Discourse-based word anticipation during language processing: Prediction or priming?

Discourse Processes

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 464-496

  Otten, Marte ^a,c   Van Berkum, Jos J A ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 57049168136     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01638530802356463     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.
2. Altmann, G. T. M., van Nice, K. Y., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. A. (1998). Late closure in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 459-484.
3. Calvo, M. G., & Castillo, M. D. (1996). Predictive inferences occur on-line, but with delay: Convergence of naming and reading times. Discourse Processes, 22, 57-78.
4. Calvo, M. G., Castillo, M. D., & Estevez, A. (1999). On-line pPredictive inferences in reading: Processing time during versus after the priming context. Memory and Cognition, 27, 834-843.
5. Campion, N. (2004). Predictive inferences are represented as hypothetical facts. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 149-164.
6. Cook, A. E., Limber, J. E., & O'Brien, E. J. (200.1). Situation-based context and the availability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 220-234.
7. 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.
8. Elman, J. L. (1990). Representation and structure in connectionist models. In G. T. M. Altmann (Ed.), Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and. computational perspectives (pp. 345-382). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999a). Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 373-392.
10. Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999b). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 469-495.
11. Federmeier, K. D., McLennan, D. B., De Ochoa, E., & Kutas, M. (2002). The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 39, 133-146.
12. Federmeier, K. D., Wlotko, E. W., De Ochoa-Dewald, E., & Kutas, M. (2007). Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research, 1146, 75-84.
13. Fincher Kiefer, R. (1993). The role of predictive inferences in situation model construction. Discourse Processes, 16, 99-124.
14. Fincher Kiefer, R. (1995). Relative inhibition following the encoding of bridging and predictive inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 981-995.
15. Fincher Kiefer, R. (1996). Encoding differences between bridging and predictive inferences. Discourse Processes, 22, 225-246.
16. Garrett, M. (2000). Remarks on the architecture of language processing systems. In Y. Grodzinsky, L. P. Shapiro, & D. Swinney (Eds.), Language and the brain: Representation and processing (Vol. 21, pp. 31-69). San Diego, CA: Academic.
17. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
18. Haberlandt, K. F, & Graesser, A. C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 357-374.
19. Hoeks, J. C, Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59-73.
20. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. New York: Oxford University Press.
21. Jackendoff, R. (2007). A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2-22.
22. Jung, T. P., Makeig, S., Humphries, C., Lee, T. W., McKeown, M. J., Iragui, Y., et. al. (2000). Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology, 37, 163-178.
23. Jung, T. P., Makeig, S., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., Courchesne, E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 1745-1758.
24. Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from, anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133-156.
25. Keefe, D. E., & McDaniel, M. A. (1993). The time course and durability of predictive inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 446-463.
26. Kempen, G., & Huijbers, P. (1983). The lexicalization process in sentence production and naming: Indirect election of words. Cognition, 14, 185-209.
27. Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23-49.
28. Kuperberg, G. R., Holcomb, P. J., Sitnikova, T., Greve, D., Dale, A. M., & Caplan, D. (2003). Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 272-293.
29. Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2000). Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 463-470.
30. Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161-163.
31. Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98, 74-88.
32. Legge, G. E., Ahn, S. J., Klitz, T. S., & Luebker, A. (1997). Psychophysics of reading-XVI. The visual span in normal and low vision. Vision Research, 37, 1999-2010.
33. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Working models of perception: Five general issues. In B. A. G. Elsendoorn & H. Bouma (Eds.), Working models of human perception (Vol. 13, pp. 489-503). San Diego, CA: Academic.
34. Linderholm, T. (2002). Predictive inference generation as a function of working memory capacity and causal text constraints. Discourse Processes, 34, 259-280.
35. McDaniel, M. A., Schmalhofer, F, & Keefe, D. E. (2001). What is minimal, about predictive inferences? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 840-846.
36. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440-466.
37. Munte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychology, 36, 217-226.
38. Murray, J. D., & Burke, K. A. (2003). Activation and encoding of predictive inferences: The role of reading skill. Discourse Processes, 35, 81-102.
39. Murray, J. D., Klin, C. M., & Myers, J. L. (1993). Forward inferences in narrative text. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 464-473.
40. Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006a). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118, 155-167.
41. Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006b). When peanuts fall in love: N400 evidence for the power of discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1098-1111.
42. Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). What makes a discourse constraining? A comparison between the effects of discourse message and priming on the N400. Brain Research, 1153, 166-177.
43. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Neurosciences, 7/(3), 105-110.
44. Schmalhofer, F., McDaniel, M. A., & Keefe, D. (2002). A unified model for predictive and bridging inferences. Discourse Processes, 33, 105-132.
45. Van Berkum, J. J. A. (1996). The psycholinguisti.es of grammatical gender: Studies in language comprehension and production. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nijmegen University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
46. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999a). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 147-182.
47. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999b). When does gender constrain parsing? Evidence from ERPs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 555-571.
48. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event-related brain potentials reflect discourse-referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40, 235-248.
49. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443-467.
50. Van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158-171.
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 Herten, M., Kolk, H. H., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255.
53. Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 394-417.
54. Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105-143.
55. Wicha, N. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346, 165-168.
56. Wicha, N. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical, gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39, 483-508.
57. Wicha, N. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An eventrelated brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 1272-1288.