Activating without inhibiting: Left-edge boundary tones and syntactic processing

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Volumn 23, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1170-1179

  Roll, Mikael ^a   Horne, Merle ^a   Lindgren, Magnus ^a  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; HUMAN; INTEGRATION; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESSING; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CUES; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LANGUAGE; MALE; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REFERENCE VALUES; SPEECH ACOUSTICS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78649926370     PISSN: 0898929X     EISSN: 15308898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21430     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Andersson, L.-G. (1975). Form and function of subordinate clauses. PhD thesis, Gothenburg: Gothenburg University.
2. Astésano, C., Besson, M., & Alter, K. (2004). Brain potentials during semantic and prosodic processing in French. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 172-184. (Pubitemid 38084933)
3. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113, 787-821. (Pubitemid 44629918)
4. Bornkessel, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55-73.
5. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002a). Beyond syntax: Language-related positivities reflect the revision of hierarchies. NeuroReport, 13, 361-364.
6. Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002b). Grammar overrides frequency: Evidence from the on-line processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, B21-B30.
7. Delorme, A., & Makeig, S. (2004). EEGLAB: An open source toolbox for analysis of single-trial EEG dynamics including independent component analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 134, 9-21.
8. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Late interaction of syntactic and prosodic processes in sentence comprehension as revealed by ERPs. Cognitive Brain Research, 25, 130-143. (Pubitemid 41278491)
9. Eckstein, K., & Friederici, A. D. (2006). It's early: Event-related potential evidence for initial interaction of syntax and prosody in speech comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1696-1711.
10. Frazier, L., Clifton, C., & Carlson, K. (2004). Don't break, or do: Prosodic boundary preferences. Lingua, 114, 3-27.
11. Friederici, A. D., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., & Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: A spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 305-323.
12. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439-483.
13. Heim, S., & Alter, K. (2006). Prosodic pitch accents in language comprehension and production: ERP data and acoustic analyses. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 66, 55-68.
14. Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 59-73.
15. Horne, M. (1994). Generating prosodic structure for synthesis of Swedish intonation. Working Papers (Dept. of Linguistics, Lund University), 43, 72-75.
16. Horne, M., Hansson, P., Bruce, G., & Frid, J. (2001). Accent patterning on domain-related information in Swedish travel dialogues. International Journal of Speech Technology, 4, 93-102. (Pubitemid 32720054)
17. Jörgensen, N. (1978). Underordnade satser och fraser i talad svenska: Funktion och byggnad. Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap. Lund: Walter Ekstrand Bokförlag.
18. Jung, T.-P., Makeig, S., Humphries, C., Lee, T.-W., McKeown, M. J., Iragui, V., et al. (2000). Removing electroencephalographic artifacts by blind source separation. Psychophysiology, 37, 163-178.
19. Kjelgaard, M. M., & Speer, S. R. (1999). Prosodic facilitation and interference in the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 153-194.
20. Mehler, J. (1963). Some effects of grammatical transformations on the recall of English sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2, 346-351.
21. Miller, G., & McKean, K. (1964). A chronometric study of some relations between sentences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 297-308.
22. Neville, H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Foster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 233-255.
23. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785-806.
24. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413-437.
25. Roll, M. (2006). Prosodic cues to the syntactic structure of subordinate clauses in Swedish. In G. Bruce & M. Horne (Eds.), Nordic prosody: Proceedings of the IXth Conference, Lund 2004 (pp. 195-204). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
26. Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2007). Object shift and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 462-481.
27. Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2009). Left-edge boundary tone and main clause verb effects on embedded clauses - An ERP study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 55-73.
28. Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150-176.
29. Speer, S. R., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Dobroth, K. M. (1996). The influence of prosodic structure on the resolution of temporary syntactic closure ambiguities. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 249-271.
30. Steinhauer, K., Alter, K., & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing. Nature, 2, 191-196. (Pubitemid 30491321)
31. van Herten, M., Kolk, H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241-255.
32. Warren, P., & Nolan, E. G. F. (1995). Prosody, phonology, and parsing in closure ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 457-486.
33. Zatorre, R. J., Evans, A. C., & Meyer, E. (1994). Neural mechanisms underlying melodic perception and memory for pitch. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 1908-1919.
34. Zatorre, R. J., Evans, A. C., Meyer, E., & Gjedde, A. (1992). Lateralization of phonetic and pitch discrimination in speech processing. Science, 256, 846-849.