Comprehension and production of argument structures by Chinese post-stroke aphasics.

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Guanqing He, Hui Chang
{"title":"Comprehension and production of argument structures by Chinese post-stroke aphasics.","authors":"Guanqing He, Hui Chang","doi":"10.1080/02643294.2026.2652097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines whether increased argument number and syntactic movement increase difficulty in sentence comprehension and production in Chinese aphasic patients, as predicted by the Argument Structure Complexity Hypothesis (ASCH). Twenty-four stroke-induced aphasic patients (8 agrammatic, 16 non-agrammatic) and 18 controls completed comprehension and production tasks. In comprehension, three-argument sentences were most difficult, with no difference between one- and two-argument sentences. In production, two-argument sentences were produced more accurately than one- and three-argument sentences. Agrammatic patients showed no difference between one- and three-argument sentences, while non-agrammatic patients performed better on one- than three-argument sentences. Syntactic movement had no effect. These findings do not fully support the ASCH. The results may be explained by the frequent use of null arguments in Chinese, which reduces the processing burden associated with additional arguments of two-argument sentences, and the short-distance nature of A-movement in Chinese unaccusatives and their syntactic flexibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":50670,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2026.2652097","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines whether increased argument number and syntactic movement increase difficulty in sentence comprehension and production in Chinese aphasic patients, as predicted by the Argument Structure Complexity Hypothesis (ASCH). Twenty-four stroke-induced aphasic patients (8 agrammatic, 16 non-agrammatic) and 18 controls completed comprehension and production tasks. In comprehension, three-argument sentences were most difficult, with no difference between one- and two-argument sentences. In production, two-argument sentences were produced more accurately than one- and three-argument sentences. Agrammatic patients showed no difference between one- and three-argument sentences, while non-agrammatic patients performed better on one- than three-argument sentences. Syntactic movement had no effect. These findings do not fully support the ASCH. The results may be explained by the frequent use of null arguments in Chinese, which reduces the processing burden associated with additional arguments of two-argument sentences, and the short-distance nature of A-movement in Chinese unaccusatives and their syntactic flexibility.

中国中风后失语症患者对论点结构的理解和产生。
本研究考察了论点数量和句法运动的增加是否会增加汉语失语患者理解和生成句子的难度,正如论点结构复杂性假说所预测的那样。24例脑卒中失语症患者(8例语法失语症,16例非语法失语症)和18例对照组完成理解和生产任务。在理解能力方面,三个论点的句子是最难的,一个论点和两个论点的句子没有区别。在生产中,两个参数的句子比一个和三个参数的句子更准确。语法错误的患者在一论点和三论点的句子上没有表现出差异,而非语法错误的患者在一论点的句子上比三论点的句子表现得更好。句法移动没有影响。这些发现并不完全支持ASCH。这一结果可能与汉语中频繁使用空义理,减少了双义理句中附加义理的加工负担和汉语非宾格中a -移动的短距离特性及其句法灵活性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognitive Neuropsychology
Cognitive Neuropsychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
23
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cognitive Neuropsychology is of interest to cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, psycholinguists, speech pathologists, physiotherapists, and psychiatrists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书