An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences

Psychophysiology

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 559-570

  Weckerly, Jill ^a   Kutas, Marta ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Animacy; Event related potential; Object relative clauses; Parsing; Role assignment; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; SEMANTICS;

EID: 0032769838     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0048577299971202     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B. MacWhinney & E. Bates (Eds.), A cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3-73). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2. Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355-387.
3. Boland, J. E. (1997). The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12, 423-484.
4. Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (1988). Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In G. Carlson & M. K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
5. Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain responses to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 653-672.
6. Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 348-368.
7. Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66, 297-316.
8. Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
9. Frazier, L. (1989). Against lexical generation of syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 505-528). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Friederici, A., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late event-related potential effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1219-1248.
11. Friederici, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157-176.
12. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
13. King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word-and clause-related ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 378-397.
14. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993a). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196-214.
15. Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993b). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 573-633.
16. Kounios, J., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 459-479.
17. Kutas, M. (1993). In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single word versus sentence context effects. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 533-572.
18. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
19. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials reflect word expectancy and semantic association during reading. Nature, 307, 161-163.
20. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new topology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
21. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
22. Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. G. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.
23. Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1995). Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477-494.
24. Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII (pp. 601-618). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
25. Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 151-165.
26. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
27. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related potentials and language comprehension. In M. D. Rugg & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related potentials and cognition (pp. 171-215). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
28. Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.
29. Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a constraint-based lexicalist approach to syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier. & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Kello, C. C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
31. Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open and closed class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95-112.
32. Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1998). The interaction of noun animacy and grammatical role in the processing of object relative sequences. UCSO Cognitive Science Tech Report 98.01.