1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Volume 25, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1606-822X
  • E-ISSN: 2309-5067
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

In an eye-tracking study, we used Chinese double-subject construction [NP NP PREDICATE] (e.g., [nage jiezhi] [sheji] [hen tebie] ‘that ring design very special’) in a concessive construction like ‘although…but…’ to investigate how the syntactic position of the topic NP (i.e., ) affects the comprehension of topic transition in the subsequent clause. We contrasted topics located at a higher pre-connective topic position (e.g., ) and those located at a post-connective subject position (e.g., ). Topic transition was manipulated as either using a subtopic (e.g., ) or a new topic (e.g., ) in the second clause of concession. We found a main effect of topic transition in a batch of eye-movement measures showing that subtopic transition was preferred over new-topic transition. More importantly, we found interactions on total reading time and total fixations at the topic- region and on total fixations at the post-critical region, with post hoc tests revealing a larger cost of topic transition in the high-topic condition than in the low-topic condition. The results suggest that when a topic NP is located at a higher topic position (i.e., above the connective), it binds the topics of both clauses and induces greater cost when the topics do not form a consistent chain. When the topic NP is located at a local (i.e., post-connective) position, the processing of topic shift or resolution of topic conflict in the second clause is less costly because the second topic is not syntactically bound by the higher topic. Together, the results support a prominent status of the before-connective position in Chinese discourse. Furthermore, they indicate that syntactically induced topicality constrains the processing of topic transition in the subsequent discourse.

© 2024 ILAS
Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu
2024-01-02
2025-06-22

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lali.00149.lyu.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Azar, Moshe
    1997 Concession relations as argumentation. Text17(3). 301–316.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve
    2015 Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software67(1). 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Binder, Katherine S. & Morris, Robin K.
    1995 Eye movements and lexical ambiguity resolution: Effects of prior encounter and discourse topic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21(5). 1186–1196.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Box, George E. P. & Cox, David R.
    1964 An analysis of transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological)26(2). 211–252.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Burmester, Juliane & Spalek, Katharina & Wartenburger, Isabell
    2014 Context updating during sentence comprehension: The effect of aboutness topic. Brain & Language1371. 62–76. 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1976 Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. InLi, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–55. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Clopper, Cynthia G.
    2013 Modeling multi-level factors using linear mixed effects. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics19(1). 060028. 10.1121/1.4799729
     https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4799729 [Google Scholar]
  8. Drieghe, Denis & Pollatsek, Alexander & Staub, Adrian & Rayner, Keith
    2008 The word grouping hypothesis and eye movements during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition34(6). 1552–1560.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferguson, Heather J. & Jayes, Lewis T.
    2018 Plausibility and perspective influence the processing of counterfactual narratives. Discourse Processes55(2). 166–186. 10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330032
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1330032 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferguson, Heather J. & Sanford, Anthony J.
    2008 Anomalies in real and counterfactual worlds: An eye-movement investigation. Journal of Memory and Language58(3). 609–626. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  11. Friederici, Angela Dorkas. & Bahlmann, Jörg & Friedrich, Roland & Makuuchi, Michiru
    2011 The neural basis of recursion and complex syntactic hierarchy. Biolinguistics5(1–2). 87–104. 10.5964/bioling.8833
     https://doi.org/10.5964/bioling.8833 [Google Scholar]
  12. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann
    1995 The Structure-Building Framework: What it is, what it might also be, and why. InBritton, Bruce K. & Graesser, Arthur C. (eds.), Models of understanding text, 289–311. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 1997 Two decades of structure building. Discourse Processes23(3). 265–304. 10.1080/01638539709544994
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709544994 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gernsbacher, Morton Ann & Hargreaves, David J.
    1988 Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language27(6). 699–717. 10.1016/0749‑596X(88)90016‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(88)90016-2 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gundel, Jeanette K.
