Verb Argument Structure Processing: The Role of Verb-Specific and Argument-Specific Information

Journal of Memory and Language

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 476-507

  Friederici, Angela D ^a   Frisch, Stefan ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

Author keywords

Verb argument structure; language related brain potentials; N400; P600; word order

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000898544     PISSN: 0749596X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jmla.2000.2709     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Abney S. A computational model of human parsing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 18:1989;129-144.
2. Baayen R. H., Piepenbrock R., van Rijn H. The CELEX lexical database. 1993;Linguistic Data ConsortiumUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
3. Boland J. E., Tanenhaus M. K. The role of lexical representations in sentence processing. Simpson G. B. Understanding word and sentence: Advances in psychology. 1991;331-366 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
4. Brown C. M., Hagoort P. The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 5:1993;34-44.
5. Chomsky N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. 1965;MIT Press, Cambridge.
6. Chwilla D. J., Brown C. M., Hagoort P. The N400 as a function of the level of processing. Psychophysiology. 32:1995;274-285.
7. Comrie B. Argument structure. Jacobs J., Stechow A. v., Sternefeld W., Venneman T. Handbook syntax. 1993;905-914 De Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
8. Coulson S., King J. W., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes. 13:1998;21-58.
9. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language. 67:1991;547-619.
10. Fischler I., Bloom P. A., Childers D. G., Roucus S. E., Perry N. W. J. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology. 20:1983;400-409.
11. Fischler I., Raney G. E. Language by eye: Behavioral, autonomic and cortical approaches to reading. Jennings J. R., Coles M. G. H. Handbook of cognitive psychophysiology: Central and autonomic nervous system approaches. 1991;Wiley, New York.
12. Fodor J. D. Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry. 9:1978;427-473.
13. Ford M., Bresnan J. W., Kaplan R. M. A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. Bresnan J. W. The mental representation of grammatical relations. 1982;MIT Press, Cambridge.
14. Frazier L. Sentence processing: A tutorial review. Coltheart M. Attention and performance XII. 1987;559-586 Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
15. Friederici A. D. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language. 50:1995;259-281.
16. Friederici A. D., Hahne A., Mecklinger A. The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late ERP effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 22:1996;1219-1248.
17. Friederici A. D., Pfeifer E., Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research. 1:1993;183-192.
18. Garnsey S. M., Pearlmutter N. J., Myers E., Lotocky M. A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 37:1997;58-93.
19. Garnsey S. M., Tanenhaus M. K., Chapman R. M. Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 18:1989;51-60.
20. Grimshaw J. Argument structure. 1990;MIT Press, Cambridge.
21. Gunter T. C., Stowe L. A., Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology. 34:1997;660-676.
22. Hagoort P., Brown C., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes. 8:1993;439-483.
23. Holcomb P. J. Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology. 30:1993;47-61.
24. Holcomb P. J., Neville H. J. Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes. 5:1990;281-312.
25. Huynh H., Feldt L. A. Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of American Statistical Association. 65:1970;1582-1589.
26. Jackendoff R. Semantic structures. 1990;Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
27. Kaan, E, Harris, A, Gibson, E, &, Holcomb, P. 1998, The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Talk given at the AMLaP conference, University of Freiburg, Germany, September 1998.
28. Keppel G. Design and analysis. 1991;Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
29. Kluender R., Kutas M. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERP's on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2:1993;196-214.
30. Kluender, R, &, Münte, T. F. 1998, ERPs to grammatical and ungrammatical subject/object asymmetries in German wh-questions. Paper presented at the 11th Annual CUNY Conference of Human Sentence Processing, New Brunswick, NJ.
31. Konieczny L. Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. 1996;University of Freiburg.
32. Kutas M., Hillyard S. A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature. 307:1984;161-163.
