Comprehension monitoring is the process by which a reader evaluates the state of their understanding of information, and it is considered an essential element in the ways in which individuals' reading comprehension can be influenced. However, the processes and mechanisms underlying this skill are not well understood. Previous research on reading comprehension monitoring has mostly focused on simple sentence level, with less exploration of complex sentence level. In Chinese complex sentences, conjunctions play a particularly important role in indicating the relationships between sentence components. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the effect of conjunctions in the monitoring process of understanding Chinese complex sentences. This study aims to investigate the mechanisms by which conjunctions influence comprehension monitoring when reading Chinese complex sentences.
Using event-related brain potentials (ERPs) with an error detection paradigm, a 2 (world knowledge: consistent vs. inconsistent) × 2 (conjunction relation: causal vs. transitional) within experimental design was adopted. Four conditions were formed by crossing conjunction relation and world knowledge: because-congruent sentences, because-incongruent sentences, transitional-congruent sentences, transitional-incongruent sentences. Mean sentence rationality, predictability, word frequency, and number of strokes were balanced across these four types of sentences. ERP data were recorded with a 64-channel Ag-Agcl Neuroscan 4.5 (Neuroscan Inc., Sterling, VA) with a common-vertex online reference, which was transformed offline to the mean of the activity at the two mastoids. E-prime 2.0 software was used for programming. Trials began with a fixation cross that remained on the screen for 1000 ms. Then, the sentence stimuli were presented word by word. Each word was presented for 400 ms, with an inter word interval of 400 ms. For the filler sentences, the participants were asked to answer a true/false comprehension question. Half of the questions required a “true” response, and half required a “false” response. The formal experiment was divided into four blocks of 60 sentences each, with short breaks between blocks. This ERP experiment lasted approximately 1.5 hours.
The ERP results revealed that causal sentences elicited a larger N400 during 300~500ms time window and a smaller P600 around 500-800ms time window as compared to the transitional sentence. By contrast, the world knowledge inconsistency elicited a larger P600 during the time window of 500~800ms than did the world knowledge consistency. More importantly, significant interaction between world knowledge and conjunction relation was also found for P600. Further analysis showed that when the sentence was transitional, the sentences with the world knowledge inconsistency elicited the larger P600 than the world knowledge consistency. However, the world knowledge effect was not found in causal sentences.
In conclusion, these results suggest that both world knowledge and conjunction relation could play a role in Chinese complex sentence reading. But the conjunction relation was found to be earlier as it was firstly reflected by N400 effects which a component was proved to indicate the semantic processing. In addition, the comprehension monitoring process during Chinese complex sentence reading is modulated by conjunction information, as reflected by the P600 component. This modulation is specifically manifested by the inconsistency of world knowledge in transitional sentences triggering a larger P600, whereas no such effect is observed in causal sentences. In other words, conjunctions relation plays a priority role in Chinese compound sentence reading, whereas comprehension monitoring occurs at a late stage and is regulated by conjunctions. It can be seen that conjunctions play a crucial role in reading Chinese complex sentences.
The innovations of this study include two aspects. On the one hand, the study found that comprehension monitoring is associated with a late positive-going neural response-the P600, and the process is modulated by the conjunction relation. On the other hand, the study provides evidence for the neural substrates for the comprehension monitoring process of Chinese complex reading. In future studies, it will be important to determine how comprehension monitoring mechanisms are involved in the detection and resolution of more global discourse errors.
Key words
Chinese complex sentence /
comprehension monitoring /
world knowledge /
conjunction relation /
ERPs
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 任桂琴, 于月. (2019). 阅读理解监控及其发展特点. 辽宁师范大学学报:社会科学版. 42(2), 50-57.
[2] 史梦梦,任桂琴,孙军红,张鑫星. (2023). 词汇类型和阅读水平对小学一年级儿童阅读理解监控的影响. 心理发展与教育, 40(2), 207-214.
[3] Baker, L. (1984). Children's effective use of multiple standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 588-597.
[4] Berthiaume K. S., Lorch E. P., & Milich, R. (2009). Getting clued in: Inferential processing and comprehension monitoring in boys with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 14(1), 31.
[5] Brothers T., Zeitlin M., Perrachione A. C., Choi C., & Kuperberg G. (2021). Domain-general conflict monitoring predicts neural and behavioral indices of linguistic error processing during reading comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 11, 1-18.
[6] Bulkes N. Z., Christianson K., & Tanner D. (2020). Semantic constraint, reading control, and the granularity of form-based expectations during semantic processing: Evidence from ERPs. Neuropsychologia, 137, 107294.
