Differential integration efforts of mandatory and optional sentence constituents

Psychophysiology

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 440-449

  Prior, Anat ^a   Bentin, Shlomo ^b  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

ERP; N400; Semantic integration; Sentence comprehension; Word class

Indexed keywords

AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRODE; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEMANTICS;

EID: 33748549956     PISSN: 00485772     EISSN: 14698986     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2006.00426.x     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.
2. Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M. H., Echallier, J. F., & Pernier, J. (1999). ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: Time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 235-260.
3. Black, M., & Chiat, S. (2003). Noun-verb dissociations: A multi-faceted phenomenon. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 231-250.
4. Brown, C., Hagoort, P., & ter Keurs, M. (1999). Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: Open- and closed-class words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 261-281.
5. Brown, M. C., & Hagoort, P. (1999). On the electrophysiology of language comprehension: Implications for the human language system. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and mechanisms for language processing (pp. 213-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cappa, S. F., & Perani, D. (2003). The neural correlates of noun and verb processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16, 183-189.
7. Carlson, G. N., & Tananhaus, M. K. (1988). Thematic roles and language comprehension. In W. Wilkins (Ed.), Thematic relations (pp. 263-288). New York: Academic Press.
8. Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 91-120.
9. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
10. Clifton, C., & Duffy, S. A. (2001). Sentence and test comprehension: Roles of linguistic structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 167-196.
11. DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1117-1121.
12. Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547-619.
13. Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123, 2552-2566.
14. Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516-547.
15. Fisher, C., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 331-392.
16. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178-210.
18. Friederici, A. D. (2004). The neural basis of syntactic processes. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (3rd ed, pp. 789-801). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Friederici, A. D., Gunter, T. C., Hahne, A., & Mauth, K. (2004). The relative timing of syntactic and semantic processes in sentence comprehension. NeuroReport, 15, 165-169.
20. Frisch, S., Hahne, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Word category and verb-argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing. Cognition, 91, 191-219.
21. Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Tunstall, S. (2002). Syntactic complexity in ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 267-295.
22. Hagoort, P. (2003). Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 883-899.
23. Hinojosa, J. A., Martin-Loeches, M., & Rubia, F. J. (2001). Event-related potentials and semantics: An overview and an integrative proposal. Brain and Language, 78, 128-139.
24. Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: An event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming. Psychophysiology, 30, 47-62.
25. Holcomb, P. J., Kounious, J., Anderson, J. E., & West, W. C. (1999). Dual-coding, context availability, and concreteness effects in sentence comprehension: An electrophysiological investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 721-742.
26. Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621-635.
27. Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 117-129.
28. Kutas, M., Federmeier, K. D., Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Munte, T. F. (2000). Language. In J. T. Cacioppo & L. G. Tassinary (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (2nd ed, pp. 576-601). New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1980). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116.
30. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.
31. Kutas, M., & King, J. W. (1996). The potentials for basic sentence processing: Differentiating integrative processes. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance 16: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 501-546). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Kutas, M., Lindamood, T., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. In S. Kornblum & J. Renquin (Eds.), Preparatory states and processes (pp. 217-237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). New York: Academic Press.
34. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. K., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potentials asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69, 218-233.
35. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
37. McCarthy, G., Nobre, A. C., Bentin, S., & Spencer, D. D. (1995). Language-related field potentials in the anterior-medial temporal lobe. Journal of Neurophysiology, 15, 1080-1089.
38. Munte, T. F., Wieringa, B. M., Weyerts, H., Szentkuti, A., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (2001). Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia, 39, 91-102.
39. Myers, E. B., & Blumstein, S. E. (2005). Selectional restriction and semantic priming effects in normals and Broca's aphasics. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18, 277-296.
40. Neville, H. J., Mills, D. L., & Lawson, D. S. (1992). Fractionating language: Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. Cerebral Cortex, 2, 244-258.
41. Osterhout, L., Allen, M., & McLaughlin, J. (2002). Words in the brain: Lexical determinants of word-induced brain activity. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 171-187.
42. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related potentials and language comprehension. In M. D. Rugg & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Electrophysiology of mind (pp. 171-215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43. Perani, D., Cappa, S. F., Schnur, T., Tettamanti, M., Collina, S., Rosa, M. M., et al. (1999). The neural correlates of verb and noun processing: A PET study. Brain, 122, 2337-2344.
44. Pulvermuller, T., Lutzenberger, W., & Preissl, H. (1999). Nouns and verbs in the intact brain: Evidence from event-related potentials and high-frequency cortical responses. Cerebral Cortex, 9, 497-506.
45. Shapiro, K., & Caramazza, A. (2003). The representation of grammatical categories in the brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 201-206.
46. Titone, D. A., & Salisbury, D. F. (2004). Contextual modulation of N400 amplitude to lexically ambiguous words. Brain & Cognition, 55, 470-478.
47. Townsend, D. J., & Bever, T. C. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 285-318.
49. Tyler, L. K., Russell, R., Fadili, J., & Moss, H. E. (2001). The neural representation of nouns and verbs: PET studies. Brain, 124, 1619-1634.
50. van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657-671.
51. van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2003). When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 701-718.
52. Van Petten, C. K., & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context in open- and closed-class words. Memory & Cognition, 19, 95-112.
53. Warren, T., & Gibson, E. (2002). The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, 79-112.