Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 269-298

  Bornkessel, Ina ^a   Schlesewsky, Matthias ^b   Friederici, Angela D ^a  

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

^b PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVOKED CORTICAL RESPONSE; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 0038726505     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960244000018     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Bader, M., & Lasser, I. (1994). German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 225-242). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
2. beim Graben, P., Saddy, J.D., Schlesewsky, M., & Kurths, J. (2000). Symbolic dynamics of event-related brain potentials. Physical Review E, 62, 5518-5541.
3. Billings, L., & Rudin, C. (1996). Optimality and superiority: A new approach to overt multiple wh-ordering. In J. Toman (Ed.), Proceedings of the Annual Workshop on Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics. The College Park Meeting 1994 [FASL 3] (pp. 35-60). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.
4. Bornkessel, I. (2002). The argument-dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation. MPI-Series in Cognitive Neuroscience, 28.
5. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A.D. (2002a). Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, B21-B30.
6. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A.D. (2002b). Beyond syntax: Language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. NeuroReport, 13, 361-364.
7. Bresnan, J., & Kanerva, J.M. (1989). Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 1-50.
8. Brown, C., van Berkum, J.J.A., & Hagoort, P. (2000). Discourse before gender: an event-related brain potential study on the interplay of semantic and syntactic information during spoken language understanding. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29, 53-68.
9. Coulson, S., King, J., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 21-58.
10. Crocker, M.W. (1994). On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 245-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
11. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
12. Fanselow, G. (2000). Optimal exceptions. In B. Stiebels, & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Lexicon in focus (pp. 173-209). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
13. Fodor, J.D., & Inoue, A. (1994). The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 405-432.
14. Friederici, A.D. (1998). Diagnosis and reanalysis: Two processing steps the brain may differentiate. In J.D. Fodor. & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 177-200). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
15. Friederici, A.D. (1999). The neurobiology of language processing. In A.D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 265-304). Berlin: Springer.
16. Friederici, A.D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78-84.
17. Friederici, A.D., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First pass and second pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157-176.
18. Friederici, A.D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K.M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305-323.
19. Friederici, A.D., Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., & Meyer, M. (1998). Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology, 47, 193-221.
20. Frisch, S. (2000). Verb-Argument-Struktur, Kasus and thematische Interpretation beim Sprachverstehen. MPI-Series in Cognitive Neuroscience, 12.
21. Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12, 3391-3394.
22. Frisch, S., Schlesewsky, M., Saddy, D., & Alpermann, A. (2002). The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition, 85, B83-B92.
23. Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24. Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Gunter, T.C., Stowe, L.A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660-676.
26. Gunter, T.C., Friederici, A.D., & Schriefers, H. (2000). Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 556-568.
27. 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.
28. Hahne, A., & Friederici, A.D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 194-205.
29. Huynh, H., & Feldt, L.S. (1970). Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 1582-1589.
30. Jackendoff, R.S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Kamide, Y., & Mitchell, D.C. (1999). Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 631-662.
32. Kiparsky, P. (1987). Morphology and grammatical relations. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.
33. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
34. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1983). Event-related potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11, 539-550.
35. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K.D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 463-470.
36. MacDonald, M.C., Pearlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
37. 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. Journal of Memory and Cognition, 23, 477-494.
38. Münte, T.F., Heinze, H., & Mangun, G.R. (1993). Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 335-344.
39. Neville, H.J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M.F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 233-255.
40. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-804.
41. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P.J. (1993). Event-related brain potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413-437.
42. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P.J., & Swinney, D.A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 786-803.
43. Primus, B. (1998). The relative order of recipient and patient in the languages of Europe. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent order in the languages of Europe (pp. 421-471). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
44. Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
45. Pulvermüller, F., Assadollahi, R., & Elbert, T. (2001). Neuromagnetic evidence for early semantic access in word recognition. European Journal of Neuroscience, 13, 201-205.
46. Rayner, K., Carlson, K., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye-movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 358-374.
47. Rösler, F., Friederici, A.D., Pütz, P., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 345-362.
48. Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150-176.
49. Scheepers, C., Hemforth, B., & Konieczny, L. (2000). Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych-verbs and the resolution of subject-object ambiguity. In B. Hemforth & L. Konieczny (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 95-135). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
50. Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., & Frisch, S. (in press). The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German. Brain and Language.
51. Sharbrough, F., Chatrian, G.-E., Lesser, R.P., Lüders, H., Nuwer, M., & Picton T.W. (1991). American Encephalographic Society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 8, 200-202.
52. Skrandies, W. (1998). Evoked potential correlates of semantic meaning - a brain mapping studyy. Cognitive Brain Research, 6, 173-183.
53. Stabler, E.P. (1994). The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 303-336). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
54. Steinhauer, K., Mecklinger, A., Friederici, A.D., & Meyer, M. (1997). Wahrscheinlichkeit und Strategie: Eine EKP-Studie zur Verarbeitung syntaktischer Anomalien. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, XLIV(2), 305-331.
55. Tomlin, R. (1986). Basis word order. Functional principles. London: Croomhelm.
56. Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic disambiguation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
57. Van Petten, C.K., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open-and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, 95-112.
58. Van Valin, R.D., Jr., & La Polla, R. J. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59. Wegener, H. (1985). Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Tübingen: Narr.
60. Wunderlich, D. (1985). Über die Argumente des Verbs. Linguistische Berichte, 97, 183-227.
61. Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 27-68.
62. Zubin, D.A., & Köpke, K.-M. (1985). Cognitive constraints on the order of subject and object in German. Studies in Language, 9, 77-101.