    1988 Universals of topic-comment structure. InHammond, Michael & Moravczik, Edith A. & Wirth, Jessica (eds.), Studies in syntactic typology, 209–239. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.17.16gun
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.17.16gun [Google Scholar]
  16. Haberlandt, Karl
    1980 Story grammar and reading time of story constituents. Poetics9(1–3). 99–118. 10.1016/0304‑422X(80)90014‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90014-5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Haberlandt, Karl & Berian, Claire & Sandson, Jennifer
    1980 The episode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior19(6). 635–650. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90331‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90331-X [Google Scholar]
  18. Hawkins, John A.
    2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hirotani, Masako & Schumacher, Petra B.
    2011 Context and topic marking affect distinct processes during discourse comprehension in Japanese. Journal of Neurolinguistics24(3). 276–292. 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2010.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hoeks, John C. J. & Vonk, Wietske & Schriefers, Herbert
    2002 Processing coordinated structures in context: The effect of topic-structure on ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language46(1). 99–119. 10.1006/jmla.2001.2800
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2800 [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang, C. -T. James & Li, Yen-Hui Audrey & Li, Yafei
    2009 The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hung, Yu-Chen & Schumacher, Petra B.
    2012 Topicality matters: Position-specific demands on Chinese discourse processing. Neuroscience Letters511(2). 59–64. 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 Animacy matters: ERP evidence for the multi-dimensionality of topic-worthiness in Chinese. Brain Research15551. 36–47. 10.1016/j.brainres.2014.01.046
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.01.046 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hyönä, Jukka
    1994 Processing of topic shifts by adults and children. Reading Research Quarterly29(1). 76–90. 10.2307/747739
     https://doi.org/10.2307/747739 [Google Scholar]
  25. 1995 An eye movement analysis of topic-shift effect during repeated reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition21(5). 1365–1373.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hyönä, Jukka & Lorch, Robert F. & Rinck, Mike
    2003 Eye movement measures to study global text processing. InHyönä, Jukka & Radach, Ralph & Deubel, Heiner (eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research, 313–334. Amsterdam: North-Holland. 10.1016/B978‑044451020‑4/50018‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451020-4/50018-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita
    2008 Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations. Journal of Pragmatics401. 646–675. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaiser, Elsi & Trueswell, John C.
    2008 Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes23(5). 709–748. 10.1080/01690960701771220
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960701771220 [Google Scholar]
  29. Keenan, Edward & Comrie, Bernard
    1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry8(1). 63–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. König, Ekkehard
    1991 Concessive relations as the dual of causal relations. InZaefferer, Dietmar (ed.), Semantic universals and universal semantics, 190–209. Berlin: Foris Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Kuznetsova, Alexandra & Brockhoff, Per B. & Christensen, Rune H. B.
    2017 lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software82(13). 1–26. 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, Robin T.
    1971 If’s, and’s and but’s: About conjunctions. InFillmore, Charles J. & Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.), Studies in linguistic semantics, 114–149. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Lenth, Russell V.
    2021 emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. (https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans). (Accessed2023-07-30.)
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A.
    1976 Subject and topic: A new typology of language. InLi, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 457–485. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 1981 Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press. 10.1525/9780520352858
     https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520352858 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lin, Chien-Jer Charles
    2018 Subject prominence and processing dependencies in prenominal relative clauses: The comprehension of possessive relative clauses and adjunct relative clauses in Mandarin Chinese. Language94(4). 758–797. 10.1353/lan.2018.0053
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2018.0053 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2019 The psycholinguistics of Chinese discourse processing. InShei, Chris (ed.), The Routledge handbook of Chinese discourse analysis, 265–279. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315213705‑18
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315213705-18 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lorch, Elizabeth P. & Lorch, Robert F. & Gretter, Monica L. & Horn, Donna G.
