Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension

Brain and Language

Volumn 117, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 133-152

  Bornkessel Schlesewsky, Ina ^a   Kretzschmar, Franziska ^a,b   Tune, Sarah ^a   Wang, Luming ^b   Genç, Safiye ^c   Philipp, Markus ^a,b   Roehm, Dietmar ^d   Schlesewsky, Matthias ^b  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^b JOHANNES GUTENBERG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c MARMARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SALZBURG   (Austria)

Author keywords

Categorisation; Electrophysiology; Language comprehension; N400, p600; P300; Semantic reversal anomalies; Semantics; Syntax; Verb argument linking; Word order

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; BRAIN MAPPING; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; SEMANTICS; TASK PERFORMANCE; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; CONCEPT FORMATION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINGUISTICS; MALE; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79955478793     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.010     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Aissen J. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2003, 21:435-483.
2. Barddal J. The perplexity of dat-nom verbs in Icelandic. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 2001, 24:47-70.
3. Bates E., McNew S., MacWhinney B., Devescovi A., Smith S. Functional constraints on sentence processing: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition 1982, 11:245-299.
4. Bates E., Devescovi A., Wulfeck B. Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. Annual Review of Psychology 2001, 52:369-396.
5. Bentin S., McCarthy G., Wood C.C. Event-related potentials, lexical decision, and semantic priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1985, 60:343-355.
6. Bentin S., Mouchetant-Rostaing Y., Giard M.H., Echallier J.F., Pernier J. ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: Time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11:235-260.
7. Non-nominative subjects 2004, John Benjamins, Amsterdam. P. Bhaskararao, K.V. Subbarao (Eds.).
8. Bisang W. Das Verb im Chinesischen, Hmong, Vietnamesischen, Thai und Khmer: Vergleichende Grammatik im Rahmen der Verbserialisierung und der Grammatikalisierung und der Attraktorpositionen 1992, Narr, Tübingen.
9. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on " semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59:55-73.
10. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective 2009, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
11. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. The role of prominence information in the real time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 2009, 3:19-58.
12. Bornkessel I., McElree B., Schlesewsky M., Friederici A.D. Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 51:495-522.
13. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113:787-821.
14. Bossong G. Differentielle objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen [=differential object marking in the New Iranian languages] 1985, Narr, Tübingen.
15. Burkhardt P. Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 2006, 98:159-168.
16. Burkhardt P. The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory. NeuroReport 2007, 18:1851-1854.
17. Chang J.-H. Event structure and argument linking in Chinese. Language and Linguistics 2003, 4:317-351.
18. Chen E., West W.C., Waters G., Caplan D. Determinants of BOLD signal correlates of processing object-extracted relative clauses. Cortex 2006, 42:591-604.
19. Choudhary K.K., Schlesewsky M., Roehm D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The N400 as a correlate of interpretively-relevant linguistic rules: Evidence from Hindi. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47:3012-3022.
20. Coulson S., King J.W., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 1998, 13:21-58.
21. Demiral, Ş. B. (2008). Incremental argument interpretation in Turkish sentence comprehension (doctoral dissertation ed.). Leipzig: Max Planck Series in Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences.
22. Demiral Ş.B., Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition 2008, 106:484-500.
23. Donchin E. Surprise!... Surprise?. Psychophysiology 1981, 18:493-513.
24. Donchin E., Coles M.G.H. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1988, 11:357-374.
25. Erguvanli{dotless} E.E. The function of word order in Turkish grammar 1984, University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London.
26. 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, 1:183-192.
27. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The N400 indicates problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport 2001, 12:3391-3394.
28. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 25:484-498.
29. Gouvea A.C., Phillips C., Kazanina N., Poeppel D. The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25:149-188.
30. Gunter T.C., Stowe L.A., Mulder G. When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology 1997, 34:660-676.
