Syntax, concepts, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials

Neuropsychologia

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1525-1542

  Steinhauer, Karsten ^a   Drury, John E ^a   Portner, Paul ^b   Walenski, Matthew ^c   Ullman, Michael T ^d  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Event related potentials; LAN; Logical semantics; N400; Negative Polarity Items (NPIs); P600

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; LOGIC; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGY; NEUROSCIENCE; NORMAL HUMAN; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 77952551102     PISSN: 00283932     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.013     Document Type: Article

References (97)

1. Barwise J., Cooper R. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 1981, 4:159-219.
2. beim Graben P., Drenhaus H., Brehm E., Rhode B., Saddy D., Frisch S. Enhancing dominant modes in nonstationary time seris by means of the symbolic resonance analysis. Chaos 2007, 17:043106.
3. Bentin S., McCarthy G., Wood C.C. Event-related potentials, lexical decision and semantic priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1985, 60:343-355.
4. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113(4):787-821.
5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on " semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59:55-73.
6. Brown C.M., Hagoort P., ter Keurs M. Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: Open- and closed-class words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11(3):261-281.
7. Chierchia G. Broaden your views: Implicatures of domain widening and the " logicality" of language. Linguistic Inquiry 2006, 37(4):535-590.
8. Coulson, S., & Federmeier, K. D. (In press). Words in context: ERPs and the lexical/postlexical distinction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.
9. Daneman M., Carpenter P.A. Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1980, 19:450-466.
10. DeLong Katherine A., Urbach Thomas P., Kutas Marta Probabilistic word preactiviation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience 2005, 8(8):1117-1121.
11. Dowty, D. (1994). The role of negative polarity and concord marking in natural language reasoning. Paper read at proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory IV, at Ithaca, NY.
12. Drenhaus H., beim Graben P., Saddy D., Frisch S. Diagnosis and repair of negative polarity constructions in the light of symbolic resonance analysis. Brain & Language 2006, 96(3):255.
13. Drenhaus, H., Blaszczak, J., & Schutte, J. (2006). Some psycholinguistic comments on NPI licensing. Paper read at proceedings of sinn und bedeutung 11, at Barcelona.
14. Drenhaus H., Frisch S., Saddy D. Processing negative polarity items: When negation comes through the backdoor. Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives 2005, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. S. Kepser, M. Reis (Eds.).
15. Drury J.E., Dwivedi V., Steinhauer K. Logical semantics in language processing: An ERP Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement 2008, 249.
16. Drury, J. E., Steinhauer, K., Pancheva, R., & Ullman, M. T. (under revision). (In)definiteness ERP effects in existential constructions.
17. Dwivedi V., Phillips N.A., Lague-Beauvais M., Baum S.R. An electrophysiological study of mood, modal context, and anaphora. Brain Research 2006, 1117(1):135-153.
18. Erdocia K., Laka I., Mestres-Misse A., Rodriguez-Fornells A. Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque. Brain and Language 2009, 109:1-17.
19. Federmeier K.D., Kutas M. A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41:469-495.
20. Felser C., Clahsen C., Muente T. Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and Wh-movement in German. Brain and Language 2003, 87:345-354.
21. Fiebach C.J., Schlesewsky M., Friederici A.D. Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler-gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2001, 30(3):321-338.
22. Fiebach C.J., Schlesewsky M., Friederici A.D. Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 47:250-272.
23. Fischler I., Bloom P.A., Childers D.G., Roucos S.E., Perry N.W. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 1983, 20(4):400-409.
24. Friederici A.D. The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language 1995, 50:259-281.
25. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:78-84.
26. Friederici A.D., Frisch S. Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language 2000, 43:476-507.
27. Friederici A.D., Pfeifer E., Hahne A. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research 1993, 1(3):183-192.