33. Kutas M., Van Petten C. Electrophysiological perspectives on comprehending written language. Rossini P. M., Mauguiere F. Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology: Supplement 41. New trends and advanced techniques in clinical neurophysiology. 1990;Elsevier, Amsterdam.
34. Kutas M., Van Petten C. K. Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. Gernsbacher M. A. Handbook of psycholinguistics. 1994;83-143 Academic Press, San Diego.
35. McCarthy G., Wood C. C. Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 62:1985;203-208.
36. McClelland J. L., St. John M., Taraban R. Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach. Language and Cognitive Processes. 4:1989;287-335.
37. McElree B., Griffith T. Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 21:1995;134-157.
38. McKinnon R., Osterhout L. Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes. 11:1996;495-523.
39. Mecklinger A., Kramer A. F., Strayer D. L. Event-related potentials and EEG components in a semantic memory search task. Psychophysiology. 29:1992;104-119.
40. Mecklinger A., Schriefers H., Steinhauer K., Friederici A. D. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory & Cognition. 23:1995;477-494.
41. Mitchell D. C. Verb-guidance and other lexical effects in parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes. 4:1989;123-154.
42. Münte T. F., Heinze H.-J., Mangun G. R. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 5:1993;335-344.
43. Münte T. F., Matzke M., Johannes S. Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 9:1997a;318-329.
44. Münte T. F., Szentkuti A., Wieringa B. M., Matzke M., Johannes S. Human brain potentials to reading syntactic errors in sentences of different complexity. Neuroscience Letters. 235:1997b;105-108.
45. Münte T. F., Heinze H.-J., Matzke M., Wieringa B. M., Johannes S. Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia. 36:1998;217-226.
46. Neville H. J., Nicol J., Barss A., Forster K., Garrett M. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 3:1991;155-170.
47. Oldfield R. C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:1971;97-113.
48. Osterhout L. On the brain responses to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language. 59:1997;494-522.
49. Osterhout L., Holcomb P. J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language. 31:1992;785-804.
50. Osterhout L., Holcomb P. J. Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes. 8:1993;413-437.
51. Osterhout L., Holcomb P. J. Event-related potentials and language comprehension. Rugg M. D., Coles M. G. H. Electrophysiology of mind. 1995;171-209 Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
52. Osterhout L., Mobley L. A. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language. 34:1995;739-773.
53. Rösler F., Friederici A. D., Pütz P., Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 5:1993;345-362.
54. Rugg M. D., Coles M. G. H. Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related potentials and cognition. 1995;Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
55. Schmauder A. R., Kennison S. M., Clifton C. J. On the conditions necessary for obtaining argument structure complexity effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 17:1991;1188-1192.
56. Shapiro L. P, Nagel H. N., Levine B. A. Preferences for a verb's complements and their use in sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 32:1993;96-114.
57. Shapiro L. P., Zurif E. B., Grimshaw J. Sentence processing and the mental representation of verbs. Cognition. 27:1987;219-246.
58. Tabossi P., Spivey-Knowlton M. J., McRae K., Tanenhaus M. K. Semantic effects on syntactic ambiguity resolution: Evidence for a constraint-based resolution process. Umilta C. M., Moscovitch. Attention and performance XV: Conscious and conconscious information processing. 1994;589-615 MIT Press, Cambridge.
59. Tanenhaus M. K., Boland J. E., Garnsey S. M., Carlson G. N. Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 18:1989;37-50.
60. Taraban R., McClelland J. R. Parsing and comprehension: A multiple constraint view. Balota D. A., Flores d'Arcais G. B., Rayner K. Comprehension processes in reading. 1990;231-263 Erlbaum, Hillsdale.
61. Trueswell J. C., Tanenhaus M. K., Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 19:1993;528-553.
62. Van Petten C., Kutas M. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open and closed class words. Memory & Cognition. 19:1991;95-112.
63. Vogel R. Polyvalent verbs. 1998.
64. Wechsler S. The semantic basis of argument structure. 1995;CSLI, Stanford.
65. Wegener H. Der Dativ - ein struktureller Kasus? Fanselow G., Felix S. W. Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. 1991;Narr, Tübingen.