31. Grimshaw J.B. Argument structure 1990, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
32. Hagoort P. How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage 2003, 20:S18-S29.
33. Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (Eds.) (2008). The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library; <> (retrieved 24.05.10). http://wals.info.
34. Haupt F.S., Schlesewsky M., Roehm D., Friederici A.D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language 2008, 59:54-96.
35. Hoeks J.C.J., Stowe L.A., Doedens G. Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research 2004, 19:59-73.
36. Holcomb P., Neville H. Auditory and visual semantic priming in lexical decision: A comparison using event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes 1990, 5:281-312.
37. Hopper P., Traugott E. Grammaticalization 2003, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
38. Howes A., Lewis R.L., Vera A. Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: Implications for testing theories of cognition and action. Psychological Review 2009, 116:717-751.
39. Huynh H., Feldt L.S. Conditions under which the mean-square ratios in repeated measurement designs have exact F-distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1970, 65:1582-1589.
40. Iggesen, O. A. (2008a). Number of cases. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. (chap. 49, retrieved 24.05.10). http://wals.info/feature/49.
41. Iggesen, O. A. (2008b). Asymmetrical case marking. In M. Haspelmath, M. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. (chap. 50, retrieved 24.05.10). http://wals.info/feature/50.
42. Jäger G. Evolutionary game theory and typology: A case study. Language 2007, 83:74-109.
43. Janssen U., Wiese R., Schlesewsky M. Electrophysiological responses to violations of morphosyntactic and prosodic features in derived German nouns. Journal of Neurolinguistics 2005, 19:466-482.
44. Johnson R. A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology 1986, 23:367-384.
45. Kempe V., MacWhinney B. Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes 1999, 14:129-171.
46. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225.
47. Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J., van Herten M., Oor P.J. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2003, 85:1-36.
48. Kotz S.A. A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing. Brain and Language 2009, 109:68-74.
49. Kornfilt J. Turkish 1997, Routledge, London, NY.
50. Kretzschmar, F. (2010). The electrophysiological reality of parafoveal processing: On the validity of language-related ERPs in natural reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Marburg.
51. Kuperberg G.R., Caplan D., Sitnikova T., Eddy M., Holcomb P. Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 2006, 21:489-530.
52. 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 sentence. evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2007, 100:223-237.
53. Kuperberg G.R., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17:117-129.
54. Kutas M., Federmeier K. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4:463-470.
55. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
56. Kutas M., Iragui V. The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1998, 108:456-471.
57. Kutas M., Van Petten C., Kluender R. Psycholinguistics electrified II (1994-2005). Handbook of Psycholinguistics 2006, 659-724. Elsevier, London. 2nd ed. M. Traxler, M.A. Gernsbacher (Eds.).
58. Lau E., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9:920-933.
59. Li C.N., Thompson S.A. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. Subject and topic 1976, 457-489. Academic Press, New York. C.N. Li (Ed.).
60. Li C.N., Thompson S.A. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar 1981, The University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA.
61. Li P., Bates E., MacWhinney B. Processing a language without inflections: A reaction time study of sentence interpretation in Chinese. Journal of Memory and Language 1993, 32:169-192.
62. Luke K.-K., Liu H.-L., Wai Y.-Y., Wan Y.-L., Tan L.H. Functional anatomy of syntactic and semantic processing in language comprehension. Human Brain Mapping 2002, 16:133-145.
63. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York. B. MacWhinney, E. Bates (Eds.).
64. MacWhinney B., Bates E., Kliegl R. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1984, 23:127-150.
65. Maess B., Herrmann C.S., Hahne A., Nakamura A., Friederici A.D. Localizing the distributed language network responsible for the N400 measured by MEG during auditory sentence processing. Brain Research 2006, 1096:163-172.
66. McDonald J.L. The development of sentence comprehension strategies in English and Dutch. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1986, 41:317-335.
67. Miyamoto E.T. Case markers as clause boundary inducers in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2002, 31:307-347.
68. Nakagome K., Takazawa S., Kanno O., Hagiwara H., Nakajima H., Ito K., et al. A topographical study of ERP correlates of semantic and syntactic violations in the Japanese language. Psychophysiology 2001, 38:304-315.