28. Friederici A.D., Mecklinger A., Spencer K.M., Steinhauer K., Donchin E. Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 2001, 11(2):305-323.
29. Friederici A.D., Hahne A., Saddy D. Distinct neurophysiological patterns reflecting aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2002, 31(1):45-63.
30. Friederici A., Weissenborn J. Mapping sentence form onto meaning: The syntax-semantics interface. Brain Research 2007, 1146:50-58.
31. Geurts B. Reasoning with quantifiers. Cognition 2003, 86:223-251.
32. Geurts B., Van der Slik F. Monotonicity and processing load. Journal of Semantics 2005, 22:97-117.
33. Giannakidou A. Polarity sensitivity as (Non)veridical dependency 1998, John Benjamins, Amsterdam-Philadelphia.
34. Giannakidou, A. (In press). Negative and positive polarity items: Licensing, compositionality and variation. In C. Maienborn, K. Von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.
35. Gunter T.C., Stowe L.A., Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology 1997, 34:660-676.
36. Hagoort P. Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15(6):883-889.
37. Hagoort Peter On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9(9):416-423.
38. Hagoort P., Brown C., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8(4):439-483.
39. Hagoort P., Wassenaar M., Brown C. Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 16(1):38-50.
40. Hahne A., Friederici A.D. Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research 2002, 13(3):339-356.
41. Hammer A., Jansma B.M., Lamers M., Munte T. Pronominal reference in sentences about persons or things: An electrophysiological approach. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17(2):227-239.
42. Hinojosa J.A., Martin-Loeches M., Casado P., Munoz F., Rubia F.J. Similarities and differences between phrase structure and morphosyntactic violations in Spanish: An event-related potentials study. Language and Cognitive Processes 2003, 18(2):113-142.
43. Kaan E., Harris A., Gibson E., Holcomb P. The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 2000, 15(2):159-201.
44. Kaan E., Swaab T.Y. Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:98-110.
45. Katayama J., Miyata Y., Yagi A. Sentence verification and event-related potentials. Biological Psychology 1987, 25:173-185.
46. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory & Language 2005, 52(2):205.
47. King J.W., Kutas M. Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1995, 7(3):376-395.
48. Kluender R., Kutas M. Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERP's on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1993, 5(2):196-214.
49. Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J., van Herten M., Oor P.J.W. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2003, 85:1-36.
50. Kounios J., Holcomb P.J. Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from eventrelated brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1992, 121:459-479.
51. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
52. Kuperberg G.R., Holcomb P., Sitnikova T., Greve D., Dale A.M., Caplan D. Distinct patterns for neural modulation during the processing of conceptual and syntactic anomalies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:272-293.
53. Kuperberg G.R., Kreher D.A., Sitnikova T., Caplan D.N., Holcomb P.J. The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event related potentials. Brain and Language 2007, 100(3):223-237.
54. Kutas M. In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single-word and sentence context effects. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8(4):533-572.
55. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 2000, 4(12):463-470.
56. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207(1):203-205.
57. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307(1):161-163.
58. Kutas M., van Petten C.K., Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). Handbook of psycholinguistics 2006, Elsevier Press, New York. M.A. Gernsbacher, M.J. Traxler (Eds.).
59. Ladusaw, W. A. (1979). Polarity sensitivity as inherent scope relations. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
60. Lau E.F., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9:920-933.
61. Lelekov T., Dominey P.F., Garcia-Larrea L. Dissociable ERP profiles for processing rules vs instances in a cognitive sequencing task. NeuroReport 2000, 11(5):1129-1132.
62. Lüdke J., Friedrich C.K., De Filippis M., Kaup B. Event-related potential correlates of negation in a sentence-picture verification paradigm. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 20(8):1-16.
63. McNally, L. (In press). Existential sentences. In C. Maienborn, K. Von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter.
