Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence

Brain and Language

Volumn 108, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 40-55

  Xiang, Ming ^a   Dillon, Brian ^b   Phillips, Colin ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Anaphora; Binding; ERP; Negative polarity items (NPI); Semantic pragmatic processing; Sentence processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; GRAMMAR; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RECALL; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TESTS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 57349139950     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Altmann G.T., and Steedman M. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 30 (1988) 191-238
2. Anderson J. Human symbol manipulation within an integrated cognitive architecture. Cognitive Science 29 (2005) 313-341
3. Anderson J., and Lebiere C. The atomic components of thought (1998), Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
4. Badecker W., and Straub K. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28 (2002) 748-769
5. Chierchia C. Broaden your views. Implicatures of domain widening and the 'logicality' of language. Linguistic Inquiry 37 (2006) 535-590
6. Chomsky N. Lectures on government and binding (1981), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin
7. Clements G.N. The logophoric pronoun in Ewe: Its role in discourse. Journal of West African Languages 10 (1975) 141-177
8. Clifton C., Kennison S.M., and Albrecht J.E. Reading the words her, his, him: Implications for parsing principles based on frequency and on structure. Journal of Memory and Language 36 (1997) 276-292
9. Coulson S., King J.W., and Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 13 (1998) 21-58
10. Cowart W., and Cairns H.S. Evidence for an anaphoric mechanism within syntactic processing: Some reference relations defy semantic and pragmatic constraints. Memory & Cognition 15 (1987) 318-331
11. Drenhaus, H., Blaszczak, J., & Schütte, J. (submitted for publication). An ERP study on the strength of licensers in negative polarity constructions. Ms, University of Potsdam.
12. Drenhaus H., beim Graben P., Frisch S., and Saddy D. Diagnosis and repair of negative polarity constructions in the light of symbolic resonance analysis. Brain and Language 96 (2006) 255-268
13. Drenhaus H., Saddy D., and Frisch S. Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. In: Kepser S., and Reis M. (Eds). Linguistic evidence-empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives (2005), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 145-165
14. Fauconnier, G. (1975). Polarity and the scale principle. In Proceedings of the 11th Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 188-199).
15. Fischler I., Bloom P.A., Childers D.G., Roucos S.E., and Perry N.W. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 20 (1983) 400-409
16. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (2002) 78-84
17. Friederici A.D., Mecklinger A., Spencer K.M., Steinhauer K., and Donchin E. Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 11 (2001) 305-323
18. Friederici A.D., Pfeifer E., and Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research 1 (1993) 183-192
19. Giannakidou A. Polarity sensitivity as (non)veridical dependency (1998), John Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia
20. Giannakidou A. Only, emotive factives, and the dual nature of polarity dependency. Language 82 (2006) 575-603
21. Gordon P.C., Hendrick R., Johnson M., and Lee Y. Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32 (2006) 1304-1321
22. Graff D. English gigaword (2003), Linguistic Data Consortium, Philadelphia
23. Greenhouse S., and Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 24 (1959) 95-112
24. Hagoort P., Brown C.M., and Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8 (1993) 439-483
25. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M., and Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 304 (2004) 438-441
26. Hagoort P., Wassenaar M., and Brown C.M. Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch. Brain Research: Cognitive Brain Research 16 (2003) 38-50
27. Hahne A., and Friederici A.D. Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis. Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 11 (1999) 194-205
28. Hahne A., and Friederici A.D. Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Brain Research 13 (2002) 339-356
29. Harris T., Wexler K., and Holcomb P. An ERP investigation of binding and coreference. Brain and Language 75 (2000) 313-346
30. Israel, M. (1998). The rhetoric of grammar: Scalar reasoning and polarity sensitivity. Ph.D. Thesis, U.C., San Diego.
31. Israel M. The pragmatics of polarity. In: Horn L., and Ward G. (Eds). The handbook of pragmatics (2004), Blackwell, Oxford 701-723
32. Jackendoff R. Mme. Tussaud meets the binding theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10 (1992) 1-31
33. Kadmon N., and Landman F. Any. Linguistics and Philosophy 16 (1993) 353-422
34. Kazanina N., Lau E., Lieberman M., Yoshida M., and Phillips C. The effect of sysntactic constraints on the processing of backwards anaphora. Journal of Memory and Language 56 (2007) 384-409
35. Kennison S.M. Comprehending the pronouns her, him, and his: Implications for theories of referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language 49 (2003) 335-352
36. Kim A., and Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 52 (2005) 205-225
37. Kolk H., Chwilla D., van Herten M., and Oor P. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 85 (2003) 1-36
38. Kounios J., and Holcomb P. Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 121 (1992) 459-479
39. Krifka M. The semantics and pragmatics of weak and strong polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25 (1995) 209-257
40. Kuperberg G., Holcomb P., Sitnikova T., Greve D., and Dale A. Distinct patterns of neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15 (2003) 272-293
41. Kutas M., and Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207 (1980) 203-205
42. Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Negative polarity items as inherent scope relations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
43. Ladusaw W.A. Expressing negation. In: Barker C., and Dowty D. (Eds). Proceedings of the second conference on semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) (1992), Ohio State University (pp. 237-259)
44. Lau E.F., Stroud C., Plesch S., and Phillips C. The role of prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language 98 (2006) 74-88
45. Lewis R., and Vasishth S. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29 (2005) 375-419
46. Lewis R., Vasishth S., and Van Dyke J. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 10 (2006) 447-454
47. Linebarger M. Negative polarity and grammatical representation. Linguistics and Philosophy 10 (1987) 325-387
48. Moxey L.M., Sanford A.J., and Dawydiak E.J. Denials as controllers of negative quantifier focus. Journal of Memory and Language 44 (2001) 427-442
49. Neville H., Nicol J.L., Barss A., Forster K.I., and Garrett M.F. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3 (1991) 151-165
50. Nicol J., and Swinney D. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18 (1989) 5-19
51. Noveck I., and Posada A. Characterizing the time course of an implicature and evoked potentials study. Brain and Language 85 (2003) 203-210
52. Oldfield J.C. The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9 (1971) 97-113
53. Osterhout L., Bersick M., and McLaughlin J. Brain potentials reflect violations of gender stereotypes. Memory & Cognition 25 (1997) 273-285
54. Osterhout L., and Holcomb P. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31 (1992) 785-804
55. Osterhout L., and Mobley L.A. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 34 (1995) 739-773
56. Pearlmutter N.J., Garnsey S.M., and Bock K. Agreement processes in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 41 (1999) 427-456
57. Phillips C. The real-time status of Island phenomena. Language 82 (2006) 795-823
58. Pollard C., and Sag I.A. Anaphors in English and the scope of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23 (1992) 261-303
59. Reinhart T., and Reuland E. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24 (1993) 657-720
60. Runner J.T., Sussman R.S., and Tanenhaus M.K. Processing reflexives and pronouns in picture noun phrases. Cognitive Science 30 (2006) 193-241
61. Saddy D., Drenhaus H., and Frisch S. Processing polarity items: Contrastive licensing costs. Brain and Language 90 (2004) 495-502
62. Sanford A.J., Moxey L.M., and Paterson K.B. Attentional focusing with quantifiers in production and comprehension. Memory & Cognition 24 (1996) 144-155
63. Sedivy J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., Chambers C.G., and Carlson G.N. Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual interpretation. Cognition 71 (1999) 109-147
64. Sells P. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18 (1987) 445-479
65. Shao J., and Neville H. Analyzing semantic processing using event-related brain potentials. The newsletter of the center for research in language (1998), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA
66. Steedman M. Surface structure and interpretation (1997), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
67. Steinhauer K., Drury J., Portner P., Walenski M., and Ullman M.T. Brain potentials for formal semantics: Licensed vs. unlicensed negative polarity items (NPIs) poster presented at CNS (Cognitive Neuroscience Society) (2007), Cognitive Neuroscience Society, New York
68. Stowe L. Evidence for online gap creation. Language and Cognitive Processes 1 (1986) 227-245
69. Sturt P. The time-course of the application of binding constraints in reference resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 48 (2003) 542-562
70. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Eberhard K.M., and Sedivy J.C. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268 (1995) 1632-1634
71. Traxler M.J., and Pickering M.J. Plausibility and the processing of unbounded dependencies: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 35 (1996) 454-475
72. Urban S., Gunter T.C., Friederici A.D., and Bormann T. Verb information im Satzverstehen. In: Vorberg D.F.A., et al. (Ed). Experimentelle Psychologie-Beitraege zur 42. Tagung experimentellarbeitender Psychologen (2000), Pabst Science Publications, Lengerich
73. Van Herten M., Kolk H., and Chwilla D. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 22 (2005) 241-255
74. Van Valin R.D., and LaPolla R.J. Syntax: Structure, meaning, & function (1997), Cambridge University Press
75. Vasishth S., Brüssow S., Lewis R., and Drenhaus H. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 32 (2008) 685-712
76. Vasishth, S., Drenhaus, H., Saddy, D., & Lewis, R. (2005). Processing negative polarity. In Talk presented at the 18th CUNY sentence processing conference. University of Arizona.
77. Xiang, M., Dillon, B. W., & Phillips, C. (2006). Testing the strength of the spurious licensing effect for negative polarity items. In Talk presented at the 19th annual meeting of the CUNY conference on human sentence processing, March. New York.
78. Zribi-Hertz A. Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65 (1989) 695-727