On incremental interpretation: Degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension

Lingua

Volumn 114, Issue 9-10, 2004, Pages 1213-1234

  Schlesewsky, Matthias ^a   Bornkessel, Ina ^b  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

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

Author keywords

Argument Dependency Model; Event related brain potentials; Language architecture; Language comprehension; Morphological case; Thematic hierarchy

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042593644     PISSN: 00243841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.07.006     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Bader M. Meng M. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: an across-the-board comparison Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28 1999 121-143
2. Bornkessel I. 2002. The Argument Dependency Model: a neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation. In: MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 28, Leipzig.
3. Bornkessel I. Schlesewsky M. Friederici A.D. B Beyond syntax: language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies Neuroreport 13 2002a 361-364
4. Bornkessel I. Schlesewsky M. Friederici A.D. Grammar overrides frequency: evidence from the online processing of flexible word order Cognition 85 2002b B21-B30
5. Bornkessel I. McElree B. Schlesewsky M. 2002 The N400 as an index of reanalysis: evidence from processing dynamics. In: Paper Presented at the 15th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, New York City.
6. Bornkessel I. Schlesewsky M. Friederici A.D. 2003. Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: the role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 18, 268-298.
7. Bouchard D. The concept of "universal" and the case of Japanese Lingua 111 2001 247-277
8. Bresnan J. Kanerva J.M. Locative inversion in Chichewa: a case study of factorization in grammar Linguistic Inquiry 20 1989 1-50
9. Coles M.G.H. Rugg M.D. 1995. Event-related brain potentials: an introduction. In: Rugg, M.D., Coles, M.G.H. (Eds.), Electrophysiology of mind: event-related brain potentials and cognition. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1-26.
10. Coulson S. King J. Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations Language and Cognitive Processes 13 1998 21-58
11. Crocker M.W. 1994. On the nature of the principle-based sentence processor. In: Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 245-266.
12. de Vincenzi M. 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
13. Dowty D. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection Language 67 1991 547-619
14. Fanselow G. 2000. Optimal exceptions. In: Stiebel, B., Wunderlich, D. (Eds.), Lexicon in Focus. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp. 173-209.
15. Frazier L. Flores d'Arcais G.B. Filler driven parsing: a study of gap filling in Dutch Journal of Memory and Language 28 1989 331-344
16. Friederici A.D. 1999. The neurobiology of language processing. In: Friederici, A.D. (Ed.), Language Comprehension: A Biological Perspective. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp. 265-304.
17. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 2002 78-84
18. Frisch S. 2000. Verb-Argument-Struktur, Kasus und thematische Interpretation beim Sprachverstehen. In: MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 12.
19. Frisch S. Schlesewsky M. The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchising Neuroreport 12 2001 3391-3394
20. Frisch S. Schlesewsky M. Saddy D. Alpermann A. The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity Cognition 85 2002 83-92
21. Garnsey S.M. (Ed.), 1993. Event-related brain potentials in the study of language (special issue). Language and Cognitive Processes 8.
22. Gibson E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies Cognition 68 1998 1-76
23. Givón T. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
24. Gorrell P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
25. Gunter T.C. Stowe L.A. Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics Psychophysiology 34 1997 660-676
26. Gunter T.C. Friederici A.D. Schriefers H. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 12 2000 556-568
27. Grimshaw J. 1990. Argument Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
28. Hahne A. 1998. Charakteristika syntaktischer und semantischer Prozesse bei der auditiven Sprachverarbeitung. In: MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 1.
29. Haider H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax-generativ. Narr, Tübingen.
30. Hawkins J.A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
31. Hawkins J.A. 2002. Symmetries and asymmetries: their grammar, typology and parsing. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 95-150.
32. Jackendoff R.S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
33. Kayne R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
34. Kiparsky P. 1987. Morphology and grammatical relations. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University.
35. Kutas M. Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity Science 207 1980 203-205
36. Kutas M. Hillyard S.A. Event-related potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies Memory & Cognition 11 1983 539-550
37. Kutas M. Van Petten C.K. 1994. Psycholinguistics electrified. In: Gernsbacher, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 83-143.
38. Mitchell D.C. 1994. Sentence parsing. In: Gernsbacher, M.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Academic Press, New York, pp. 375-409.
39. Neeleman A. Weerman F. 1998. Flexible Syntax: A Theory of Case and Arguments. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
40. Osterhout L. Mobley L.A. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree Journal of Memory and Language 34 1995 739-773
41. Primus B. 1999. Cases and Thematic Roles. Niemeyer, Tübingen.
42. Rösler F. Pechmann T. Streb J. Röder B. Hennighausen E. 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 1998 150-176
43. Schlesewsky M. Bornkessel I. Frisch S. The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German Brain and Language 86 2003 116-128
44. Schlesewsky M. Frisch S. submitted for publication. Why the "subject preference" is more than a "subject" preference: the role of non-syntactic features in parsing expectations. University of Marburg and University of Potsdam.
45. Schlesewsky M. Fanselow G. Kliegl R. Krems J. 2000. The subject-preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. In: Hemforth, B., Konieczny, L. (Eds.), German Sentence Processing. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 65-93.
46. Schriefers H. Friederici A.D. Kühn K. The processing of locally ambiguous relative clauses in German Journal of Memory and Language 34 1995 499-520
47. Stabler E.P. 1994. The finite connectivity of linguistic structure. In: Clifton, C., Frazier, L., Rayner, K. (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 303-336.
48. Van Valin Jr. R.D. La Polla R. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49. Wunderlich D. Cause und the structure of verbs Linguistic Inquiry 28 1997 27-68
50. Wunderlich D. Optimal case patterns: German and Icelandic compared. In: Brandner, E., Zinsmeister, H. (Eds.), New Perspectives on Case Theory. CSLI Publications, Stanford, pp. 329-365.