study of tri-syllable idiomatic phrases (现代汉语三音节惯用语问题研究). MA thesis, Shanghai Normal University.Google Scholar
Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. 2006. Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stauder, J., Smeets, E., Van Mill, S., & Curfs, L. 2006. The development of visual- and auditory processing in Rett syndrome: An ERP study. Brain and Development, 28(8), 487–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sun, W. Z. 1989. Chinese phraseology (汉语熟语学). Jilin: Jilin Education Press.Google Scholar
Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. A. 2012. Language-related ERP components. In S. K. Luck, & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (pp. 379–440). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behaviour, 18, 523–534. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Titone, D. A., & Connine, C. M. 1999. On the compositional and noncompositional nature of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1655–1674. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trambley, A., & Baayen, H. 2010. Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Woods (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London and New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A. 2004. The eyes have it: A eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, A., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. 2003. Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, 235–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A. 2008. Understanding sentences in context: What brain waves can tell us. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 276–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. The neuropragmatics of ‘simple’ utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In U. Sauerland, & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–317). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Vega Moreno, R. E. 2007. Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wlotko, E. W., & Federmeier, K. D. 2012. So that’s what you meant! Event-related potentials reveal multiple aspects of context use during construction of message-level meaning. NeuroImage, 62, 356–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, H., Yang Y., Gu, J., & Ji, F. 2013. ERP correlates of compositionality in Chinese idiom comprehension. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26(1), 89–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhou, S., Zhou, W., & Chen, X. 2004. Spatiatemporal analysis of ERP during Chinese idiom comprehension. Brain Topography, 1, 27–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar