汉语名词、动词和动名兼类词语义加工的ERP研究
|
摘要
在世界语言中，几乎所有语言都具有名词和动词这两个词类。名词和动词作为语言中重要而基本的词类，在句法、语义、语用等语言层面上既有区别又有联系。由于缺少严格意义上的形态，汉语名词和动词的划分问题还存在不同的意见。心理语言学、神经语言学等方面的研究可能有助于解决这个问题。因为语言与大脑的关系是密不可分的。大脑的左右两个半球，在功能上有所不同，存在偏侧化现象。研究汉语名词和动词在左脑和右脑中的加工和表征，对认识语言和大脑都具有重要意义。
本文通过ERP技术和半视野速示技术，对汉语名词、动词、动名兼类词的语义加工进行了考察，并且通过进一步匹配动词和动名兼类词的具体性，对语义特征和具体性在语义加工中的作用进行了探讨。通过比较左脑/右视野和右脑/左视野条件下，不同词类加工的表现，对语言加工中的偏侧化现象进行了讨论。在对实验结果充分分析的基础上，本文主要得到以下结果：
1）汉语名词、动词作为两个基本词类，在语义加工过程中存在差别。在不区分视野呈现条件下，名词和动词的P2和N400存在差异；在半视野呈现条件下，名词和动词的N400在左脑/右视野和右脑/左视野中都存在差别。名词和动词在语义加工中表现出的差异，一方面是因为名词和动词具有不同的语义特征，另一方面是因为名词和动词在具体性上存在差别。名词、动词的分离不应在形态层面和句法层面上，名词和动词的差别也不是源于具体性的不同。
2）汉语动名兼类词处于典型名词和典型动词的中间状态，在逐渐具备了名动两种句法功能的同时，其语义也发生了变化，体现出不同于名词和动词的语义特征。N400和LPC两个成分可以体现这种语义差异，并表现出动名兼类词从动词逐渐向名词发展的语义动态轨迹。同时，动名兼类词与名词和动词的差异还表明，在进入句法位置前，动名兼类词就为能够同时实现名词和动词的句法功能做好了语义上的准备，体现语言的语义层面和句法层面的对应一致性。
3）具体性变量在语言加工中具有重要作用。在语义加工中，具体性会影响N400成分的波幅。但是具体性对于不同词类加工的影响不同，具体名词和抽象名词之间的N400差异要大于具体动词和抽象动词之间的N400差异，说明具体性对名词加工和表征的影响更为显著。这种差异与名词、动词的语义特征有关，具体性更适合对名词进行分析。
4）在语言加工中，左脑和右脑之间是分工协作的。在语义加工过程中，左脑主要负责语言的加工，右脑主要负责形象的加工；左脑多是对主要的、单一语义进行加工，右脑多是对广泛的、多个语义进行加工。
5）N400至少具有两个子成分，一个与语义特征的加工有关，一个与具体性的加工有关。LPC在词汇判断任务中体现判断的确定性，单义词和多义词加工的差异可以通过LPC体现出来。
Nouns and verbs exist in almost all human languages. As fundamental andimportant members of word classes, nouns and verbs differ but correlate at severallevels of language, including grammatical, semantic, pragmatic levels and so on.However, because of simple system of inflections, Chinese word classes could not bedistinguished by means of morphology. It has not reached an agreement on thecriteria of ascertaining word classes of Chinese. The researches from psycholinguistic,neurolinguistic and other perspectives may shed light on solving this problem becausethere is strong relationship between brain and language. Brain consists of two distinctcerebral hemispheres, left hemisphere and right hemisphere. The functions of eachhemisphere are specialized and lateralized. It is significant to explore therepresentation and processing of Chinese noun and verb in the left and righthemispheres for unfolding the secrets of bran, language and their relationship.
The study was intended to investigate the semantic processing of unambiguousnoun, unambiguous verb and verb-noun ambiguous word in Chinese by means ofevent-related potentials (ERP) and tachistoscopic visual half-field technique. In orderto clarify the roles of semantic feature and concreteness in the word processing, theresults of the processing of verb and verb-noun ambiguous were further analyzed bycomparing the situations in which the variable of concreteness was matched and notmatched. The hemispheric lateralization of language was also discussed on the basisof the representation of noun, verb and verb-noun ambiguous showed in left visualfield/right hemisphere and right visual field/left hemisphere.The main results of the study are as follows:
1. Chinese noun and verb, as fundamental members of word classes, representeddifferently in the semantic processing. There were significant differences betweennoun and verb on the amplitudes of P2and N400in the normal visual field.Furthermore, in the half visual field, the amplitudes of N400elicited by noun weresignificantly different from those elicited by verb. These results indicated the distinctsemantic features and concreteness of noun and verb, which did not support the hypotheses that noun and verb dissociation were at the level of grammaticalmorphology or at the level of syntax. And the results also did not support the pointthat noun-verb dissociation attributed to the semantic difference on the concreteness.
2. Chinese verb-noun ambiguous word, as the intervals of the continuum of nounand verb, formed specific semantic features different from the two extreme points.Although achieving the syntactic functions of noun and verb, Chinese verb-nounambiguous did not achieve the semantic features of these two word classescorrespondingly. In contrast, the semantic features of verb-noun ambiguous weredistinct from those of noun and verb. The results of N400and LPC showed suchdifferences and indicated the category shift from verb to noun in semantic. In addition,the results also indicated that before entering syntactic position, verb-noun ambiguoushad already made semantic preparations for realizing both syntactic functions of nounand verb, which provided the supporting evidence for the conformance of syntaxlevel and semantic level.
3. The variable of concreteness, which functioned as an important role in thelanguage processing, had greater effect on the representation and processing of nounthan on that of verb. The differences between the amplitudes of N400elicited byconcrete and abstract noun were more significant than those elicited by concrete andabstract verb. This was because noun that designated men and things was moresuitable to be analyzed on the dimension of concreteness than verb that referred toaction and behaviors.
4. The functions of left and right hemisphere were separate and complementary.In the word processing, the left hemisphere is generally functionally specialized forsemantic and right hemisphere is generally lateralized for image. Furthermore, the lefthemisphere focused semantic activation on features related to the one and dominantmeaning and the right hemisphere maintained diffuse semantic activation on featuresrelated to several and less important meanings.
5. N400contained at least two sub-components, one related to semantic featuresand the other related to concreteness. LPC component was the reflection ofconfidence in the lexical decision process. Polysemy activated higher LPC than singlemeaning word did.
本文通过ERP技术和半视野速示技术，对汉语名词、动词、动名兼类词的语义加工进行了考察，并且通过进一步匹配动词和动名兼类词的具体性，对语义特征和具体性在语义加工中的作用进行了探讨。通过比较左脑/右视野和右脑/左视野条件下，不同词类加工的表现，对语言加工中的偏侧化现象进行了讨论。在对实验结果充分分析的基础上，本文主要得到以下结果：
1）汉语名词、动词作为两个基本词类，在语义加工过程中存在差别。在不区分视野呈现条件下，名词和动词的P2和N400存在差异；在半视野呈现条件下，名词和动词的N400在左脑/右视野和右脑/左视野中都存在差别。名词和动词在语义加工中表现出的差异，一方面是因为名词和动词具有不同的语义特征，另一方面是因为名词和动词在具体性上存在差别。名词、动词的分离不应在形态层面和句法层面上，名词和动词的差别也不是源于具体性的不同。
2）汉语动名兼类词处于典型名词和典型动词的中间状态，在逐渐具备了名动两种句法功能的同时，其语义也发生了变化，体现出不同于名词和动词的语义特征。N400和LPC两个成分可以体现这种语义差异，并表现出动名兼类词从动词逐渐向名词发展的语义动态轨迹。同时，动名兼类词与名词和动词的差异还表明，在进入句法位置前，动名兼类词就为能够同时实现名词和动词的句法功能做好了语义上的准备，体现语言的语义层面和句法层面的对应一致性。
3）具体性变量在语言加工中具有重要作用。在语义加工中，具体性会影响N400成分的波幅。但是具体性对于不同词类加工的影响不同，具体名词和抽象名词之间的N400差异要大于具体动词和抽象动词之间的N400差异，说明具体性对名词加工和表征的影响更为显著。这种差异与名词、动词的语义特征有关，具体性更适合对名词进行分析。
4）在语言加工中，左脑和右脑之间是分工协作的。在语义加工过程中，左脑主要负责语言的加工，右脑主要负责形象的加工；左脑多是对主要的、单一语义进行加工，右脑多是对广泛的、多个语义进行加工。
5）N400至少具有两个子成分，一个与语义特征的加工有关，一个与具体性的加工有关。LPC在词汇判断任务中体现判断的确定性，单义词和多义词加工的差异可以通过LPC体现出来。
Nouns and verbs exist in almost all human languages. As fundamental andimportant members of word classes, nouns and verbs differ but correlate at severallevels of language, including grammatical, semantic, pragmatic levels and so on.However, because of simple system of inflections, Chinese word classes could not bedistinguished by means of morphology. It has not reached an agreement on thecriteria of ascertaining word classes of Chinese. The researches from psycholinguistic,neurolinguistic and other perspectives may shed light on solving this problem becausethere is strong relationship between brain and language. Brain consists of two distinctcerebral hemispheres, left hemisphere and right hemisphere. The functions of eachhemisphere are specialized and lateralized. It is significant to explore therepresentation and processing of Chinese noun and verb in the left and righthemispheres for unfolding the secrets of bran, language and their relationship.
The study was intended to investigate the semantic processing of unambiguousnoun, unambiguous verb and verb-noun ambiguous word in Chinese by means ofevent-related potentials (ERP) and tachistoscopic visual half-field technique. In orderto clarify the roles of semantic feature and concreteness in the word processing, theresults of the processing of verb and verb-noun ambiguous were further analyzed bycomparing the situations in which the variable of concreteness was matched and notmatched. The hemispheric lateralization of language was also discussed on the basisof the representation of noun, verb and verb-noun ambiguous showed in left visualfield/right hemisphere and right visual field/left hemisphere.The main results of the study are as follows:
1. Chinese noun and verb, as fundamental members of word classes, representeddifferently in the semantic processing. There were significant differences betweennoun and verb on the amplitudes of P2and N400in the normal visual field.Furthermore, in the half visual field, the amplitudes of N400elicited by noun weresignificantly different from those elicited by verb. These results indicated the distinctsemantic features and concreteness of noun and verb, which did not support the hypotheses that noun and verb dissociation were at the level of grammaticalmorphology or at the level of syntax. And the results also did not support the pointthat noun-verb dissociation attributed to the semantic difference on the concreteness.
2. Chinese verb-noun ambiguous word, as the intervals of the continuum of nounand verb, formed specific semantic features different from the two extreme points.Although achieving the syntactic functions of noun and verb, Chinese verb-nounambiguous did not achieve the semantic features of these two word classescorrespondingly. In contrast, the semantic features of verb-noun ambiguous weredistinct from those of noun and verb. The results of N400and LPC showed suchdifferences and indicated the category shift from verb to noun in semantic. In addition,the results also indicated that before entering syntactic position, verb-noun ambiguoushad already made semantic preparations for realizing both syntactic functions of nounand verb, which provided the supporting evidence for the conformance of syntaxlevel and semantic level.
3. The variable of concreteness, which functioned as an important role in thelanguage processing, had greater effect on the representation and processing of nounthan on that of verb. The differences between the amplitudes of N400elicited byconcrete and abstract noun were more significant than those elicited by concrete andabstract verb. This was because noun that designated men and things was moresuitable to be analyzed on the dimension of concreteness than verb that referred toaction and behaviors.
4. The functions of left and right hemisphere were separate and complementary.In the word processing, the left hemisphere is generally functionally specialized forsemantic and right hemisphere is generally lateralized for image. Furthermore, the lefthemisphere focused semantic activation on features related to the one and dominantmeaning and the right hemisphere maintained diffuse semantic activation on featuresrelated to several and less important meanings.
5. N400contained at least two sub-components, one related to semantic featuresand the other related to concreteness. LPC component was the reflection ofconfidence in the lexical decision process. Polysemy activated higher LPC than singlemeaning word did.
引文
[1]蔡厚德.中-英双语者词汇语义通达的大脑功能偏侧化与合作效应.2008,1394~1397.
[2]蔡厚德.半视野速示技术的若干方法学问题.心理科学,1999,22(3),265~266.
[3]陈爱文.汉语词类研究和分类实验.北京：北京大学出版社,1986.
[4]陈承泽.国文法草创.北京：商务印书馆,1922.
[5]陈宁萍.现代汉语名词类的扩大—现代汉语动词和名词分界线的考察.中国语文,1987,5,59~69.
[6]程工.名物化与向心结构理论新探.现代外语,1999,2,128~144.
[7]方光焘.语法论稿.南京：江苏教育出版社,1990.
[8]高航.现代汉语名动互转的认知语法考察：[博士学位论文].河南：解放军外国语学院科研部,2007.
[9]郭可教,孙勇. STROOP色词干扰课题中汉字认知与大脑两半球关系的实验研究.见:匡培梓,张嘉棠编.中国语文－认知科学第五届国际研讨会论文选编.北京:科学出版社,1992.
[10]郭可教,杨奇志.汉字认知的“复脑效应”的实验研究.心理学报,1995,1,78~83.
[11]郭锐.现代汉语词类研究.北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[12]何元建,王玲玲.论汉语中的名物化结构.汉语学习.2007,1,13~24.
[13]胡明扬.动名兼类的计量考察.语文研究,1995,291~299.
[14]胡明扬主编.词类问题考察.北京：北京语言学院出版社,1996.
[15]胡裕树,范晓.动词形容词的“名物化”和“名词化”.中国语文,1994,2,81~85.
[16]黄伯荣,廖序东主编.现代汉语（增订四版）.北京：高等教育出版社,2007.
[17]黎锦熙,刘世儒.汉语语法教材.北京：商务印书馆,1959.
[18]李宇明.所谓的“名物化”现象新解.华中师范大学学报（哲社版）.1986,3,117~120.
[19]梁丹丹,杨亦鸣,封世文等.汉语名、动、形充当名词修饰语的fMRI研究.语言文字应用.2006,4,88~95.
[20]刘丹青.汉语是一种动词性语言——试说动词型语言和名词型语言的类型差异.世界汉语教学,2010,1,3~17.
[21]刘涛,马鹏举,于亮等.汉语名-动兼类效应的神经机制研究.心理科学.2011,34(3):546~551.
[22]刘涛,杨亦鸣,张辉等.语法语境下汉语名动分离的ERP研究.心理学报,2008,40(6),671~680.
[23]刘正光,刘润清.语言非范畴化理论的意义.外语教学与研究,2005,37(1),29~36.
[24]陆俭明.对“NP的VP”结构的重新认识.中国语文,2003,5,387-391.
[25]吕勇,沈德立. P240的语义距离效应.应用心理学,2005,11(3),202~207.
[26]马彪.运用统计法进行词类划界的一个尝试.中国语文,1994,5,347~369.
[27]马建忠.马氏文通.北京：商务印书馆,1898,1983重印.
[28]莫彭龄,单青.三大实词句法功能的统计分析.南京师范大学学报.1985,3.
[29]齐沪扬主编.与名词动词相关的短语研究.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2004.
[30]任鹰.“这本书的出版”分析中的几个疑点——从“‘这本书的出版’与向心结构理论难题”说起,当代语言学,2008,10(4),320~328.
[31]沈家煊.汉语里的名词和动词.汉藏语学报,2007,1,27~47.
[32]沈家煊.我看汉语的词类.语言科学,2009,8(1),1~12.
[33]沈家煊.我只是接着向前跨了半步——再谈汉语的名词和动词.语言学论丛,2010,40,3~22.
[34]沈家煊.怎样对比才有说服力——以英汉名动对比为例.现代外语,2012,35(1),1~13.
[35]施关淦.“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性.中国语文通讯,1981,4,8~12.
[36]石定栩.动词的名词化和名物化.语法研究和探索.2003,12,255~273.
[37]史有为.词类问题的症结及其对策—汉语词类柔性处理试探.胡明扬（主编）．词类问题考察.北京：北京语言学院出版社,1996,56~92.
[38]舒华,韩在柱,柏晓利等.动、名词词类特异性损伤的研究.心理科学进展,2003,11(2),121~126.
[39]司富珍.汉语的标句词“的”及相关的句法问题.语言教学与研究,2002,2,35~40.
[40]司富珍.中心语理论和汉语的DeP.当代语言学,2004,1,26-34.
[41]孙宏林,孙德金,黄建平等.现代汉语研究语料库系统.1997,网址:http://www.dwhyyjzx.com/cgi-bin/yuliao/.
[42]王冬梅.现代汉语动名互转的认知研究：[博士学位论文].北京：中国社会科学院语言研究所,2001.
[43]王力.中国现代语法.北京：商务印书馆,1943.
[44]王伟.词汇加工的大脑功能偏侧化与整合的ERP研究：[硕士学位论文].南京：师范大学,2007.
[45]魏景汉,罗跃嘉.事件相关电位原理与技术.北京：科学出版社,2009.
[46]吴长安.“这本书的出版”与向心结构理论难题.当代语言学,2006,3,193~204.
[47]项梦冰.论“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性：对汉语动词、形容词“名物化”问题的再认识.天津师范大学学报,1991,4,75~80.
[48]邢福义.词类辨难(修订本).北京：商务印书馆,2003.
[49]熊仲儒.零成分与汉语“名物化”问题.现代外语.2001,3,228~236.
[50]熊仲儒.以“的”为核心的DP结构.当代语言学.2005,2,148~165.
[51]许世彤,区英琦,唐红波等.在汉字辩认上大脑两半球的功能特点.华南师范大学学报（自然科学版）,1992,2,45~49.
[52]杨成凯.词类的划分原则和谓词的“名物化”.语法研究与探索,1991,5,68~86.
[53]杨亦鸣,梁丹丹,顾介鑫等.名动分类：语法的还是语义的——汉语名动分类的神经语言学研究,2008,6,671~680.
[54]姚振武.汉语谓词性成分名词化的原因及规律.中国语文,1996,1,31~39.
[55]于秒,闫国利,韩飞等.现代汉语名动差异的心理现实性研究.南开语言学刊,2011,1,70~79.
[56]袁毓林.汉语和英语在语法范畴的实现关系上的平行性——也谈汉语里的名词／动词与指称／陈述、主语与话题、句子与话段.汉藏语学报,2010,4,140~168.
[57]袁毓林.词类范畴的家族相似性.中国社会科学,1995,1,154-170.
[58]张伯江,方梅.汉语功能语法研究.南昌：江西教育出版社,1996.
[59]张伯江.词类活用的功能解释.中国语文,1994,5,339~346.
[60]张国宪.现代汉语形容词研究：[博士学位论文].上海：上海师范大学,1993.
[61]张钦,丁锦红,郭春彦等.名词与动词加工的ERP差异.心理学报,2003,6,753~760.
[62]张钦,张必隐.中文双字词的具体性效应研究.心理学报,1997,2,216~224.
[63]张珊珊,赵仑,刘涛等.大脑中的基本语言单位——来自汉语单音节语言单位加工的ERPs证据.语言科学,2006,5(3),3~13.
[64]张武田,彭瑞祥.大脑机能一侧化和表意文字符号的认读.心理学报,1984,3,275~281.
[65]张亚旭,刘友谊,舒华等.中文句子中双音节兼类词句法分析历程初探.心理学报,2003,35(4),433~440.
[66]赵坤.汉语词汇在大脑两半球表征问题的研究：[硕士学位论文].南京：南京师范大学,2005
[67]中学汉语编辑室.《暂拟汉语学语法系统》简述.北京：人民出版社,1956.
[68]周国光.对“中心语理论和汉语的DeP”一文的质疑.当代语言学,2005,2,139~147.
[69]朱德熙,卢甲文,马真.关于动词形容词名物化的问题.北京大学学报（人文科学）,1961,4,51~64.
[70]朱德熙.关于向心结构的定义.中国语文,1984,6:401~403.
[71]朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[72]朱德熙.自指和转指——汉语名词化标记“的,者,所,之”的语法功能和语义功能.方言,1983,1,16~31.
[73] Ahrens K, Chang L L, Chen K J, et al. Meaning representation and meaning instantiation forChinese nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing,1998,3(1),45~60.
[74] Azuma T, Van Orden G C. Why safe is better than fast: the relatedness of a word’smeanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of memory and language,1997,36,484~504.
[75] Barber H A, Kousta S T, Otten L J, et al. Event-related potentials to event-related words:Grammatical class and semantic attributes in the representation of knowledge. BrainResearch,2010,1332,65~74.
[76] Barrett S E, Rugg M D. Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures. Brainand Cognition,1990,14,201~212.
[77] Bates E, Chen S, Tzeng O, Li, et al. The noun–verb problem in Chinese aphasia. BrainLanguage,1991,41,203~233.
[78] Beeman, Mark. Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In: Beeman, Mark;Chiarello, Christine, editors. Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives fromcognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1998
[79] Beretta A, Fiorentino R, Poeppel D. The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexicalaccess: an MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research,2005,24,57~65.
[80] Bi Y, Han Z, Shu H, et al, Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and the animate/inanimate effect.Cognitive Neuropsychology,2007,24,485~504.
[81] Binder J R, Westbury C F, McKiernan K A, et al. Distinct brain systems for processingconcrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2005,17(6),905~917.
[82] Bird H, Franklin S, Howard D. Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set ofwords, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,&Computers2001,33(1),73~79.
[83] Bird H, Howard D, Franklin S. Verbs and nouns: the importance of being imageable. Journalof Neurolinguist,2003,16,113~149.
[84] Bird H, Lambon Ralph MA, Patterson K, et al. The Rise and fall of frequency andimageability: Noun and verb production in semantic dementia. Brain and Language,2000,73(1),17~49.
[85] Black M, Chiat S. Noun-verb dissociations: a multi-faceted phenomenon. Journal ofNeurolinguistics,2003,16,231~250.
[86] Bloomfield L. Laguage. NewYork: Holt,1933.中译本:袁家骅,赵世开,甘世福译.语言论.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[87] Bogka N, Masterson J, Druks J, et al. Object and action picture naming in English and Greek.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,2003,15,371~403.
[88] Bouaffre S, Fa ta-Ainseba F. Hemispheric differences in the time-course of semantic primingprocesses: evidence from event-related potentials (ERPs). Brain and Cognition,2007,63,123~135.
[89] Breedin S D, Martin R, Patterns of verb impairment in aphasia: an analysis of four cases.Cognitive Neuropsychology.1996,13,51~91.
[90] Broca P. Nouvelle observation d’aphémie produite par une lésion de la moitié postérieuredes deuxième et troisième circonvolution frontales gauches. Bulletin de la SociétéAnatomique,1861,36,398~407.
[91] Caramazza A, Hillis A E, Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature,1991,349,788~790.
[92] Chan A, Luke K, Li P, et al. Neural correlates of nouns and verbs in early bilinguals. Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences,2008,1145,30~40.
[93] Chen S, Bates E, The dissociation between nouns and verbs in Broca’s and Wernicke’saphasia: findings from Chinese. Aphasiology,1998,12(1),5~36.
[94] Chen Y R. The effect of sense relatedness on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence fromChinese verbs. Master dissertation. Taiwan: Taiwan Normal University.
[95] Chiarello C, Liu S, Shears C, et al. Differential asymmetries for recognizing nouns and verbs:Where are they? Neuropsychology,2002,16,35~48.
[96] Chiarello C, Nuding S. Visual field effects for processing content and function words.Neuropsychologia,1987,25,539~548.
[97] Crepaldi D, Berlingeri M, Paulesu E, et al. A place for nouns and a place for verbs? Acritical review of neurocognitive data on grammatical-class effects. Brain and Language,2011,116(1),33~49.
[98] Cruse D A. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986.
[99] Damasio A, Tranel D, Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differentially distributed neuralsystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. U.S.A,1993,90,4957~4960.
[100] Damasio H., Grabowski T J, Tranel D, et al. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature,1996,380,499~505.
[101] Day J. Visual half-field word recognition as a function of syntactic class andimageability. Neuropsychologia,1979,17,515~520.
[102] de Groot A M B. Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency asassessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition,1989,15(5),824~845.
[103] Deacon D, Grose-Fifer J, Yang Ch M, et al. Evidence for a new conceptualization ofsemantic representation in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Cortex,2004,40,467~478.
[104] Donchin E, Walter R, Cheyne M. Cognitive psychophysiology: The endogenouscomponents of the ERP. Brain-Event Related Potentials. New York: Academic Press,1978.
[105] Duncan C C, Barry R J, Connolly J F, et al. Event-related potentials in clinical research:Guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400.Clinical Neurophysiology,2009,120,1883-1908.
[106] Federmeier K D, Mai H, Kutas M. Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities tosentential constraint. Memory&Cognition,2005,33,871~886.
[107] Federmeier K D, Segal J B, Lombrozo T, et al. Brain responses to nouns, verbs andclass-ambiguous words in context. Brain,2000,123(12),2552~2566.
[108] Federmeier K D, Wlotko E W, De Ochoa-Dewald E, et al. Multiple effects of sententialconstraint on word processing. Brain Research,2007,1146,75~84.
[109] Federmeier K D, Wlotko E, Meyer A M.. What’s “right” in language comprehension:ERPs reveal right hemisphere language capabilities. Language and Linguistics Compass,2008,2,1~17.
[110] Foley W A. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages.Brisbane: Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian of the LFG98conference, Brisbane,1998.
[111] Frazier L, Rayner K. Taking on semantic commitments: processing mulitple meaningsvs. mutiple senses. Journal of memory and language,1990,29,181~200.
[112] Friederici A D, Pfeifer E, Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speechprocessing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive BrainResearch,1993,1,183~192.
[113] Friedman D, Johnson R E. Event-related potential (ERP) studies of memory encodingand retrieval: A selective review. Microscopy Research and Technique,2000,51,6~28.
[114] Gandour J, Wong D, Hsieh L, et al. A crosslinguistic PET study of tone perception.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2000,12(1),207~222.
[115] Gandour J, Wong D, Lowe M, et al. A cross-linguistic fMRI study of spectral andtemporal cues underlying phonological processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2002,14(7),1076~1087.
[116] Gazzaniga M S, Bogen J E, Sperry R W. Some functional effects of sectioning thecerebral commissures in man. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U.S.A,1962,48(2),1765~1769.
[117] Gazzaniga M S, Sperry R W. Language after section of the cerebral commissures. Brain,1967,90(1),131~148.
[118] Gazzaniga M S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does thecorpus callosum enable the human condition. Brain,2000,123,1293~1326.
[119] Gazzaniga M S. The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1970.
[120] Guo J, Shu H, Li P. Context effects in lexical ambiguity procesing in Chinese: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Science,2007,8,91~107.
[121] Haan H, Streb J, Bien S, et al. Individual cortical current density reconstructions ofthe sematic N400effect: Using a generalized minimum norm model with differentconstraints (L1and L2norm). Human Brain Mapping,2000,11(3),178~192.
[122] Hagoort P, Brown C M, Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERPmeasure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes,1993,8,439~483.
[123] Hagoort P, Brown C M. ERP effects of listening to speech: semantic ERP effects.Neuropsychologia,2000,38(11),1518~1530.
[124] Hamm J P, Johnson B W, Kirk I J. Comparison of the N300and N400ERPs to picturestimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts. Clinical Neurophysiology,2002,113,1339~1350.
[125] Hauk O, Patterson K, Woollams A, et al.[Q:] When would you prefer a SOSSAGE to aSAUSAGE?[A:] At about100msec. ERP correlates of orthographic typicality and lexicalityin written word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2006,18(5),818~832.
[126] Hellige J B Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1993.
[127] Hernández S, Nieto A, Barroso J. Hemispheric specialization for word classes withvisual presentations and lexical decision task. Brain and Cognition,1992,20,399~408.
[128] Hill H, Strube M, Roesch-Ely D, et al. Automatic vs. controlled processes in semanticpriming-differentiation by event-related potentials. International Journal ofPsychophysiology,2002,44,197~218.
[129] Hillyard S A, Squires K C, Bauer J W, et al. Evoked potential correlates of auditorysignal detection. Science,1971,172(3990):1357–1360.
[130] Hino Y, Lupker S J. The effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: Analternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance,1996,22,1331~1356.
[131] Hino Y, Pexman P M, Lupker S J. Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks:Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language,2006,55,247~273.
[132] Holcomb P J, Kounios J, Anderson J E, et al. Dual-coding, context-availability, andconcreteness effects in sentence comprehension: an electrophysiological investigation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory&Cognition,1999,25,721~742.
[133] Hopper P J, Thompson S A. A discourse basis for lexical categories in universalgrammar. Language,1984,60(4),703~752.
[134] Howard D, Best W, Bruce C, et al.1995. Operativity and animacy effects in aphasicnaming. European Journal of Disorders of communication.30:286-302.
[135] Hsiao J H, Shieh D, Cottrell G W. Convergence of the visual field split: Hemisphericmodeling of face and object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2008,20(12),2298~2307.
[136] Hsiao J H, Shillcock R, Lee C Y. Neural correlates of foveal splitting in reading:Evidence from an ERP study of Chinese character recognition. Neuropsychologia,2007,45(6),1280~1292.
[137] Hsu C H, Tsai J L, Lee C Y, et al. Orthographic combinability and phonologicalconsistency effects in reading Chinese phonograms: An event related potential study. Brainand Language,2009,108(1),56~66.
[138] Huang ChR, Chang RY. Categorical ambiguity and information content a corpus-basedstudy of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing,2002,14(2),157~165.
[139] Huang ChY, Lee ChY, Huang H W, et al. Number of sense effects of Chinese disyllabiccompounds in the two hemispheres. Brain and Language,2011,119(2),99~109.
[140] Huang H W, Lee C L, Federmeier K D. Imagine that! ERPs provide evidence fordistinct hemispheric contributions to the processing of concrete and abstract concepts.Neuroimage,2010,49(1),1116~1123.
[141] Ivry R B, Robertson L C. Two sides of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1999.
[142] Johnson R Jr. Event-related potential insights into the neurobiology of memory systems.In: Boller, F., Grafman J.(Eds). The handbook of neuropsychology, Amsterdam: ElsevierScience Publishers,1995.
[143] Jonkers R, Bastiaanse R. The influence of instrumentality and transitivity on actionnaming in Broca's and anomic aphasia. Brain and Language.1996,55,37~39.
[144] Jung-Beeman M. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trendsin Cognitive Sciences,2005,9,712~718.
[145] Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, et al. The P600as an index of syntactic integrationdifficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes,2000,15,159~201.
[146] Kandhadai P, Federmeier K D. Automatic and controlled aspects of lexical associativeprocessing in the two cerebral hemispheres. Psychophysiology,2010,47,774~785.
[147] Kanske P, Kotz S A Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifieldstudy. Brain Research,2007,1148:138-148.
[148] Kanske P, Kotz SA. Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifieldstudy. Brain Research,2007,1148,138~148
[149] Kellenbach, M L, Wijers A A, Hovius M, et al. Neural differentiation oflexico-syntactic categories or semantic features? Event-related potential evidence for both.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2002,14(4),561~577.
[150] Kiefer M, Perceptual and semantic sources of category-specific effects: event-relatedpotentials during picture and word categorization. Memory&Cognition,2001,29,100~116.
[151] Klepousniotous E. The processing of lexical ambiguity: homonymy and polysemy inthe mental lexicon. Brain and Language,2002,81,205~223.
[152] Kolk H H, Chwilla D J, Van Herten M, et al. Structure and limited capacity in verbalworking memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language,2003,85,1~36.
[153] Kounios J, Holcomb P J. Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence fromevent-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,1992,121(4),459~479.
[154] Kounios J, Holcomb P J. Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidencesupporting dual-coding theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition,1994,20(4),804~823.
[155] Kutas M, Federmeier K D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in languagecomprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2000,4(12),463~470.
[156] Kutas M, Federmeier K D. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology,2011,62,621~647.
[157] Kutas M, Hillyard S A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semanticincongruity. Science,1980,207:203~205.
[158] Kutas M, McCarthy G, Donchin E. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300as ameasure of stimulus evaluation time. Science,1977,197,792~795.
[159] Kutas M, Van Petten C. Psycholinguistics Electrified: Event-related potentialinvestigations. In: M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Academic Press,1994,83~143.
[160] Langacker R W. Nouns and verbs. Language,1987,63,53~94.
[161] Lee Ch L, Federmeier K D. To mind the mind: an event-related potential study of wordclass and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research,2006,1081(1),191~202.
[162] Lee Ch L, Federmeier K D. To watch, to see, and to differ: an event-related potentialstudy of concreteness effects as a function of word class and lexical ambiguity. Brain andLanguage,2008,104(2),145~158.
[163] Li P, Jin Z, Tan L H. Neural representations of nouns and verbs in Chinese: An fMRIstudy. NeuroImage,2004,21,1533~1541.
[164] Lin Ch Ch, Ahrens K. Ambiguity advantage revisited: two meanings are better than onewhen accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,2010,39(1),1~19.
[165] Lin N, Guo Q, Han Z, et al, Motor knowledge is one dimension for conceptorganization: Further evidence from a Chinese semantic dementia case. Brain and Language,2010,119,110~118.
[166] Lindell A K. In your right mind: right hemisphere contributions to language processingand production. Neuropsychology Review,2006,16(3),131~148.
[167] Longe O, Randall B, Stamatakis E A, et al. Grammatical categories in the brain: Therole of morphological structure. Cerebral Cortex,2007,17,1812~1820.
[168] Luck S J, Hillyard S A. Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visualsearch. Psychophysiology,1994,31(3),291~308.
[169] Luo H, Ni J T, Li Z H, et al. Opposite patterns of hemisphere dominance for earlyauditory processing of lexical tones and consonants. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the U. S. A,2006,103(51),19558-19563.
[170] Lyons J. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,199
[171] MacNeilage P F, Rogers L J, Vallortigara G. Origins of the left&right brain. ScientificAmerican,2009,301,60~67.
[172] Marshall J, Chiat S, Robson J, et al. Calling a salad a federation: an investigation ofsemantic jargon. Part2-verbs. Journal of Neurolinguist,1996b,9,251~260.
[173] Marshall J, Pring T, Chiat S, et al. Calling a salad a federation: an investigation ofsemantic jargon. Part1-nouns. Journal of Neurolinguist,1996a,9,237~250.
[174] M tzig S, Druks J, Masterson J, et al.Noun and verb differences in picture naming: paststudies and new evidence. Cortex,2009,45,738~758.
[175] McCarthy G, Nobre A C, Bentin S, et al. Language-related field potentials in theanterior-medical temporal lobe: I.Intracranial distribution and neural generators. The Journalof Neuroscience,1995,15(2),1080~1089.
[176] McClelland J L. On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systemsof processes in cascade. Psychological Review,1979,86(4),287~330.
[177] McPherson W B, Holcomb P J. An electrophysiological investigation of semanticpriming with pictures of real objects. Psychophysiology,1999,36(1),53~65.
[178] Mohr B, Pulvrmuller F, Zaidel E. Lexical decisions after left, right and bilateralpresentation of function words, content words and nonwords: Evidence for interhemisphericinteraction. Neuropsychologia,1994,32,105~124.
[179] Neville H J, Mills D L, Lawson D S. Fractionating language: different neuralsubsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex,1992,2(3),244~258.
[180] Nieto A, Santacruz R, Hernández S. Hemispheric asymmetry in lexical decisions: theeffects of grammatical class and imageability. Brain and Language,1999,70(3),421~436.
[181] Nobre A C, Allison T, McCarthy G. Word recognition in the human inferior temporallobe. Nature,1994,372,260-263.
[182] Osterhout L, Holcomb P J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory and Language,1992,31,785~806.
[183] Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach.1986. Oxford University.
[184] Paivio A. Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum,2007.
[185] Palmer B, Nasman V T, Wilson G F. Task decision difficulty: effects on ERPs in asame-different letter classification task. Biological Psychology,1994,38(2-3),199~214.
[186] ParasurAman R, Richer F, Beatty J. Detection and recognition: Concurrent processes inperception. Perception&Psychophysics,1982,31(1),1~12.
[187] Peng G, Wang W S.2011Hemisphere lateralization is influenced by bilingual statusand composition of words. Neuropsychologia,2011,49(7),1981~1986.
[188] Polish J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. ClinicalNeurophysiology,2007,118(10),2128-2148.
[189] Preissl H, Pulvermüller F, Lutzenberger W, et al, Evoked potentials distinguish betweennouns and verbs. Neuroscience Letters,1995,197(1),81~83.
[190] Pulvermüller F, Lutzenberger W, Birbaumer N. Electrocortical distinction ofvocabulary types. Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology,1995,94(5),357~370.
[191] Pulvermüller F, Lutzenberger W, Preissl H. Nouns and verbs in the intact brain:Evidence from event-related potentials and high-frequency cortical responses. CerebralCortex,1999a,9(5),497~506.
[192] Pulvermüller F, Mohr B, Schleichert H, Semantic or lexico-syntactic factors: whatdetermines word-class-specific activity in the human brain? Neuroscience Letters,1999b,275(2),81~84.
[193] Pulvermüller F, Preissl H, Lutzenberger W, et al. Brain rhythms of language: nounsversus verbs. European Journal of Neuroscience,1996,8(5),937~941.
[194] Pylkk nen L, Llinás R, Murphy G L. The representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2006,18(1),97~109.
[195] Robins R H. Noun and verb in universal grammar. Language,1952,28,289~298.
[196] Rodd J, Gaskell M, Marslen-Wilson W. Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity inword recognition. Cognitive Science,2004,28,89~104.
[197] Ross J. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. CLS8, Chicago Linguistic Society,1972,316~328.
[198] Rugg M D. Memory and consciousness: a selective review of issues and data.Neuropsychologia,1995,33(9),1131~1141.
[199] Sabsevitz D S, Medler D A, Seidenberg M, et al. Modulation of the semantic system byword imageability. Neuroimage,2005,27(1),188~200.
[200] Sahin NT, Pinker S, Cash SS, et al. Sequential Processing of Lexical, Grammatical, andPhonological Information within Broca’s Area. Science,2009,326,445~449.
[201] Sereno J A. Hemispheric differences in grammatical class. Brain and Language,1999,70(1),13~28.
[202] Sereno JA&Jongman A. Processing of English inflectional morphology. MemoryCognition.1997,25(4),425-437.
[203] Shapiro K, Caramazza A.,2003. Grammatical processing of nouns and verbs in the leftfrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia41,1189~1198.
[204] Shapiro K, Shelton J, Caramazza A. Grammatical class in lexical production andmorphological processing: Evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. CognitiveNeuropsychology,2000,17,8,665~682.
[205] Shuai L. ERP Studies of Tone Lateralization. Doctoral dissertation The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong,2009.
[206] Simos P G, Basile L F, Papanicolaou A C Source localization of the N400response in asentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic fields and magnetic resonance imaging.Brain Research,1997,762(1-2),29~39.
[207] Simpson G B. Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher(Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.359~374). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,1994.
[208] Sitnikova T, West W C, Kuperberg G R. et al. The neural organization of semanticmemory: electrophysiological activity suggests feature-based anatomical segregation.Biological Psychology,2006,71,326~340.
[209] Sperry R W, Gazzaniga M S. Language following surgical disconnection of thehemispheres. In: F. L. Darley (Ed.), Brain Mechanisms Underlying Speech and Language,New York: Grune and Stratton,1967..
[210] Squires K C, Hillyard S A, Lindsay P H. Vertex potentials evoked during auditorysignal detection: relation to decision criteria. Perception&Psychophysics,1973,14(2),265~272.
[211] Squires K C, Squires N K, Hillyard S A. Decision-related cortical potentials during anauditory signal detection task with cued observation intervals. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance,1975,1(3),268~279.
[212] Swaab T Y, Baynes K, Knight R T, et al. Separable effects of priming and imageabilityon word processing: an ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research,2002,15(1),99~103.
[213] Szaflarski J P, Binder J R, Possing E T, et al. Language lateralization in left-handed andambidextrous people: fMRI data. Neurology,2002,59(2),238~244.
[214] Szekely A, D'Amico S, Devescovi A, et al. Timed action and object naming. Cortex,2005,41,7~25.
[215] Talyor J R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press, Oxford University Press,2001.
[216] Tan L H, Laird A R, Li K, et al. Neuroanatomical correlates of phonological processingof Chinese characters and alphabetic words: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping,2005,25(1),83~91.
[217] Tranel D, Martin C, Damasio H, et al. Effects of noun–verb homonymy on the neuralcorrelates of naming concrete entities and actions. Brain and Language,2005,92(3):288~299.
[218] Tsai P S, Yu B H, Lee C Y, et al. An event-related potential study of the concretenesseffect between Chinese nouns and verbs. Brain Research,2009,1253,149~160.
[219] Tyler L K, Bright P, Fletcher P, et al. Neural processing of nouns and verbs: the role ofinflectional morphology. Neuropsychologia,2004,42(4),512~523.
[220] Tyler L K, Russell R, Fadili J, et al. The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PETstudies. Brain,2001,124(8),1619~1634.
[221] Vigliocco G, Vinson D P, Druks J, et al. Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review ofbehavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience&Biobehavioral Reviews,2011,35(3),407~426.
[222] Wang M Y, Kuo B C, Cheng S K. Chinese characters elicit face-like N170inversioneffects. Brain and Cognition,2011,77(3),419~431.
[223] Warrington E K, McCarthy R A, Category specific access dysphasia. Brain,1983,106,859~878
[224] West W C, Holcomb P J. Imaginal, semantic, and surface-level processing of concreteand abstract words: An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience,2000,12(6),1024~1037.
[225] Wlotko E W, Federmeier K D. Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in theuse of sentence context information. Neuropsychologia,2007,45,3001–3014.
[226] Xi J, Zhang L, Shu H, et al., Categorical perception of lexical tones in Chinese revealedby mismatch negativity. Neuroscience,2010,170(1),223~231.
[227] Xu J, Kemeny S, Park G, et al. Language in context: emergent features of word,sentence, and narrative comprehension. Neuroimage,2005,25,1002~1115.
[228] Yang J, Tan L H, Li P. Lexical representation of nouns and verbs in the late bilingualbrain. Journal of Neurolinguistics,2011,24(6),674~682
[229] Yu X Y The neural-correlates of the concreteness effect in Chinese nouns and verbs,Master dissertation Taiwan: Central University, Taiwan,2005.
[230] Yu Xi, Law S P, Han Z Z et al. Dissociative neural correlates of semantic processing ofnouns and verbs in Chinese--a language with minimal inflectional morphology. Neuroimage,2011,58(3),912~922.
[231] Zhang Q, Guo Ch Y, Ding J H, et al. Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinesewords. Brain and Language,2006,96(1),59~68.
[2]蔡厚德.半视野速示技术的若干方法学问题.心理科学,1999,22(3),265~266.
[3]陈爱文.汉语词类研究和分类实验.北京：北京大学出版社,1986.
[4]陈承泽.国文法草创.北京：商务印书馆,1922.
[5]陈宁萍.现代汉语名词类的扩大—现代汉语动词和名词分界线的考察.中国语文,1987,5,59~69.
[6]程工.名物化与向心结构理论新探.现代外语,1999,2,128~144.
[7]方光焘.语法论稿.南京：江苏教育出版社,1990.
[8]高航.现代汉语名动互转的认知语法考察：[博士学位论文].河南：解放军外国语学院科研部,2007.
[9]郭可教,孙勇. STROOP色词干扰课题中汉字认知与大脑两半球关系的实验研究.见:匡培梓,张嘉棠编.中国语文－认知科学第五届国际研讨会论文选编.北京:科学出版社,1992.
[10]郭可教,杨奇志.汉字认知的“复脑效应”的实验研究.心理学报,1995,1,78~83.
[11]郭锐.现代汉语词类研究.北京：商务印书馆,2002.
[12]何元建,王玲玲.论汉语中的名物化结构.汉语学习.2007,1,13~24.
[13]胡明扬.动名兼类的计量考察.语文研究,1995,291~299.
[14]胡明扬主编.词类问题考察.北京：北京语言学院出版社,1996.
[15]胡裕树,范晓.动词形容词的“名物化”和“名词化”.中国语文,1994,2,81~85.
[16]黄伯荣,廖序东主编.现代汉语（增订四版）.北京：高等教育出版社,2007.
[17]黎锦熙,刘世儒.汉语语法教材.北京：商务印书馆,1959.
[18]李宇明.所谓的“名物化”现象新解.华中师范大学学报（哲社版）.1986,3,117~120.
[19]梁丹丹,杨亦鸣,封世文等.汉语名、动、形充当名词修饰语的fMRI研究.语言文字应用.2006,4,88~95.
[20]刘丹青.汉语是一种动词性语言——试说动词型语言和名词型语言的类型差异.世界汉语教学,2010,1,3~17.
[21]刘涛,马鹏举,于亮等.汉语名-动兼类效应的神经机制研究.心理科学.2011,34(3):546~551.
[22]刘涛,杨亦鸣,张辉等.语法语境下汉语名动分离的ERP研究.心理学报,2008,40(6),671~680.
[23]刘正光,刘润清.语言非范畴化理论的意义.外语教学与研究,2005,37(1),29~36.
[24]陆俭明.对“NP的VP”结构的重新认识.中国语文,2003,5,387-391.
[25]吕勇,沈德立. P240的语义距离效应.应用心理学,2005,11(3),202~207.
[26]马彪.运用统计法进行词类划界的一个尝试.中国语文,1994,5,347~369.
[27]马建忠.马氏文通.北京：商务印书馆,1898,1983重印.
[28]莫彭龄,单青.三大实词句法功能的统计分析.南京师范大学学报.1985,3.
[29]齐沪扬主编.与名词动词相关的短语研究.北京：北京语言大学出版社,2004.
[30]任鹰.“这本书的出版”分析中的几个疑点——从“‘这本书的出版’与向心结构理论难题”说起,当代语言学,2008,10(4),320~328.
[31]沈家煊.汉语里的名词和动词.汉藏语学报,2007,1,27~47.
[32]沈家煊.我看汉语的词类.语言科学,2009,8(1),1~12.
[33]沈家煊.我只是接着向前跨了半步——再谈汉语的名词和动词.语言学论丛,2010,40,3~22.
[34]沈家煊.怎样对比才有说服力——以英汉名动对比为例.现代外语,2012,35(1),1~13.
[35]施关淦.“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性.中国语文通讯,1981,4,8~12.
[36]石定栩.动词的名词化和名物化.语法研究和探索.2003,12,255~273.
[37]史有为.词类问题的症结及其对策—汉语词类柔性处理试探.胡明扬（主编）．词类问题考察.北京：北京语言学院出版社,1996,56~92.
[38]舒华,韩在柱,柏晓利等.动、名词词类特异性损伤的研究.心理科学进展,2003,11(2),121~126.
[39]司富珍.汉语的标句词“的”及相关的句法问题.语言教学与研究,2002,2,35~40.
[40]司富珍.中心语理论和汉语的DeP.当代语言学,2004,1,26-34.
[41]孙宏林,孙德金,黄建平等.现代汉语研究语料库系统.1997,网址:http://www.dwhyyjzx.com/cgi-bin/yuliao/.
[42]王冬梅.现代汉语动名互转的认知研究：[博士学位论文].北京：中国社会科学院语言研究所,2001.
[43]王力.中国现代语法.北京：商务印书馆,1943.
[44]王伟.词汇加工的大脑功能偏侧化与整合的ERP研究：[硕士学位论文].南京：师范大学,2007.
[45]魏景汉,罗跃嘉.事件相关电位原理与技术.北京：科学出版社,2009.
[46]吴长安.“这本书的出版”与向心结构理论难题.当代语言学,2006,3,193~204.
[47]项梦冰.论“这本书的出版”中“出版”的词性：对汉语动词、形容词“名物化”问题的再认识.天津师范大学学报,1991,4,75~80.
[48]邢福义.词类辨难(修订本).北京：商务印书馆,2003.
[49]熊仲儒.零成分与汉语“名物化”问题.现代外语.2001,3,228~236.
[50]熊仲儒.以“的”为核心的DP结构.当代语言学.2005,2,148~165.
[51]许世彤,区英琦,唐红波等.在汉字辩认上大脑两半球的功能特点.华南师范大学学报（自然科学版）,1992,2,45~49.
[52]杨成凯.词类的划分原则和谓词的“名物化”.语法研究与探索,1991,5,68~86.
[53]杨亦鸣,梁丹丹,顾介鑫等.名动分类：语法的还是语义的——汉语名动分类的神经语言学研究,2008,6,671~680.
[54]姚振武.汉语谓词性成分名词化的原因及规律.中国语文,1996,1,31~39.
[55]于秒,闫国利,韩飞等.现代汉语名动差异的心理现实性研究.南开语言学刊,2011,1,70~79.
[56]袁毓林.汉语和英语在语法范畴的实现关系上的平行性——也谈汉语里的名词／动词与指称／陈述、主语与话题、句子与话段.汉藏语学报,2010,4,140~168.
[57]袁毓林.词类范畴的家族相似性.中国社会科学,1995,1,154-170.
[58]张伯江,方梅.汉语功能语法研究.南昌：江西教育出版社,1996.
[59]张伯江.词类活用的功能解释.中国语文,1994,5,339~346.
[60]张国宪.现代汉语形容词研究：[博士学位论文].上海：上海师范大学,1993.
[61]张钦,丁锦红,郭春彦等.名词与动词加工的ERP差异.心理学报,2003,6,753~760.
[62]张钦,张必隐.中文双字词的具体性效应研究.心理学报,1997,2,216~224.
[63]张珊珊,赵仑,刘涛等.大脑中的基本语言单位——来自汉语单音节语言单位加工的ERPs证据.语言科学,2006,5(3),3~13.
[64]张武田,彭瑞祥.大脑机能一侧化和表意文字符号的认读.心理学报,1984,3,275~281.
[65]张亚旭,刘友谊,舒华等.中文句子中双音节兼类词句法分析历程初探.心理学报,2003,35(4),433~440.
[66]赵坤.汉语词汇在大脑两半球表征问题的研究：[硕士学位论文].南京：南京师范大学,2005
[67]中学汉语编辑室.《暂拟汉语学语法系统》简述.北京：人民出版社,1956.
[68]周国光.对“中心语理论和汉语的DeP”一文的质疑.当代语言学,2005,2,139~147.
[69]朱德熙,卢甲文,马真.关于动词形容词名物化的问题.北京大学学报（人文科学）,1961,4,51~64.
[70]朱德熙.关于向心结构的定义.中国语文,1984,6:401~403.
[71]朱德熙.语法讲义.北京：商务印书馆,1982.
[72]朱德熙.自指和转指——汉语名词化标记“的,者,所,之”的语法功能和语义功能.方言,1983,1,16~31.
[73] Ahrens K, Chang L L, Chen K J, et al. Meaning representation and meaning instantiation forChinese nominals. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing,1998,3(1),45~60.
[74] Azuma T, Van Orden G C. Why safe is better than fast: the relatedness of a word’smeanings affects lexical decision times. Journal of memory and language,1997,36,484~504.
[75] Barber H A, Kousta S T, Otten L J, et al. Event-related potentials to event-related words:Grammatical class and semantic attributes in the representation of knowledge. BrainResearch,2010,1332,65~74.
[76] Barrett S E, Rugg M D. Event-related potentials and the semantic matching of pictures. Brainand Cognition,1990,14,201~212.
[77] Bates E, Chen S, Tzeng O, Li, et al. The noun–verb problem in Chinese aphasia. BrainLanguage,1991,41,203~233.
[78] Beeman, Mark. Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In: Beeman, Mark;Chiarello, Christine, editors. Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives fromcognitive neuroscience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates;1998
[79] Beretta A, Fiorentino R, Poeppel D. The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexicalaccess: an MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research,2005,24,57~65.
[80] Bi Y, Han Z, Shu H, et al, Nouns, verbs, objects, actions, and the animate/inanimate effect.Cognitive Neuropsychology,2007,24,485~504.
[81] Binder J R, Westbury C F, McKiernan K A, et al. Distinct brain systems for processingconcrete and abstract concepts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2005,17(6),905~917.
[82] Bird H, Franklin S, Howard D. Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set ofwords, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,&Computers2001,33(1),73~79.
[83] Bird H, Howard D, Franklin S. Verbs and nouns: the importance of being imageable. Journalof Neurolinguist,2003,16,113~149.
[84] Bird H, Lambon Ralph MA, Patterson K, et al. The Rise and fall of frequency andimageability: Noun and verb production in semantic dementia. Brain and Language,2000,73(1),17~49.
[85] Black M, Chiat S. Noun-verb dissociations: a multi-faceted phenomenon. Journal ofNeurolinguistics,2003,16,231~250.
[86] Bloomfield L. Laguage. NewYork: Holt,1933.中译本:袁家骅,赵世开,甘世福译.语言论.北京:商务印书馆,1980.
[87] Bogka N, Masterson J, Druks J, et al. Object and action picture naming in English and Greek.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,2003,15,371~403.
[88] Bouaffre S, Fa ta-Ainseba F. Hemispheric differences in the time-course of semantic primingprocesses: evidence from event-related potentials (ERPs). Brain and Cognition,2007,63,123~135.
[89] Breedin S D, Martin R, Patterns of verb impairment in aphasia: an analysis of four cases.Cognitive Neuropsychology.1996,13,51~91.
[90] Broca P. Nouvelle observation d’aphémie produite par une lésion de la moitié postérieuredes deuxième et troisième circonvolution frontales gauches. Bulletin de la SociétéAnatomique,1861,36,398~407.
[91] Caramazza A, Hillis A E, Lexical organization of nouns and verbs in the brain. Nature,1991,349,788~790.
[92] Chan A, Luke K, Li P, et al. Neural correlates of nouns and verbs in early bilinguals. Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences,2008,1145,30~40.
[93] Chen S, Bates E, The dissociation between nouns and verbs in Broca’s and Wernicke’saphasia: findings from Chinese. Aphasiology,1998,12(1),5~36.
[94] Chen Y R. The effect of sense relatedness on lexical ambiguity resolution: evidence fromChinese verbs. Master dissertation. Taiwan: Taiwan Normal University.
[95] Chiarello C, Liu S, Shears C, et al. Differential asymmetries for recognizing nouns and verbs:Where are they? Neuropsychology,2002,16,35~48.
[96] Chiarello C, Nuding S. Visual field effects for processing content and function words.Neuropsychologia,1987,25,539~548.
[97] Crepaldi D, Berlingeri M, Paulesu E, et al. A place for nouns and a place for verbs? Acritical review of neurocognitive data on grammatical-class effects. Brain and Language,2011,116(1),33~49.
[98] Cruse D A. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986.
[99] Damasio A, Tranel D, Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differentially distributed neuralsystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. U.S.A,1993,90,4957~4960.
[100] Damasio H., Grabowski T J, Tranel D, et al. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature,1996,380,499~505.
[101] Day J. Visual half-field word recognition as a function of syntactic class andimageability. Neuropsychologia,1979,17,515~520.
[102] de Groot A M B. Representational aspects of word imageability and word frequency asassessed through word association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,and Cognition,1989,15(5),824~845.
[103] Deacon D, Grose-Fifer J, Yang Ch M, et al. Evidence for a new conceptualization ofsemantic representation in the left and right cerebral hemispheres. Cortex,2004,40,467~478.
[104] Donchin E, Walter R, Cheyne M. Cognitive psychophysiology: The endogenouscomponents of the ERP. Brain-Event Related Potentials. New York: Academic Press,1978.
[105] Duncan C C, Barry R J, Connolly J F, et al. Event-related potentials in clinical research:Guidelines for eliciting, recording, and quantifying mismatch negativity, P300, and N400.Clinical Neurophysiology,2009,120,1883-1908.
[106] Federmeier K D, Mai H, Kutas M. Both sides get the point: Hemispheric sensitivities tosentential constraint. Memory&Cognition,2005,33,871~886.
[107] Federmeier K D, Segal J B, Lombrozo T, et al. Brain responses to nouns, verbs andclass-ambiguous words in context. Brain,2000,123(12),2552~2566.
[108] Federmeier K D, Wlotko E W, De Ochoa-Dewald E, et al. Multiple effects of sententialconstraint on word processing. Brain Research,2007,1146,75~84.
[109] Federmeier K D, Wlotko E, Meyer A M.. What’s “right” in language comprehension:ERPs reveal right hemisphere language capabilities. Language and Linguistics Compass,2008,2,1~17.
[110] Foley W A. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages.Brisbane: Workshop on Voice and Grammatical Functions in Austronesian of the LFG98conference, Brisbane,1998.
[111] Frazier L, Rayner K. Taking on semantic commitments: processing mulitple meaningsvs. mutiple senses. Journal of memory and language,1990,29,181~200.
[112] Friederici A D, Pfeifer E, Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speechprocessing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive BrainResearch,1993,1,183~192.
[113] Friedman D, Johnson R E. Event-related potential (ERP) studies of memory encodingand retrieval: A selective review. Microscopy Research and Technique,2000,51,6~28.
[114] Gandour J, Wong D, Hsieh L, et al. A crosslinguistic PET study of tone perception.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2000,12(1),207~222.
[115] Gandour J, Wong D, Lowe M, et al. A cross-linguistic fMRI study of spectral andtemporal cues underlying phonological processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2002,14(7),1076~1087.
[116] Gazzaniga M S, Bogen J E, Sperry R W. Some functional effects of sectioning thecerebral commissures in man. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of U.S.A,1962,48(2),1765~1769.
[117] Gazzaniga M S, Sperry R W. Language after section of the cerebral commissures. Brain,1967,90(1),131~148.
[118] Gazzaniga M S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does thecorpus callosum enable the human condition. Brain,2000,123,1293~1326.
[119] Gazzaniga M S. The bisected brain. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,1970.
[120] Guo J, Shu H, Li P. Context effects in lexical ambiguity procesing in Chinese: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Science,2007,8,91~107.
[121] Haan H, Streb J, Bien S, et al. Individual cortical current density reconstructions ofthe sematic N400effect: Using a generalized minimum norm model with differentconstraints (L1and L2norm). Human Brain Mapping,2000,11(3),178~192.
[122] Hagoort P, Brown C M, Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERPmeasure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes,1993,8,439~483.
[123] Hagoort P, Brown C M. ERP effects of listening to speech: semantic ERP effects.Neuropsychologia,2000,38(11),1518~1530.
[124] Hamm J P, Johnson B W, Kirk I J. Comparison of the N300and N400ERPs to picturestimuli in congruent and incongruent contexts. Clinical Neurophysiology,2002,113,1339~1350.
[125] Hauk O, Patterson K, Woollams A, et al.[Q:] When would you prefer a SOSSAGE to aSAUSAGE?[A:] At about100msec. ERP correlates of orthographic typicality and lexicalityin written word recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2006,18(5),818~832.
[126] Hellige J B Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1993.
[127] Hernández S, Nieto A, Barroso J. Hemispheric specialization for word classes withvisual presentations and lexical decision task. Brain and Cognition,1992,20,399~408.
[128] Hill H, Strube M, Roesch-Ely D, et al. Automatic vs. controlled processes in semanticpriming-differentiation by event-related potentials. International Journal ofPsychophysiology,2002,44,197~218.
[129] Hillyard S A, Squires K C, Bauer J W, et al. Evoked potential correlates of auditorysignal detection. Science,1971,172(3990):1357–1360.
[130] Hino Y, Lupker S J. The effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: Analternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HumanPerception and Performance,1996,22,1331~1356.
[131] Hino Y, Pexman P M, Lupker S J. Ambiguity and relatedness effects in semantic tasks:Are they due to semantic coding? Journal of Memory and Language,2006,55,247~273.
[132] Holcomb P J, Kounios J, Anderson J E, et al. Dual-coding, context-availability, andconcreteness effects in sentence comprehension: an electrophysiological investigation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory&Cognition,1999,25,721~742.
[133] Hopper P J, Thompson S A. A discourse basis for lexical categories in universalgrammar. Language,1984,60(4),703~752.
[134] Howard D, Best W, Bruce C, et al.1995. Operativity and animacy effects in aphasicnaming. European Journal of Disorders of communication.30:286-302.
[135] Hsiao J H, Shieh D, Cottrell G W. Convergence of the visual field split: Hemisphericmodeling of face and object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2008,20(12),2298~2307.
[136] Hsiao J H, Shillcock R, Lee C Y. Neural correlates of foveal splitting in reading:Evidence from an ERP study of Chinese character recognition. Neuropsychologia,2007,45(6),1280~1292.
[137] Hsu C H, Tsai J L, Lee C Y, et al. Orthographic combinability and phonologicalconsistency effects in reading Chinese phonograms: An event related potential study. Brainand Language,2009,108(1),56~66.
[138] Huang ChR, Chang RY. Categorical ambiguity and information content a corpus-basedstudy of Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing,2002,14(2),157~165.
[139] Huang ChY, Lee ChY, Huang H W, et al. Number of sense effects of Chinese disyllabiccompounds in the two hemispheres. Brain and Language,2011,119(2),99~109.
[140] Huang H W, Lee C L, Federmeier K D. Imagine that! ERPs provide evidence fordistinct hemispheric contributions to the processing of concrete and abstract concepts.Neuroimage,2010,49(1),1116~1123.
[141] Ivry R B, Robertson L C. Two sides of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1999.
[142] Johnson R Jr. Event-related potential insights into the neurobiology of memory systems.In: Boller, F., Grafman J.(Eds). The handbook of neuropsychology, Amsterdam: ElsevierScience Publishers,1995.
[143] Jonkers R, Bastiaanse R. The influence of instrumentality and transitivity on actionnaming in Broca's and anomic aphasia. Brain and Language.1996,55,37~39.
[144] Jung-Beeman M. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trendsin Cognitive Sciences,2005,9,712~718.
[145] Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E, et al. The P600as an index of syntactic integrationdifficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes,2000,15,159~201.
[146] Kandhadai P, Federmeier K D. Automatic and controlled aspects of lexical associativeprocessing in the two cerebral hemispheres. Psychophysiology,2010,47,774~785.
[147] Kanske P, Kotz S A Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifieldstudy. Brain Research,2007,1148:138-148.
[148] Kanske P, Kotz SA. Concreteness in emotional words: ERP evidence from a hemifieldstudy. Brain Research,2007,1148,138~148
[149] Kellenbach, M L, Wijers A A, Hovius M, et al. Neural differentiation oflexico-syntactic categories or semantic features? Event-related potential evidence for both.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2002,14(4),561~577.
[150] Kiefer M, Perceptual and semantic sources of category-specific effects: event-relatedpotentials during picture and word categorization. Memory&Cognition,2001,29,100~116.
[151] Klepousniotous E. The processing of lexical ambiguity: homonymy and polysemy inthe mental lexicon. Brain and Language,2002,81,205~223.
[152] Kolk H H, Chwilla D J, Van Herten M, et al. Structure and limited capacity in verbalworking memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language,2003,85,1~36.
[153] Kounios J, Holcomb P J. Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence fromevent-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,1992,121(4),459~479.
[154] Kounios J, Holcomb P J. Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidencesupporting dual-coding theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, andCognition,1994,20(4),804~823.
[155] Kutas M, Federmeier K D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in languagecomprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2000,4(12),463~470.
[156] Kutas M, Federmeier K D. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology,2011,62,621~647.
[157] Kutas M, Hillyard S A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semanticincongruity. Science,1980,207:203~205.
[158] Kutas M, McCarthy G, Donchin E. Augmenting mental chronometry: The P300as ameasure of stimulus evaluation time. Science,1977,197,792~795.
[159] Kutas M, Van Petten C. Psycholinguistics Electrified: Event-related potentialinvestigations. In: M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, Academic Press,1994,83~143.
[160] Langacker R W. Nouns and verbs. Language,1987,63,53~94.
[161] Lee Ch L, Federmeier K D. To mind the mind: an event-related potential study of wordclass and semantic ambiguity. Brain Research,2006,1081(1),191~202.
[162] Lee Ch L, Federmeier K D. To watch, to see, and to differ: an event-related potentialstudy of concreteness effects as a function of word class and lexical ambiguity. Brain andLanguage,2008,104(2),145~158.
[163] Li P, Jin Z, Tan L H. Neural representations of nouns and verbs in Chinese: An fMRIstudy. NeuroImage,2004,21,1533~1541.
[164] Lin Ch Ch, Ahrens K. Ambiguity advantage revisited: two meanings are better than onewhen accessing Chinese nouns. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,2010,39(1),1~19.
[165] Lin N, Guo Q, Han Z, et al, Motor knowledge is one dimension for conceptorganization: Further evidence from a Chinese semantic dementia case. Brain and Language,2010,119,110~118.
[166] Lindell A K. In your right mind: right hemisphere contributions to language processingand production. Neuropsychology Review,2006,16(3),131~148.
[167] Longe O, Randall B, Stamatakis E A, et al. Grammatical categories in the brain: Therole of morphological structure. Cerebral Cortex,2007,17,1812~1820.
[168] Luck S J, Hillyard S A. Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visualsearch. Psychophysiology,1994,31(3),291~308.
[169] Luo H, Ni J T, Li Z H, et al. Opposite patterns of hemisphere dominance for earlyauditory processing of lexical tones and consonants. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the U. S. A,2006,103(51),19558-19563.
[170] Lyons J. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,199
[171] MacNeilage P F, Rogers L J, Vallortigara G. Origins of the left&right brain. ScientificAmerican,2009,301,60~67.
[172] Marshall J, Chiat S, Robson J, et al. Calling a salad a federation: an investigation ofsemantic jargon. Part2-verbs. Journal of Neurolinguist,1996b,9,251~260.
[173] Marshall J, Pring T, Chiat S, et al. Calling a salad a federation: an investigation ofsemantic jargon. Part1-nouns. Journal of Neurolinguist,1996a,9,237~250.
[174] M tzig S, Druks J, Masterson J, et al.Noun and verb differences in picture naming: paststudies and new evidence. Cortex,2009,45,738~758.
[175] McCarthy G, Nobre A C, Bentin S, et al. Language-related field potentials in theanterior-medical temporal lobe: I.Intracranial distribution and neural generators. The Journalof Neuroscience,1995,15(2),1080~1089.
[176] McClelland J L. On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systemsof processes in cascade. Psychological Review,1979,86(4),287~330.
[177] McPherson W B, Holcomb P J. An electrophysiological investigation of semanticpriming with pictures of real objects. Psychophysiology,1999,36(1),53~65.
[178] Mohr B, Pulvrmuller F, Zaidel E. Lexical decisions after left, right and bilateralpresentation of function words, content words and nonwords: Evidence for interhemisphericinteraction. Neuropsychologia,1994,32,105~124.
[179] Neville H J, Mills D L, Lawson D S. Fractionating language: different neuralsubsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex,1992,2(3),244~258.
[180] Nieto A, Santacruz R, Hernández S. Hemispheric asymmetry in lexical decisions: theeffects of grammatical class and imageability. Brain and Language,1999,70(3),421~436.
[181] Nobre A C, Allison T, McCarthy G. Word recognition in the human inferior temporallobe. Nature,1994,372,260-263.
[182] Osterhout L, Holcomb P J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory and Language,1992,31,785~806.
[183] Paivio A. Mental representations: A dual coding approach.1986. Oxford University.
[184] Paivio A. Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum,2007.
[185] Palmer B, Nasman V T, Wilson G F. Task decision difficulty: effects on ERPs in asame-different letter classification task. Biological Psychology,1994,38(2-3),199~214.
[186] ParasurAman R, Richer F, Beatty J. Detection and recognition: Concurrent processes inperception. Perception&Psychophysics,1982,31(1),1~12.
[187] Peng G, Wang W S.2011Hemisphere lateralization is influenced by bilingual statusand composition of words. Neuropsychologia,2011,49(7),1981~1986.
[188] Polish J. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. ClinicalNeurophysiology,2007,118(10),2128-2148.
[189] Preissl H, Pulvermüller F, Lutzenberger W, et al, Evoked potentials distinguish betweennouns and verbs. Neuroscience Letters,1995,197(1),81~83.
[190] Pulvermüller F, Lutzenberger W, Birbaumer N. Electrocortical distinction ofvocabulary types. Electroencephalography Clinical Neurophysiology,1995,94(5),357~370.
[191] Pulvermüller F, Lutzenberger W, Preissl H. Nouns and verbs in the intact brain:Evidence from event-related potentials and high-frequency cortical responses. CerebralCortex,1999a,9(5),497~506.
[192] Pulvermüller F, Mohr B, Schleichert H, Semantic or lexico-syntactic factors: whatdetermines word-class-specific activity in the human brain? Neuroscience Letters,1999b,275(2),81~84.
[193] Pulvermüller F, Preissl H, Lutzenberger W, et al. Brain rhythms of language: nounsversus verbs. European Journal of Neuroscience,1996,8(5),937~941.
[194] Pylkk nen L, Llinás R, Murphy G L. The representation of Polysemy: MEG Evidence.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,2006,18(1),97~109.
[195] Robins R H. Noun and verb in universal grammar. Language,1952,28,289~298.
[196] Rodd J, Gaskell M, Marslen-Wilson W. Modelling the effects of semantic ambiguity inword recognition. Cognitive Science,2004,28,89~104.
[197] Ross J. The category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. CLS8, Chicago Linguistic Society,1972,316~328.
[198] Rugg M D. Memory and consciousness: a selective review of issues and data.Neuropsychologia,1995,33(9),1131~1141.
[199] Sabsevitz D S, Medler D A, Seidenberg M, et al. Modulation of the semantic system byword imageability. Neuroimage,2005,27(1),188~200.
[200] Sahin NT, Pinker S, Cash SS, et al. Sequential Processing of Lexical, Grammatical, andPhonological Information within Broca’s Area. Science,2009,326,445~449.
[201] Sereno J A. Hemispheric differences in grammatical class. Brain and Language,1999,70(1),13~28.
[202] Sereno JA&Jongman A. Processing of English inflectional morphology. MemoryCognition.1997,25(4),425-437.
[203] Shapiro K, Caramazza A.,2003. Grammatical processing of nouns and verbs in the leftfrontal cortex. Neuropsychologia41,1189~1198.
[204] Shapiro K, Shelton J, Caramazza A. Grammatical class in lexical production andmorphological processing: Evidence from a case of fluent aphasia. CognitiveNeuropsychology,2000,17,8,665~682.
[205] Shuai L. ERP Studies of Tone Lateralization. Doctoral dissertation The ChineseUniversity of Hong Kong,2009.
[206] Simos P G, Basile L F, Papanicolaou A C Source localization of the N400response in asentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic fields and magnetic resonance imaging.Brain Research,1997,762(1-2),29~39.
[207] Simpson G B. Context and the processing of ambiguous words. In M. A. Gernsbacher(Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp.359~374). San Diego, CA: Academic Press,1994.
[208] Sitnikova T, West W C, Kuperberg G R. et al. The neural organization of semanticmemory: electrophysiological activity suggests feature-based anatomical segregation.Biological Psychology,2006,71,326~340.
[209] Sperry R W, Gazzaniga M S. Language following surgical disconnection of thehemispheres. In: F. L. Darley (Ed.), Brain Mechanisms Underlying Speech and Language,New York: Grune and Stratton,1967..
[210] Squires K C, Hillyard S A, Lindsay P H. Vertex potentials evoked during auditorysignal detection: relation to decision criteria. Perception&Psychophysics,1973,14(2),265~272.
[211] Squires K C, Squires N K, Hillyard S A. Decision-related cortical potentials during anauditory signal detection task with cued observation intervals. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Human Perception and Performance,1975,1(3),268~279.
[212] Swaab T Y, Baynes K, Knight R T, et al. Separable effects of priming and imageabilityon word processing: an ERP study. Cognitive Brain Research,2002,15(1),99~103.
[213] Szaflarski J P, Binder J R, Possing E T, et al. Language lateralization in left-handed andambidextrous people: fMRI data. Neurology,2002,59(2),238~244.
[214] Szekely A, D'Amico S, Devescovi A, et al. Timed action and object naming. Cortex,2005,41,7~25.
[215] Talyor J R. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. ForeignLanguage Teaching and Research Press, Oxford University Press,2001.
[216] Tan L H, Laird A R, Li K, et al. Neuroanatomical correlates of phonological processingof Chinese characters and alphabetic words: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping,2005,25(1),83~91.
[217] Tranel D, Martin C, Damasio H, et al. Effects of noun–verb homonymy on the neuralcorrelates of naming concrete entities and actions. Brain and Language,2005,92(3):288~299.
[218] Tsai P S, Yu B H, Lee C Y, et al. An event-related potential study of the concretenesseffect between Chinese nouns and verbs. Brain Research,2009,1253,149~160.
[219] Tyler L K, Bright P, Fletcher P, et al. Neural processing of nouns and verbs: the role ofinflectional morphology. Neuropsychologia,2004,42(4),512~523.
[220] Tyler L K, Russell R, Fadili J, et al. The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PETstudies. Brain,2001,124(8),1619~1634.
[221] Vigliocco G, Vinson D P, Druks J, et al. Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review ofbehavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience&Biobehavioral Reviews,2011,35(3),407~426.
[222] Wang M Y, Kuo B C, Cheng S K. Chinese characters elicit face-like N170inversioneffects. Brain and Cognition,2011,77(3),419~431.
[223] Warrington E K, McCarthy R A, Category specific access dysphasia. Brain,1983,106,859~878
[224] West W C, Holcomb P J. Imaginal, semantic, and surface-level processing of concreteand abstract words: An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of CognitiveNeuroscience,2000,12(6),1024~1037.
[225] Wlotko E W, Federmeier K D. Finding the right word: Hemispheric asymmetries in theuse of sentence context information. Neuropsychologia,2007,45,3001–3014.
[226] Xi J, Zhang L, Shu H, et al., Categorical perception of lexical tones in Chinese revealedby mismatch negativity. Neuroscience,2010,170(1),223~231.
[227] Xu J, Kemeny S, Park G, et al. Language in context: emergent features of word,sentence, and narrative comprehension. Neuroimage,2005,25,1002~1115.
[228] Yang J, Tan L H, Li P. Lexical representation of nouns and verbs in the late bilingualbrain. Journal of Neurolinguistics,2011,24(6),674~682
[229] Yu X Y The neural-correlates of the concreteness effect in Chinese nouns and verbs,Master dissertation Taiwan: Central University, Taiwan,2005.
[230] Yu Xi, Law S P, Han Z Z et al. Dissociative neural correlates of semantic processing ofnouns and verbs in Chinese--a language with minimal inflectional morphology. Neuroimage,2011,58(3),912~922.
[231] Zhang Q, Guo Ch Y, Ding J H, et al. Concreteness effects in the processing of Chinesewords. Brain and Language,2006,96(1),59~68.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |