An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese

Language and Cognitive Processes

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 646-688

  Ueno, Mieko ^a   Garnsey, Susan M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; JAPANESE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; READING; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 46649114340     PISSN: 01690965     EISSN: 14640732     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01690960701653501     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Amano, N. and Kondo, M. (2000)7, Sanseido, Tokyo
2. Bornkessel, I. and Schlesewsky, M. (2006) The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, pp. 787-821.
3. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M. and Friederici, A. D. (2002) Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, pp. B21-B30.
4. Caplan, D., Vijayan, S., Kuperberg, G., West, C., Waters, G., Greve, D. and Dale, A. M. (2001) Vascular responses to syntactic processing: Event-related fMRI study of relative clauses. Human Brain Mapping, 15, pp. 26-38.
5. Casado, P., Martin-Loeches, M., Munoz, F. and Fernandez-Frias, C. (2005) Are semantic and syntactic cues inducing the same processes in the identification of word order?. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, pp. 526-543.
6. Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on government and binding, Foris, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
7. Comrie, B. and Horie, K. (1995) Complement clauses versus relative clauses: Some Khmer evidence. Discourse grammar typology, pp. 65-75. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
8. Coulson, S., King, J. W. and Kutas, M. (1998) Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, pp. 21-58.
9. Cowles, H. W., Kutas, M. and Kluender, R. (2003) Different ERP results from identical sentences: The importance of prior context in sentence processing
10. Ferreira, F. and Clifton, C. (1986) The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, pp. 348-368.
11. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M. and Friederici, A. D. (2001) Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30, pp. 321-338.
12. Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M. and Friederici, A. D. (2002) Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, pp. 250-272.
13. Fodor, J. D. (1989) Empty categories in sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, pp. 155-209.
14. Fox, B. A. (1987) The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis. Language, 63, pp. 856-870.
15. Friederici, A. D. (2002) Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, pp. 78-84.
16. Fukui, N. and Takano, Y. (2000) Nominal structure: An extension of the symmetry principle. The derivation of VO and OV, pp. 219-254. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
17. Gibson, E. (1998) Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, pp. 1-76.
18. Gibson, E. (2000) Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium, pp. 95-126. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
19. Gibson, E., Schutze, C. T. and Salomon, A. (1996) The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, pp. 59-92.
20. Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R. and Johnson, M. (2001) Memory inference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 27, pp. 1411-1423.
21. Gouvea, A., Phillips, C., Kazanina, N. and Poeppel, D. (2007) The linguistic processes underlying the P600
22. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H. and Donchin, E. (1983) A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55, pp. 468-484.
23. Hagoort, P. (2003) How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20, pp. S18-S29.
24. Hagoort, P. (2005) On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, pp. 416-423.
25. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. and Groothusen, J. (1993) The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, pp. 439-483.
26. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. and Osterhout, L. (1999) The neurocognition of syntactic processing. Neurocognition of language, pp. 273-317. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
27. Han, C. and Kim, J. B. (2004) Are there 'double relative clauses' in Korean?. Linguistic Inquiry, 35, pp. 315-337.
28. Hawkins, J. A. (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
29. Huynh, H. and Feldt, L. S. (1976) Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, pp. 69-82.
30. Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K. and Gibson, E. (2003) Relative clause extraction complexity in Japanese
31. Ishizuka, T., Nakatani, K. and Gibson, E. (2006) Processing Japanese relative clauses in context
32. Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E. and Holcomb, P. (2000) The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, pp. 159-201.
33. Kaan, E. and Swaab, T. Y. (2003) Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, pp. 621-635.
34. Kaplan, T. I. and Whitman, J. B. (1995) The category of relative clauses in Japanese, with reference to Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 4, pp. 29-58.
35. Keenan, E. (1987) Universal grammar: 15 essays, Croom Helm, London
36. Keenan, E. and Comrie, B. (1977) Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, pp. 63-99.
37. King, J. W. and Just, M. A. (1991) Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, pp. 580-602.
38. King, J. W. and Kutas, M. (1995) Who did what to when?: Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, pp. 376-395.
39. Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. (1993) Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, pp. 196-214.
