汉语母语者英语动词三种屈折变化形式加工机制的差异

The Different Processing Mechanisms of Three English Verbal Inflections for Chinese Native Speakers

采用ERP技术考察汉语母语者,英语动词三种屈折变化形式加工机制的差异。结果发现,英语动词进行式的屈折变化形式-ing的错误使用诱发了P600成分;完成式规则动词屈折变化形式-ed的错误使用诱发了N400成分;完成式中没有屈折变化标识的不规则动词的错误使用没有诱发典型的ERP成分。研究表明:对于缺乏英语使用环境、母语为汉语的较高熟练程度的英语学习者来说,英语动词屈折变化形式-ing,完成式规则动词的变化形式-ed和没有屈折变化标识的不规则动词的加工机制存在差异,前者可能处于由陈述性记忆系统向程序性记忆系统加工的转变过程中,后两者更多地由陈述性记忆系统进行加工。加工机制的差异可能与动词屈折变化规则的复杂程度有关。

Inflectional morphology is the modification of a word to indicate tense, number, person, or comparison （ e. g. , slow-slo- west） without altering the meaning of words. Compared to native English speakers, it is difficult for second language learners to process inflected words even when they study abroad for many years. Previous studies suggested that the processing of inflections involved two different memory systems： declarative memory system for storing word knowledge and procedural memory system for processing syntax and rules. For late second language learners, they rely more on declarative memory system to process inflections. However, we did not know whether inflections＂ processing will turn into procedural processing, and what kind of rules or inflections can be processed by pro- cedural memory system. According to Ullman （2004）, ERP components can reflect the mechanism of inflection processing. Therefore, in the present study, we adopted ERP technique to examine Chinese learners＂ processing of English verbal inflections （ the inflection of verb progressive tenses, -ing, the inflection of regular verb perfect tenses, -ed, and the inflection of irregular verb perfect tenses）. In the present experiment, sixteen Chinese students who learn English as a second language participated in the experiment. They completed a grammatical judgment task, and ERPs were recorded by NeuroScan system at the same time. The materials contain 408 sentences, with 48 sentences per condition （grammatical/ungrammatical sentences with -ing, grammatical/ungrammatical sentences with -ed, grammatical/ungrammatical sentences with irregular verb inflections in perfect tense）. Behavioral results showed that, the processing performance of -ing were better than that of the other two inflections. ERP results showed that, the violation of -ing caused the P600 component, the violation of -ed caused the N400 component, while the violation of ir- regular verb perfect tenses did not produce any significant ERP components. Based on these findings, we conclude that the same processing mechanism is not shared by processing of the inflection of verb pro- gressive tenses, the inflection of regular verb perfect tenses, and the inflection of irregular verb perfect tenses that have no obvious affix. The difference across English verbal inflections may be related to the complexity of inflectional rules.