69. Osterhout L., Hagoort P. A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King, and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate. Language and Cognitive Processes 1999, 14:1-14.
70. Osterhout L., McKinnon R., Bersick M., Corey V. On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family?. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1996, 8:507-526.
71. Osterhout L., McLaughlin J., Kim A., Greenwald R., Inoue K. Sentences in the brain: Event-related potentials as real-time reflections of sentence comprehension and language learning. The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs, and beyond 2004, 271-308. Psychology Press, Hove. M. Carreiras, C. Clifton (Eds.).
72. Philipp M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Bisang W., Schlesewsky M. The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 2008, 105:112-133.
73. Pritchard W.S. Psychophysiology of P300. Psychological Bulletin 1981, 89:506-540.
74. Roehm D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. The internal structure of the N400: frequency characteristics of a language-related ERP component. Chaos and Complexity Letters 2007, 2:365-395.
75. Roehm D., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Rösler F., Schlesewsky M. To predict or not to predict: Influences of task and strategy on the processing of semantic relations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2007, 19:1259-1274.
76. Rögnvaldsson E., Thráinsson H. On Icelandic word order once more. Modern Icelandic syntax 1990, Academic Press, San Diego. J. Maling (Ed.).
77. Sanford, A. J., Leuthold, H., Bohan, J., & Sanford, A. J. S. (2009). Anomalies at the borderline of awareness: An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. doi:10.1162/jocn.2009.21370.
78. Schlesewsky M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. When semantic P600s turn into N400s: On cross-linguistic differences in online verb-argument linking. Brain Talk: Discourse with and in the brain. Papers from the first Birgit Rausing Language Program Conference in Linguistics 2009, 75-97. Birgit Rausing Language Program, Lund. M. Horne, M. Lindgren, M. Roll, K. Alter, J. Torkildsen (Eds.).
79. Schumacher, P. B. (in press). The hepatitis called.: Electrophysiological evidence for enriched composition. In J. Meibauer & M. Steinbach (Eds.), Experimental Pragmatics/semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
80. Steele S. Word order variations: A typological study. Universals of human language, Vol. 4: Syntax 1978, 585-623. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. J.H. Greenberg (Ed.).
81. Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland.
82. Sun C.-F., Givón T. On the so-called SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese: A quantified text study and its implications. Language 1985, 61:329-351.
83. Tabor W., Galantucci B., Richardson D. Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language 2004, 50:355-370.
84. Traxler M., Morris R.K., Seely R.E. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 2002, 47:69-90.
85. Traxler M., Williams R.S., Blozis S.A., Morris R.K. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 53:204-224.
86. van Herten M., Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18:1181-1197.
87. van Herten M., Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:241-255.
88. Van Valin R.D. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1991, 9:145-194.
89. Van Valin R.D. Exploring the syntax-semantics interface 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
90. Verleger R. Event-related potentials and cognition: A critique of the context updating hypothesis and an alternative interpretation of the P3. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1988, 11:343-427.
91. Verleger R. On the utility of P3 latency as an index of mental chronometry. Psychophysiology 1997, 34:131-156.
92. Vissers C.T.W.M., Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research 2006, 1106:150-163.
93. Vissers C.T.W.M., Chwilla D.J., Kolk H.H.J. The interplay of heuristics and parsing routines in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs and reaction times. Biological Psychology 2007, 75:8-18.
94. Wang L., Schlesewsky M., Bickel B., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. Exploring the nature of the 'subject'-preference. Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes 2009, 24:1180-1226.
95. Wang, L., Schlesewsky, M., Philipp, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (in press). The role of animacy in online argument interpretation in Chinese. In P. de Swart & M. Lamers (Eds.), Case, word order, and prominence. Psycholinguistic and theoretical approaches to argument structure. Berlin: Springer.
96. Wolff S., Schlesewsky M., Hirotani M., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language 2008, 107:133-157.
97. Ye Z., Luo Y.-j., Friederici A.D., Zhou X. Semantic and syntactic processing in Chinese sentence comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Research 2006, 1071:186-196.
98. Ye Z., Zhan W., Zhou X. The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research 2007, 1142:135-145.