The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach

Linguistics and Language Compass

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 19-58

  Bornkessel Schlesewsky, Ina ^a   Schlesewsky, Matthias ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN COGNITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES   (Germany)

^b JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 59949098968     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1749818X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x     Document Type: Article

References (117)

1. Aissen, J. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17.673-711.
2. Aissen, J. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21.435-83.
3. Altmann, G. T. M., and Y. Kamide. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73.247-64.
4. Bader, M., and J. Bayer 2006. Case and linking in language comprehension. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
5. Bates, E., S. McNew, B. MacWhinney, A. Devescovi, and S. Smith. 1982. Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11.245-99.
6. beim Graben, P., M. Schlesewsky, J. D. Saddy, and J. Kurths. 2000. Symbolic dynamics of event-related brain potentials. Physical Review E 62.5518-41.
7. Ben-Shachar, M., D. Palti, and Y. Grodzinsky. 2004. Neural correlates of syntactic movement: Converging evidence from two fMRI experiments. Neuroimage 21.1320-36.
8. Bever, T. G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. Cognition and the dvelopment of language, ed. by J. R. Hayes, 279-362. New York, NY: Wiley.
9. Bisang, W. 2006. Widening the perspective: Argumenthood and syntax in Chinese, Japanese and Tagalog. Dative and other cases. Between argument structure and event structure, ed. by D. Hole, A. Meinunger, and W. Abraham, 331-81. Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
10. Bornkessel, I. 2002. The argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation (28). Leipzig, Germany: MPI Series in Cognitive Neuroscience.
11. Bornkessel, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2006a. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 113.787-821.
12. Bornkessel, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2006b. The role of contrast in the local licensing of scrambling in German: Evidence from online comprehension. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18.1-43.
13. Bornkessel, I., M. Schlesewsky, and A. D. Friederici. 2003a. Contextual information modulates initial processes of syntactic integration: The role of inter- vs. intra-sentential predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 29.269-98.
14. Bornkessel, I., M. Schlesewsky, and A. D. Friederici. 2003b. Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 18.268-98.
15. Bornkessel, I., S. Zysset, A. D. Friederici, D. Y. von Cramon, and M. Schlesewsky. 2005. Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage 26.221-33.
16. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2008a. An alternative perspective on 'semantic P600' effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 59.55-73.
17. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2008b. Minimality as vacuous distinctness: Evidence from cross-linguistic sentence comprehension. Lingua, doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.03.005.
18. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. 2008c. Unmarked transitivity: A processing constraint on linking. Investigations of the syntax-semantics-pragmatics interface, ed. by R. D. Van Valin Jr., 413-34. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
19. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., and M. Schlesewsky. in press. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. D., and A. D. Friederici 2007. Neuroimaging studies of sentence and discourse comprehension. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by M. G. Gaskell, 407-24. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21. Bossong, G. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen [=Differential object marking in the New Iranian languages]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
22. Bresnan, J., and J. Aissen. 2002. Optimality and functionality: Objections and refutations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20.81-95.
23. Bresnan, J., S., Dingare, and C. D. Manning. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG '01 conference, ed. by M. Butt and T. H. King. Stanford: CSLI Publications. .
24. Caplan, D. 2007. Functional neuroimaging studies of syntactic processing in sentence comprehension: A critical selective review. Language and Linguistics Compass 1.32-47.
25. Chappell, H. 1986. Formal and colloquial adversity passive in standard Chinese. Linguistics 24.1025-52.
26. Chen, E., W. C. West, G. Waters, and D. Caplan. 2006. Determinants of BOLD signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex 42.591-604.
27. Choudhary, K. K., M. Schlesewsky, D. Roehm, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2007. The role of animacy in the processing of ergative constructions: Evidence from Hindi. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing, Turku, Finnland.
28. Clifton, C., Jr, M. J. Traxler, M. T. Mohamed, R. S. Williams, R. K. Morris, and K. Rayner. 2003. The use of thematic role information in parsing: Syntactic processing autonomy revisited. Journal of Memory and Language 47.571-88.
29. Comrie, B. 1989. Linguistic universals and language typology (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
30. de Swart, P. 2007. Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. Utrecht, The Netherlands: LOT.
31. DeLancey, S. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57.626-57.
32. Demiral, Ş. B., M. Schlesewsky, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition 106.484-500.
33. Dixon, R. M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Language 55.59-138.
34. Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35. Dowty, D. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67.547-619.
36. Dryer, M. S. 2005. Order of subject, object and verb. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, and B. Comrie, 330-3. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
37. Erguvanli, E. E. 1984. The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles, CA/London, UK: University of California Press.
38. Fanselow, G. 2000. Optimal exceptions. Lexicon in focus, ed. by B. Stiebels and D. Wunderlich, 173-209. Berlin, Germany: Akademie Verlag.
39. Feldman, H. 1986. A grammar of Awtuw. Canberra, Australia: Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.
40. Ferreira, F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47.164-203.
41. Ferreira, F., and C. Clifton Jr. 1986. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 25.348-68.
42. Ferreira, F., and N. D. Patson. 2007. The 'good enough'approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1.71-83.
43. Ferreira, F., V. Ferraro, and K. G. D. Bailey. 2002. Good-enough representations in language processing. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11.11-5.
44. Fiebach, C. J., M. Schlesewsky, G. Lohmann, D. Y. von Cramon, and A. D. Friederici. 2005. Revisiting the role of Broca's area in sentence processing: Syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Human Brain Mapping 24.79-91.
45. Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
46. Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.519-59.
47. Frazier, L., and C. Clifton, Jr. 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Frazier, L., and K. Rayner 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14.178-210.
49. Friederici, A. D. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2).78-84.
50. Friederici, A. D., C. J. Fiebach, M. Schlesewsky, I. Bornkessel, and D. Y. von Cramon. 2006. Processing linguistic complexity and grammaticality in the left frontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 16.1709-17.
51. Frisch, S., and M. Schlesewsky 2001. The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport 12.3391-4.
52. Frith, C. D., and U. Frith. 1999. Interacting minds - a biological basis. Science 286.1692-5.
53. Gibson, E. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68.1-76.
54. Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Why heuristics work. Perspectives on Psychological Science 3.20-29.
55. Gigerenzer, G., and D. G. Goldstein. 1996. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103.650-69.
56. Gigerenzer, G., P. M. Todd, and the ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple heuristics that make us smart. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
57. Gordon, P. C., R. Hendrick, and M. Johnson. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27.1411-23.
58. Grewe, T., I. Bornkessel, S. Zysset, R. Wiese, D. Y. von Cramon, and M. Schlesewsky. 2005. The emergence of the unmarked: A new perspective on the language-specific function of Broca's area. Human Brain Mapping 26.178-90.
59. Grewe, T., I. Bornkessel, S. Zysset, R. Wiese, D. Y. von Cramon, and M. Schlesewsky. 2006. Linguistic prominence and Broca's area: The influence of animacy as a linearization principle. Neuroimage 32.1395-402.
60. Grewe, T., I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, S. Zysset, R. Wiese, D. Y. von Cramon, and M. Schlesewsky. 2007. The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity. Neuroimage 35.343-52.
61. Grodzinsky, Y. 2000. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca's area. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23.1-71.
62. Grodzinsky, Y., and A. D. Friederici. 2006. Neuroimaging of syntax and syntactic processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16.240-6.
63. Hagoort, P., and J. J. A. van Berkum. 2007. Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362.801-11.
64. Hahne, A., and A. D. Friederici. 2002. Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research 13.339-56.
65. Hoeks, J. C. J., L. A., Stowe, and G. Doedens. 2004. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 19.59-73.
66. Holisky, D. A. 1987. The case of intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi). Lingua 71.103-32.
67. Hopper, P., and S. A. Thompson 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56.251-99.
68. Jäger, G. 2007. Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language 83.74-109.
69. Jelinek, E., and R. Demers 1983. The agent hierarchy and voice in some Coast Salish languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 49.167-85.
70. Just, M. A., P. A. Carpenter, T. A. Keller, W. F. Eddy, and K. R. Thulborn. 1996. Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science 274.114-6.
71. Kamide, Y., C. Scheepers, and G. T. M. Altmann. 2003. Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32.37-55.
72. Kempen, G., and K. Harbusch. 2005. The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. Linguistic evidence - empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, ed. by S. Kepser and M. Reis, 329-49. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
73. Kim, A., and L. Osterhout. 2005. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 52.205-25.
74. King, J. W., and M. A. Just. 1991. Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language 30.580-602.
75. Knoeferle, P., B. Habets, M. W. Crocker, and T. F. Münte. 2008. Visual scenes trigger immediate syntactic reanalysis: Evidence from ERPs during situated spoken comprehension. Cerebral Cortex 18.789-95.
76. Kolk, H. H. J., D. J. Chwilla, M. van Herten, and P. J. Oor. 2003. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 85.1-36.
77. Kuperberg, G. R., D. A. Kreher, T. Sitnikova, D. N. Caplan, and P. J. Holcomb. 2007. The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentence: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language 100.223-37.
