Conflict and surrender during sentence processing: An ERP study of syntax-semantics interaction

Brain and Language

Volumn 118, Issue 1-2, 2011, Pages 15-22

  Kim, Albert ^a   Sikos, Les ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Conflict; Selection; Semantic; Semantic attraction; Sentence comprehension; Syntactic

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AMPLITUDE MODULATION; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BRAIN FUNCTION; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; SYNTAX; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; COMPREHENSION; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS; HUMANS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79957820926     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.03.002     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Altmann G.T.M. Thematic role assignment in context. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 41(1):124-145.
2. Boland J.E., Tanenhaus M.K., Garnsey S.M., Carlson G.N. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34(6):774-806.
3. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., Roehm, D., et al. (in press). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language [Corrected proof].
4. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on " semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59(1):55-73.
5. 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(1):19-58.
6. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113(4):787-821.
7. Burkhardt P. Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language 2006, 98(2):159-168.
8. Carlson G., Tanenhaus M. Thematic roles and language comprehension. Thematic relations 1988, Vol. 21:263-289. Academic Press. W. Wilkins (Ed.).
9. Coulson S., King J., Kutas M. Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes 1998, 13:21-58.
10. Elman J.L. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 1990, 14:179-211.
11. 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.
12. Frazier L. Theories of sentence processing. Modularity in knowledge representation and natural language processing 1987, 291-307. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. J.L. Garfield (Ed.).
13. Federmeier K.D., Wlotko E.W., De Ochoa-Dewald E., Kutas M. Multiple effects of sentential constraint on word processing. Brain Research 2007, 1146:75-84.
14. Ferreira F. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 2003, 47(2):164-203.
15. Ferreira F., Bailey K.G., Ferraro V. Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2002, 11(1):11-15.
16. Ferreira F., Clifton C. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 1986, 25(3):348-368.
17. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6(2):78-84.
18. Greenhouse S.W., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24(2):95-112.
19. Gunter T.C., Friederici A.D., Schriefers H. Syntactic gender and semantic expectancy: ERPs reveal early autonomy and late interaction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2000, 12(4):556-568.
20. Hagoort P. On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005, 9(9):416-423.
21. 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.
22. Hare M., Jones M., Thomson C., Kelly S., McRae K. Activating event knowledge. Cognition 2009, 111(2):151-167.
23. 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(1):59-73.
24. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52(2):205-225.
25. Kim A., Srinivas B., Trueswell J. The convergence of lexicalist perspectives in psycholinguistics and computational linguistics. Sentence processing and the lexicon: Formal, computational and experimental perspectives 2002, 109-135. John Benjamins, Philadelphia. P. Merlo, S. Stevenson (Eds.).
26. 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.
27. 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):1-36.
28. Kolk H., Chwilla D. Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language 2007, 100(3):257-261.
29. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
30. Kuperberg G.R., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P.J. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17(1):117-129.
31. Kuperberg G.R., Kreher D., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P. The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2007, 100:223-237.
32. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2000, 4(12):463-470.
33. Kutas M., Hillyard S. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307(5947):161-163.
34. MacDonald M.C., Pearlmutter N.J., Seidenberg M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution [corrected]. Psychological Review 1994, 101(4):676-703.
35. Nakano H., Saron C., Swaab T.Y. Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22(12):2886-2898.
36. Nieuwland M.S., Van Berkum J.J. Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 24(3):691-701.
37. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31(6):785-806.
38. Osterhout L., Mobley L.A. Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language 1995, 34(6):739-773.
39. 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):1.
40. Osterhout L., Kim A., Kuperberg G. The neurobiology of sentence comprehension. The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics 2011, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. M. Spivey, M. Joanisse, K. McRae (Eds.).
41. Rayner K., Carlson M., Frazier L. 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 1983, 22(3):358-374.
42. Sachs J. Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics 1967, 437:442.
43. Sikos, L. & Kim, A. (2011). N400 to P600: Discourse context modulates the " semantic P600" Poster presented at the 18th annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, CA.
44. Srinivas B., Joshi A.K. Supertagging: An approach to almost parsing. Computational Linguistics 1999, 25(2):237-265.
45. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K. Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. Perspectives in sentence processing 1994, 155-179. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. C. Clifton, L. Frazier, K. Rayner (Eds.).
46. 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(7):1181-1197.