Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing

Cognition

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 191-219

  Frisch, Stefan ^a,b   Hahne, Anja ^b   Friederici, Angela D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

Argument structure; Event related potentials; Language processing; Word category

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY STIMULATION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORD RECOGNITION;

EID: 1142285582     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.09.009     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Adams B.C., Clifton C., Mitchell D.C. Lexical guidance in sentence processing? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 5:1998;265-270.
2. Ainsworth-Darnell K., Shulman H.G., Boland J.E. Dissociating brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language. 38:1998;112-130.
3. Baayen R.H., Piepenbrock R., van Rijn H. The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). 1993;Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
4. Boland J.E. The relationship between syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes. 12:1997;423-484.
5. Boland J.E., Tanenhaus M.K. The role of lexical representation in sentence processing. Simpson G.B. Understanding word and sentence. 1991;331-366 North-Holland, Amsterdam.
6. Boland J.E., Tanenhaus M.K., Garnsey S.M., Carlson G.N. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language. 34:1995;774-806.
7. Brown C., Hagoort P. The processing nature of the N400: evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 5:1993;34-44.
8. Chomsky N. Lectures on government and binding. 1981;Foris, Dordrecht.
9. Chwilla D.J., Brown C.M., Hagoort P. The N400 as a function of the level of processing. Psychophysiology. 32:1995;274-285.
10. Clifton C., Speer S., Abney S.P. Parsing arguments: phrase structure and argument structure as determinants of initial parsing decisions. Journal of Memory and Language. 30:1991;251-271.
11. Coulson S., King J., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes. 13:1998;21-58.
12. Ferreira F., Clifton C. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language. 25:1986;348-368.
13. 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.
14. Fodor J.D., Ferreira F. Reanalysis in sentence processing. 1998;Kluwer, Dordrecht.
15. Frazier L. Syntactic processing: evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 5:1987;519-559.
16. Frazier L., Clifton C. Construal. 1996;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
17. Frazier L., Rayner K. Making and correcting errors in sentence comprehension: eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology. 14:1982;178-210.
18. Friederici A.D. The time course of syntactic activation in language processing: a model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language. 50:1995;259-281.
19. Friederici A.D. The neurobiology of language comprehension. Friederici A.D. Language comprehension: a biological perspective. 1999;265-304 Springer, Berlin.
20. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Science. 6:2002;78-84.
21. Friederici A.D., Frisch S. Verb argument structure processing: the role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language. 43:2000;476-507.
22. Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K (in press). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. NeuroReport.
23. 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.
24. Friederici A.D., Pfeifer E., Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials in natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research. 1:1993;183-192.
25. Friederici A.D., Steinhauer K., Frisch S. Lexical integration: sequential effects of syntactic and semantic information. Memory and Cognition. 27:1999;438-453.
26. Friederici A.D., Steinhauer K., Mecklinger A., Meyer M. Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses. Biological Psychology. 47:1998;193-221.
27. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport. 12:2001;3391-3394.
28. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M., Saddy D., Alpermann A. The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity. Cognition. 85:2002;B83-B92.
29. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition. 68:1998;1-76.
30. Gunter T.C., Friederici A.D., Hahne A. Brain responses in sentence reading: visual input affects central processes. NeuroReport. 10:1999;3175-3178.
31. Gunter T.C., Schriefers H., Friederici A.D. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 12:2000;556-568.
32. Gunter T.C., Stowe L.A., Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology. 34:1997;660-676.
33. Haegeman L. Introduction to government and binding theory. 1991;Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
34. Hagoort P., Brown C., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes. 8:1993;439-483.
35. Hahne A. What's different in second language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 30:2001;251-266.
36. Hahne A., Friederici A.D. Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 11:1999;194-205.
37. Hahne A., Friederici A.D. Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research. 13:2002;339-356.
38. Hahne A., Jescheniak J.D. What's left if the Jabberwocky gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes in auditory sentence comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research. 11:2001;199-212.
39. Hemforth B. Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation und Verarbeitung kognitiven Wissens. 1993;Infix, Sankt Augustin.
40. 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.
41. Holmes V.M. Syntactic parsing: in search of the garden path. Coltheart M. The psychology of reading. Attention and performance. XII:1987;587-599 Erlbaum, London.
42. Huynh H., Feldt L.S. Conditions under which the mean square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 65:1970;1582-1589.
43. Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., Holcomb P. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes. 15:2000;159-201.
44. Konieczny, L (1996). Human sentence processing: a semantics-oriented approach. Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg.
45. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science. 207:1980;203-205.
46. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials in reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature. 307:1984;161-163.
47. Kutas M., Lindamood T.E., Hillyard S.A. Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. Kornblum S., Requin J. Preparatory studies and processes. 1984;217-237 Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
48. 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, CA.
49. McElree B., Griffith T. Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 21:1995;134-157.
50. Mitchell D.C. Lexical guidance in human parsing: locus and processing characteristics. Coltheart M. The psychology of reading. Attention and performance. XII:1987;601-618 Erlbaum, London.
51. Mitchell D.C. Verb-guidance and other lexical effects in parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes. 4:1989;123-154.
52. Mitchell D.C. Sentence parsing. Gernsbacher M.A. Handbook of psycholinguistics. 1994;375-409 Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
53. Münte T.F., Matzke M., Johannes S. Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 9:1997;318-329.
54. Neville H.J., Nicol J., Barss A., Forster K., Garrett M.F. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 6:1991;233-255.
55. Oldfield R.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia. 9:1971;97-113.
56. O'Seaghdha P.G. The dependence of lexical relatedness effects on syntactic connectedness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 15:1989;73-87.
57. 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.
58. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language. 31:1992;785-804.
59. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J., Swinney D.A. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information in parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 20:1994;786-803.
60. Osterhout L., Nicol J. On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes. 14:1999;283-317.
61. Rayner K., Carlson M., Frazier L. The interaction of syntax and semantics in sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 22:1983;358-374.
62. 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.
63. Schriefers H., Friederici A.D., Rose U. Context effects in visual word recognition: lexical relatedness and syntactic context. Memory and Cognition. 26:1998;1292-1303.
64. Shapiro L.P., Levine B.A. Verb processing in sentence comprehension in aphasia. Brain and Language. 38:1990;21-47.
65. 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.
66. Sharbrough F., Chatrian G.-E., Lesser R.P., Lüders H., Nuwer M., Picton T.W. American Electroencephalographic Society guidelines for standard electrode position nomenclature. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 8:1991;200-202.
67. Stowe L. Thematic structures and sentence comprehension. Carlson G., Tanenhaus M. Linguistic structure and language processing. 1988;319-356 Reidel, Dordrecht.
68. Tanenhaus M.K., Carlson G., Trueswell J.C. The role of thematic structures in interpretation and parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes. 4:1989;211-234.
69. Taraban R., McClelland J.L. Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language. 27:1988;597-632.
70. Townsend D.J., Bever T.G. Sentence comprehension: the integration of habits and rules. 2001;MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
71. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Garnsey S.M. Semantic influence on parsing: use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language. 33:1994;285-318.
72. Weckerly J., Kutas M. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology. 36:1999;559-570.