64. Mecklinger A., Schriefers H., Steinhauer K., Friederici A.D. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition 1995, 23(4):477-494.
65. Münte T.F., Heinze H.J., Matzke M., Wieringa B.M., Johannes S. Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia 1998, 36(3):217-226.
66. Münte T.F., Schiltz K., Kutas M. When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature 1998, 395(6697):71-73.
67. Münte T.F., Wieringa B.M., Weyerts H., Szentkuti A., Matzke M., Johannes S. Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: Class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia 2001, 39(1):91-102.
68. Neville H., Nicol J.L., Barss A., Forster K.I., Garrett M.F. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1991, 3(2):151-165.
69. Newman A.J., Ullman M.T., Pancheva R., Waligura D.L., Neville H.J. An ERP study of regular and irregular English past tense inflection. Neuroimage 2007, 34:435-445.
70. Nieuwland M.S., Kuperberg G.R. When the truth isn't too hard to handle: An eventrelated potentials study on the pragmatics of negation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement 2008, 213.
71. Nieuwland M.S., Van Berkum J.J.A. When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18(7):1098.
72. Osterhout L., Allen M., McLaughlin J. Words in the brain: Lexical determinants of wordinduced brain activity. Journal of Neurolinguistics 2002, 15:171-187.
73. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
74. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J., Swinney D.A. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994, 20(4):786-803.
75. Patel A.D. Syntactic processing in language and music: Different cognitive operations, similar neural resources?. Music Perception 1998, 16(1):27-42.
76. Phillips C., Kazanina N., Abada S.H. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic longdistance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22(3):407.
77. Pylkkanen L., McElree B. An MEG study of silent meaning. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19(11):1905-1921.
78. Rothschild, D. (In press). Non-Monotonic NPI-Licensing, Definite Descriptions, and Grammaticalized Implicatures, Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory XVI, Cornell Linguistics Circle Press: Ithaca.
79. Ruchkin D.S., Johnson R., Grafman J., Canoune H.L., Ritter W. Distinctions and similarities among working memory processes: An event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research 1992, 1:53-66.
80. Rugg M. The effects of semantic priming and word repetition on event-related potentials. Psychophysiology 1985, 22(6):642-647.
81. Saddy D., Drenhaus H., Frisch S. Processing polarity items: Contrastive licensing costs. Brain & Language 2004, 90(1-3):495.
82. Shao J., Neville H. Analyzing semantic processing using event-related potentials. Newsletter for the Center for Research in Language 1998, 11(5):3-20.
83. Stabler E. Computing quantifier scope. Ways of scope taking 1997, Kluwer, Dordrecht. A. Szabolcsi (Ed.).
84. Steinhauer K. Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation. Brain and Language 2003, 86:142-164.
85. Steinhauer K., White E.J., Drury J.E. Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisition: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research 2009, 25(1):13-42.
86. Szabolcsi A. Questions about model theory, proof theory, and semantically flavored syntactic features 2005, New York University.
87. Tovena L.M. The phenomena of polarity sensitivity: Questions and answers. Lingua e Stile XXXVI 2001, (1):131-167.
88. Ullman Michael T. A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2001, 2:717-726.
89. van Berkum J.J.A., Koornneef A.W., Otten M., Nieuwland M.S. Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research 2007, 1146:158-171.
90. van Herten M., Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22(2):241.
91. Van Petten C., Kutas M. Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open and closed class words. Memory and Cognition 1991, 19:95-112.
92. Vasishth S., Bruessow S., Lewis R.L., Drenhaus H. Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science 2008, 32(4).
93. von Fintel K. NPI-licensing, strawson-entailment, and context-dependency. Journal of Semantics 1999, 16:97-148.
94. von Fintel K., Matthewson L. Universals in Semantics. The Linguistic Review 2008, 25:139-201.
95. Vos S.H., Gunter T.C., Kolk H.H.J., Mulder G. Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology 2001, 38(1):41-63.
96. Warren T., Vasisth S., Hirotani M., Drenhaus H. Licensor strength and locality effects in negative polarity licensing. CUNY Human Sentence Processing Conference 2006.
97. Xiang L., Dillon B., Phillips C. Illusory licensing effects across dependency types: ERP evidence. Brain and Language 2009, 108:40-55.