Processing temporal constraints: An ERP study

Language Learning

Volumn 58, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2008, Pages 35-55

  Baggio, Giosuè ^a,b  

^a RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 56749149875     PISSN: 00238333     EISSN: 14679922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00460.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (2003). Morphological analysis in sentence processing: An ERP study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 405 430.
2. Baayen, R., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1996). CELEX2. Phildelphia : Linguistic Data Consortium.
3. Baggio, G., & van Lambalgen, M. (2007). The processing consequences of the imperfective paradox. Journal of Semantics, 24, 307 330.
4. Baggio, G., van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 36 53.
5. Comrie, B. (1985). Tense. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
6. Fonteneau, E., Frauenfelder, U., & Rizzi, L. (1998). On the contribution of ERPs to the study of language comprehension. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée, 68, 111 124.
7. Friederici, A. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78 84.
8. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
9. Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 20, S18 S29.
10. Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416 423.
11. Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439 483.
12. Hamm, F., Kamp, H., & van Lambalgen, M. (2006). There is no opposition between formal and cognitive semantics. Theoretical Linguistics, 22, 1 40.
13. Hitzler, P., Hölldobler, S., & Seda, A. (2004). Logic programs and connectionist networks. Journal of Applied Logic, 3, 245 272.
14. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
15. Jackendoff, R. (2007). A Parallel Architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2 22.
16. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203 205.
17. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11, 539 550.
18. Larson, R., & Segal, G. (1995). Knowledge of meaning. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
19. Maris, E. (2004). Randomization tests for ERP topographies and whole spatiotemporal data matrices. Psychophysiology, 41, 142 151.
20. Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164, 177 190.
21. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco : Freeman.
22. McKinnon, R., & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 495 523.
23. Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59, 494 522.
24. Osterhout, L., Bersick, M., & McLaughlin, J. (1997). Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory and Cognition, 25, 273 285.
25. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785 806.
26. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413 437.
27. Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739 773.
28. Osterhout, L., & Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 14, 283 317.
29. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the semantics of English. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
30. Partee, B. (1973). Some structural analogies between tenses and pronouns in English. The Journal of Philosophy, 70, 601 609.
31. Poeppel, D., & Embick, D. (2005). Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In A. Cutler (Ed. Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones (pp. 103 118). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Steinhauer, K., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). Consecutive ERP effects of morpho-phonology and morpho-syntax. Brain and Language, 83, 62 65.
33. Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2005). Semantic interpretation as computation in nonmonotonic logic: The real meaning of the suppression task. Cognitive Science, 29, 919 960.
34. van Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2004). The proper treatment of events. Oxford : Blackwell.
35. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66 (2 143 160.
36. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and a lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105 143.