The brain knows the difference: Two types of grammatical violations

Brain Research

Volumn 1000, Issue 1-2, 2004, Pages 72-77

  Friederici, Angela D ^a   Meyer, Martin ^a,b  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cognition; Event related brain potentials; N400; Neural basis of behavior; P600; Sentence processing; Syntax

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BRAIN; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROOCULOGRAPHY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LINGUISTICS; NEUROPHYSIOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BRAIN; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; SEMANTICS;

EID: 1842557890     PISSN: 00068993     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2003.10.057     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Angrilli A., Penolazzi B., Vespignani F.et al. Cortical brain responses to semantic incongruity and syntactic violation in Italian language: an event-related potential study. Neurosci. Lett. 322:2002;5-8.
2. Bornkessel I. The Argument Dependency Model: A Neurocognitive Approach to Incremental Interpretation. MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience. vol. 28:2002;Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Leipzig.
3. Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding. 1981;Foris, Dordrecht.
4. Deutsch A., Bentin S. Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: evidence from ERPs and eye movements. J. Mem. Lang. 45:2001;200-224.
5. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn. Sci. 6:2002;78-84.
6. Friederici A.D., Frisch S. Verb-argument structure processing: the role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. J. Mem. Lang. 43:2000;476-507.
7. Friederici A.D., Pfeifer E., Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cogn. Brain Res. 1:1993;183-192.
8. Friederici A.D., Hahne A., Mecklinger A. The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: early and late event-related brain potential effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. J. Exper. Psychol., Learn., Mem., Cogn. 22:1996;1219-1248.
9. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport. 12:2001;3391-3394.
10. Goldberg A. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. 1995;University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
11. Gunter T.C., Stowe L., Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology. 34:1997;660-676.
12. Gunter T.C., Friederici A.D., Hahne A. Brain responses during sentence reading: visual input affects central processes. NeuroReport. 10:1999;3175-3178.
13. Hagoort P., Brown C., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Lang. Cogn. Processes. 8:1993;439-483.
14. Hahne A., Friederici A.D. Electrophysical evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: early automatic and late controlled processes. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 11:1999;194-205.
15. Jackendoff R. Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. 2002;Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.
16. Knösche T., Maeß B., Friederici A.D. Processing of syntactic information monitored by brain surface current density mapping based on MEG. Brain Topogr. 12:1999;75-87.
17. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4:2000;463-470.
18. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science. 207:1980;203-205.
19. McCarthy G., Wood C.C. Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurol. 62:1985;203-208.
20. Münte T.F., Heinze H.J., Mangun G.R. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 5:1993;335-344.
21. Neville H.J., Nicol J., Barss A.et al. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 3:1991;151-165.
22. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. J. Mem. Lang. 31:1992;785-804.
23. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Lang. Cogn. Processes. 8:1993;413-437.
24. Osterhout L., Mobley L.A. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. J. Mem. Lang. 34:1995;739-773.
25. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J., Swinney D.A. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. J. Exper. Psychol., Learn., Mem., Cogn. 20:1994;786-803.