40. Kluender, R. and Kutas, M. (1993) Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, pp. 573-633.
41. Kuno, S. (1973) The structure of the Japanese language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
42. Kutas, M. and Van Petten, C. K. (1994) Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. Handbook of psycholinguistics, pp. 83-143. Academic Press, Inc, San Diego, CA
43. Kutas, M., Van Petten, C. and Kluender, R. (2006) Psycholinguistics electrified II: 1994-2005. Handbook of psycholinguistics, 2nd edition, pp. 659-724. Elsevier, New York
44. Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Polinsky, M. and Kutas, M. (2007) Visiting relatives with ERPs can be instructive: Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses
45. Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Polinsky, M. and Kutas, M. (2007) Processing advantages of subject gaps: Syntactic and referential gap-filler dependencies in Korean
46. Kwon, N., Polinsky, M. and Kluender, R. (2006) Subject preference in Korean. Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 1-14. Cascadilla Proceedings Project, Somerville, MA
47. Kwon, N., Polinsky, M. and Kluender, R. (2007) Processing of long-distance dependencies in Korean
48. Loftus, G. R. and Masson, M. E. (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, pp. 476-490.
49. MacWhinney, B. (1982) Basic syntactic processes. Language development, 1, pp. 73-136. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
50. Martin-Loeches, M., Munoz, F., Casado, P., Melcon, A. and Fernandez-Frias, C. (2005) Are the anterior negativities to grammatical violations indexing working memory?. Psychophysiology, 42, pp. 508-519.
51. Matsumoto, Y. (1989) Japanese-style noun modification..in English. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 226-237. BLS, Berkeley, CA
52. Miyamoto, E. and Nakamura, M. (2003) Subject/object asymmetries in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese. Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 342-355. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA
53. Muller, H., King, J. W. and Kutas, M. (1997) Event related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, pp. 193-203.
54. Murasugi, K. (2000) An antisymmetry analysis of Japanese relative clauses. The syntax of relative clauses, pp. 231-263. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
55. Nakamura, M. and Miyamoto, E. T. (2007) Relative preferences in the processing of relative clauses in Japanese
56. Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K. and Garrett, M. (1991) Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, pp. 151-165.
57. O'Grady, W. (1997) Syntactic development, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL
58. Osterhout, L. and Holcomb, P. J. (1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, pp. 785-806.
59. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J. and 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, pp. 786-803.
60. Osterhout, L. and Nicol, J. (1999) On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, pp. 283-317.
61. Phillips, C., Kazanina, N. and Abada, S. (2005) ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, pp. 407-428.
62. Roland, D., Dick, F. and Elman, J. (2007) Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, pp. 348-379.
63. Rosler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Roder, B. and 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, pp. 150-176.
64. Saito, M. (1985) Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications
65. Sauerland, U. and Gibson, E. (1998) How to predict the relative clause attachment preference
66. Schneider, W., Eschman, A. and Zuccolotto, A. (2002) E-Prime reference guide, Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA
67. Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I. and Frisch, S. (2003) The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German. Brain and Language, 86, pp. 116-128.
68. Schlesewsky, M., Franselow, G., Kliegl, R. and Krems, J. (2000) The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. German sentence processing, pp. 65-93. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands
69. Sheldon, A. (1977) On strategies for processing relative clauses: A comparison of children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 6, pp. 305-318.
70. Traxler, M. J., Morris, R. K. and Seely, R. E. (2002) Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, pp. 69-90.
71. Tsujimura, N. (1996) An introduction to Japanese linguistics, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA
72. Ueno, M. and Kluender, R. (2003) On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: Relating grammar and brain. Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 491-504. Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA
73. Ueno, M. and Polinsky, M. (2007) Maximizing processing in an SOV language
74. Ullman, T. M. (2001) A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, pp. 717-726.
75. Van Berkum, J., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P. and Zwitserlood, P. (2003) Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, pp. 235-248.
76. Van Petten, C. and Kutas, M. (1991) Influences of semantic and syntactic context in open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19, pp. 95-112.
77. Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J. and Mulder, G. (2001) Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38, pp. 41-63.
78. Vosse, T. and Kempen, G. (2000) Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, pp. 105-143.
79. Warren, T. and Gibson, E. (2002) The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition, 85, pp. 79-112.