[7] Cain K., Oakhill J., & Bryant P. (2004). Children' s reading comprehension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 31-42.
[8] Caron, J. (1988). Conjunction and the recall of composite sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 309-323.
[9] Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Construction: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science. 7, 219-224.
[10] Hagoort P., Brown C., & Groothusen J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
[11] Joseph H., Wonnacott E., & Nation K. (2021). Online inference making and comprehension monitoring in children during reading: Evidence from eye movements. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 7, 1-23.
[12] Kako, E., & Wagner, L. (2001). The semantics of syntactic structures. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5(3), 102-108.
[13] Kim, Y. S. G. (2017). Why the simple view of reading is not simplistic: Unpacking the simple view of reading using a direct and indirect effect model of reading (DIER). Scientific Studies of Reading, 21, 310-333.
[14] Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205-225.
[15] Kim A. E., Oines L., & Miyake A. (2018). Individual differences in verbal working memory underlie a tradeoff between semantic and structural processing difficulty during language comprehension: An ERP investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(3), 406-420.
[16] Köhne, J., & Demberg, V. (2013). The time-course of processing discourse connectives. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2760-2765). Austin, TX.
[17] Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J. (2007). Late positivities in usual situations. Brain and Language. 100, 257-261.
[18] Kolk H. H. J., Chwilla D. J., van Herten M., & Oor P. J. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85, 1-36.
[19] Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
[20] Kuperberg G. R., Brothers T., & Wlotko E. W. (2020). A Tale of two positivities and the N400: Distinct neural signatures are evoked by confirmed and violated predictions at different levels of representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 32(1), 12-35.
[21] Kuperberg G. R., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., & Holcomb P. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
[22] Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621-647.
[23] Li T. H., Gao Y. F., & Wu Y. (2023). The influences of working memory updating on word association effects and thematic role assignment during sentence processing. Neuropsychologia, 184, 108547.
[24] Lyu S., Tu J. Y., & Lin, C. J. C. (2020). Processing plausibility in concessive and causal relations: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye-tracking. Discourse Processes, 57(4), 320-342.
[25] Nagy W. E., Herman P. A., & Anderson R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233-253.
[26] Oakhill, J., & Cain, K. (2012). The precursors of reading comprehension and word reading in young readers: Evidence from a four-year longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 91-121.
[27] Oakhill J. V., Cain K., & Bryant P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Language Cognition and Neuroscience, 18(4), 443-468.
[28] Oakhill J., Hartt J., & Samols D. (2005). Levels of comprehension monitoring and working memory in good and poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 18(7), 657-686.
[29] Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language. 31, 785-806.
[30] Payne B. R., Stites M. C., & Federmeier K. D. (2019). Event-related brain potentials reveal how multiple aspects of semantic processing unfold across parafoveal and foveal vision during sentence reading. Psychophysiology, 56(10), e13432.
[31] Perfetti C. A.(1985). Reading ability. Oxford University Press..
[32] Vissers C. T., Chwilla D. J., & Kolk H. H. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106, 150-163.
[33] van Herten M., Kolk H. H. J., & Chwilla D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255.
[34] van de Meerendonk, N. V. D., Kolk H. H. J., Chwilla D. J., & Vissers, C. T. W. M. (2009). Monitoring in language perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1211-1224.
[35] Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. NY: Oxford University Press.
[36] Vorstius C., Radach R., Mayer M. B., & Lonigan C. J. (2013). Monitoring local comprehension monitoring in sentence reading. School Psychology Review, 42(2), 191-206.
[37] Wagoner, S. A. (1983). Comprehension monitoring: what it is and what we know about it. Reading Research Quartely, 18(3), 328-346.
[38] Wassenburg S. I., Beker K., Van den Broek P., & Van derSchoot M. (2015). Children's comprehension monitoring of multiple situational dimensions of a narrative. Reading and Writing, 28(8), 1203-1232.
[39] Xiang, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2015). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 648-672.
[40] Xu X., Chen Q., Panther K. U., & Wu Y. (2018). Influence of concessive and causal conjunctions on pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes, 55(4), 387-409.
[41] Xu X., Jiang X., & Zhou X. (2015). When a causal assumption is not satisfied by reality: Differential brain responses to concessive and causal relations during sentence comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(6), 704-715.
[42] Ye, Z., & Zhou, X. L. (2008). Involvement of executive control during sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1203, 103-115.
[43] Zargar E., Adams A. M., & Connor M. D. (2020). The relations between children's comprehension monitoring and their reading comprehension and vocabulary knowledge: An eye-movement study. Reading and Writing, 33(4), 511-545.
PDF(556 KB)