    1987 On-line processing of topic structure by children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology43(1). 81–95. 10.1016/0022‑0965(87)90052‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(87)90052-X [Google Scholar]
  39. Lorch, Robert F. & Lorch, Elizabeth P. & Matthews, Patricia D.
    1985 On-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Journal of Memory and Language24(3). 350–362. 10.1016/0749‑596X(85)90033‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(85)90033-6 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lorch, Robert F. & Lorch, Elizabeth P. & Morgan, Ann M.
    1987 Task effects and individual differences in on-line processing of the topic structure of a text. Discourse Processes10(1). 63–80. 10.1080/01638538709544659
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538709544659 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lyu, Siqi & Tu, Jung-Yueh & Lin, Chien-Jer Charles
    2020 Processing plausibility in concessive and causal relations: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye-tracking. Discourse Processes57(4). 320–342. 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1680089
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1680089 [Google Scholar]
  42. O’Brien, Edward J. & Duffy, Susan A. & Myers, Jerome L.
    1986 Anaphoric inference during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition12(3). 346–352.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Pan, Victor Junnan & Paul, Waltraud
    2018 The syntax of complex sentences in Mandarin Chinese: A comprehensive overview with analyses. Linguistic Analysis42(1–2). 63–162.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2022 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (https://www.R-project.org/). (Accessed2023-06-14.)
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Rayner, Keith
    1998 Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin124(3). 372–422. 10.1037/0033‑2909.124.3.372
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rayner, Keith & Warren, Tessa & Juhasz, Barbara J. & Liversedge, Simon P.
    2004 The effect of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition30(6). 1290–1301.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Reinhart, Tanya
    1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 271. 53–94. 10.21825/philosophica.82606
     https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82606 [Google Scholar]
  48. Schad, Daniel J. & Vasishth, Shravan & Hohenstein, Sven & Kliegl, Reinhold
    2020 How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language1101. 104038. 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038 [Google Scholar]
  49. Shyu, Shu-ing
    2014 Topic and focus. InHuang, C.-T. James & Li, Yen-Hui Audrey & Simpson, Andrew (eds.), The handbook of Chinese linguistics, 100–125. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118584552.ch5
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584552.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tsao, Feng-Fu
    1979 A functional study of topic in Chinese: The first step toward discourse analysis. Taipei: Student Book Co.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, Luming & Schumacher, Petra B.
    2013 New is not always costly: Evidence from online processing of topic and contrast in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology41. 363. 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00363
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00363 [Google Scholar]
  52. White, Sarah J.
    2008 Eye movement control during reading: Effects of word frequency and orthographic familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance34(1). 205–223.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Xing, Fuyi
    2001 Hanyu fuju yanjiu. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Xu, Xiaodong & Chen, Qingrong & Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Wu, Yicheng
    2018 Influence of concessive and causal conjunctions on pragmatic processing: Online measures from eye movements and self-paced reading. Discourse Processes55(4). 387–409. 10.1080/0163853X.2016.1272088
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2016.1272088 [Google Scholar]
  55. Xu, Xiaodong & Zhou, Xiaolin
    2016 Topic shift impairs pronoun resolution during sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychophysiology53(2). 129–142. 10.1111/psyp.12573
     https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12573 [Google Scholar]
  56. Yang, Chin Lung & Gordon, Peter C. & Hendrick, Randall & Hue, Chih Wei
    2003 Constraining the comprehension of pronominal expressions in Chinese. Cognition86(3). 283–315. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(02)00182‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00182-8 [Google Scholar]
  57. Yang, Xiaohong & Chen, Xuhai & Chen, Shuang & Xu, Xiaoying & Yang, Yufang
    2013 Topic structure affects semantic integration: Evidence from event-related potentials. PLoS ONE8(12). e79734. 10.1371/journal.pone.0079734
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079734 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu
Loading
Structural position affects topic transition
Language and Linguistics 25, 56 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu
/content/journals/10.1075/lali.00149.lyu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): concession; double-subject construction; topic shift; topicality

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error