78. Kuperberg, G. R., T. Sitnikova, D. Caplan, and P. Holcomb. 2003. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 17.117-29.
79. Kutas, M., and K. D. Federmeier. 2000. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4.463-9.
80. Kutas, M., C. Van Petten, and R. Kluender. 2006. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed.), ed. by M. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher, 659-724. London, UK: Elsevier.
81. Lee, Y., H. Lee, and P. C. Gordon. 2007. Linguistic complexity and information structure in Korean: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading. Cognition 104.495-534.
82. Lewis, R. L., and S. Vasishth. 2005. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cognitive Science 29.1-45.
83. Lewis, R. L., S. Vasishth, and J. A. Van Dyke. 2006. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.447-54.
84. Li, P., E. Bates, and B. MacWhinney. 1993. Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 32.169-92.
85. MacDonald, M. C., N. J. Pearlmutter, and M. S. Seidenberg. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101.676-703.
86. MacWhinney, B., and E. Bates (eds). 1989. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
87. MacWhinney, B., E. Bates, and R. Kliegl. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23.127-50.
88. Mak, W. M., W., Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47.50-68.
89. Mak, W. M., W., Vonk, and H. Schriefers. 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses: The hikers that rocks crush. Journal of Memory and Language 54.466-90.
90. McClelland, J. L. 1979. On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes is cascade. Psychological Review 86.287-330.
91. McElree, B. 2006. Accessing recent events. The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 46), ed. by B. H. Ross, 155-200. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
92. McElree, B., and T. Griffith. 1995. Syntactic and thematic processing in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 21.134-57.
93. Miller, G. A. 1962. Some psychological studies of grammar. American Psychologist 17.748-62.
94. Muralikrishnan, R., M. Schlesewsky, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. Universal and cross-linguistic influences on the processing of word order and animacy: Neurophysiological evidence from Tamil. Paper presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Chapel Hill, NC.
95. Ott, M. 2004. Verarbeitung von variierenden Animatheitsmerkmalen: Eine Studie zum Animatheitseinfluss bei nicht ambig kasusmarkierten W-Fragen im Deutschen. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Potsdam.
96. Philipp, M., I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, W. Bisang, and M. Schlesewsky. 2008. The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 105.112-33.
97. Primus, B. 1999. Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen, Germany: Niemeyer.
98. Rayner, K., G. Carlson, and L. Frazier. 1983. The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22.657-73.
99. Röder, B., O. Stock, H. Neville, S. Bien, and F. Rösler. 2002. Brain activation modulated by the comprehension of normal and pseudo-word sentences of different processing demands: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Neuroimage 15.1003-14.
100. Roehm, D., M. Schlesewsky, I. Bornkessel, S. Frisch, and H. Haider, 2004. Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Neuroreport 15.409-12.
101. Saxe, R. 2006. Uniquely human social cognition. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 16.235-9.
102. Schlesewsky, M., and I. Bornkessel 2004. On incremental interpretation: degrees of meaning accessed during sentence comprehension. Lingua 114.1213-34.
103. Silverstein, M. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by R. M. W. Dixon, 112-71. New Jersey, NJ: Humanities Press.
104. Stromswold, K., D. Caplan, N. Alpert, and S. Rauch. 1996. Localization of syntactic comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language 52.452-73.
105. Townsend, D. J., and T. G. Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
106. Traxler, M., R. K., Morris, and R. E. Seely. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 47.69-90.
107. Traxler, M., R. S. Williams, S. A. Blozis, and R. K. Morris, 2005. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 53.204-24.
108. Trueswell, J. C., and M. K. Tanenhaus. 1994. Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint based syntactic ambiguity resolution. Perspectives in sentence processing, ed. by C. Clifton, Jr, L. Frazier, and K. Rayner, 155-180. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
109. van den Brink, D., and P. Hagoort. 2004. The influence of semantic and syntactic context constraints on lexical selection and integration in spoken-word comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 16.1068-84.
110. van Herten, M., H. H. J. Kolk, and D. J. Chwilla. 2005. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 22.241-55.
111. van Herten, M., D. J. Chwilla and H. H. J. Kolk 2006. When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18.1181-97.
112. Van Valin, R. D., Jr. 2005. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
113. Van Valin, R. D., Jr, and D. P. Wilkins. 1993. Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: Remember in English and its equivalents in Mparntwe Arrernte. Advances in role and reference grammar, ed. by R. D. Van Valin, Jr, 499-534. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
114. Vosse, T., and G. A. M. Kempen. 2000. Syntactic assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition 75.105-43.
115. Weckerly, J., and M. Kutas. 1999. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 36.559-70.
116. Wolff, S., M. Schlesewsky, M. Hirotani, and I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2008. The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language 107.133-57.
117. Wunderlich, D. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28.27-68.