Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish

Brain and Language

Volumn 120, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 108-126

  Stroud, Clare ^a   Phillips, Colin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Animacy; ERPs; Incremental parsing; Semantics; Spanish; Syntax; Thematic roles

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAM; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE ABILITY; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; SEMANTICS; SPAIN; SPEECH ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC ERROR; TASK PERFORMANCE; VOICE CHANGE; WORD RECOGNITION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CEREBRAL CORTEX; COMPREHENSION; EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84856608820     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Altmann G.T.M., Steedman M.J. Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition 1988, 30:191-238.
2. Baggio G., Choma T., van Lambalgen M., Hagoort P. Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2010, 22:2131-2140.
3. Barber H., Carreiras M. Integrating gender and number information is Spanish word pairs: An ERP study. Cortex 2003, 39:465-482.
4. Barber H., Carreiras M. Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP Comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17:137-153.
5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Kretschmar F., Tune S., Wang L., Genç S., Philipp M., et al. Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 2011, 117:133-152.
6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review 2006, 113:787-821.
7. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on " semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59:55-73.
8. Brown C., Hagoort P. The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1993, 5:34-44.
9. Carlson G.N. A unified analysis of the English bare plural. Linguistics and Philosophy 1977, 1:413-458.
10. Chow, W.-Y., & Phillips, C. (2010). The limits of independent semantic composition: Evidence from Chinese. Presentation at the 2010 Cognitive Neuroscience Society Conference. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement.
11. Deacon D., Hewitt S., Yang C., Nagata M. Event-related potential indices of semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: Evidence that the N400 does not reflect a post-lexical process. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research 2000, 9:137-146.
12. Federmeier K.D. Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 2007, 44:491-505.
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., Clifton C. The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory and Language 1986, 25:348-368.
15. Fischler I., Bloom P., Childers D.G., Roucos S.E., Perry N.W. Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology 1983, 20:400-409.
16. Friederici A.D. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002, 6:78-84.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Geyer, A., Holcomb, P., Kuperberg, G., & Pearlmutter, N. (2006). Plausibility and sentence comprehension. An ERP study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Supplement.
20. Gouvea A.C., Phillips C., Kazanina N., Poeppel D. The linguistic processes underlying the P600. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25:149-188.
21. Greenhouse S., Geisser S. On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika 1959, 24:95-112.
22. Hagoort P. The fractionation of spoken language understanding by measuring electrical and magnetic brain signals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences 2008, 363:1055-1069.
23. Hagoort P., Brown C.M., Groothusen J. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 1993, 8:439-484.
24. Hagoort P., Hald L., Bastiaansen M.C.M., Petersson K.M. Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science 2004, 304:438-440.
25. Heim I., Kratzer A. Semantics in Generative Grammar 1998, Blackwell, Oxford.
26. 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.
27. Kaan E., Swaab T.Y. Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17:621-635.
28. Kaan E., Swaab T.Y. Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15:98-100.
29. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225.
30. Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J., Van Herten M., Oor P. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 2003, 85:1-36.
31. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
32. Kuperberg G., 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.
33. Kuperberg G., Kreher D.A., 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, 100:223-238.
34. Kuperberg G.R., Sitnikova T., Caplan P., Holcomb P.J. Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 17:117-129.
35. Kutas M., Federmeier K.D. Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends on Cognitive Science 2000, 4:463-470.
36. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207:203-205.
37. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature 1984, 307:161-163.
38. Lau E., Phillips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (de)Constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 8:920-933.
39. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106:1126-1177.
40. MacDonald M.C., Pearlmutter N.J., Seidenberg M.S. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 1994, 101:676-703.
41. Martín-Loeches M., Nigbur R., Casado P., Hohlfeld A., Sommer W. Semantics prevalence over syntax during sentence processing: A brain potential study of noun-adjective agreement in Spanish. Brain Research 2006, 1093:178-189.
42. Matsumoto A., Iidaka T., Haneda K., Okada T., Sadato N. Linking semantic priming effect in functional MRI and event-related potentials. Neuroimage 2005, 24:624-634.
43. 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, 3:151-165.
44. Nieuwland M.S., van Berkum J.J.A. Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary semantic change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 24:691-701.
45. Osterhout L., Holcomb P.J. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31:785-806.
46. 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 Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 1994, 20:786-803.
47. Phillips C., Kazanina N., Abada S.H. ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:407-428.
48. Pollard C., Sag I.A. Head-driven phrase structure grammar 1994, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
49. Steedman Mark. The syntactic process 2000, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
50. Stroud, C. (2008). Structural and semantic selectivity in the electrophysiology of sentence comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
51. Tanenhaus M.K., Spivey-Knowlton M.J., Eberhard K.M., Sedivy J.C. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language-comprehension. Science 1995, 268:1632-1634.
52. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K. Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. Perspectives on sentence processing 1994, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. C. Clifton, K. Rayner, T.L. Frazier (Eds.).
53. Van Berkum J.J.A. The neuropragmatics of 'simple' utterance comprehension: An ERP review. Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory 2009, Palgrave, Basingstoke. U. Sauerland, K. Yatsushiro (Eds.).
54. Van Berkum J.J.A., Hagoort P., Brown C.M. Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 11:657-671.
55. Van de Meerendonk N., Kolk H.H.J., Vissers C.T.W.M., Chwilla D.J. Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 22:67-82.
56. 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.
57. Van Herten M., Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D. An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 22:241-255.
58. Van Petten C., Luka B.J. Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain and Language 2006, 97:279-293.
59. 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.
60. Vissers C.T.W.M., Kolk H.H.J., van de Meerendonk N., Chwilla D.J. Monitoring in language perception: Evidence from ERPs in a picture-sentence matching task. Neuropsychologia 2008, 46:967-982.
61. Wagers M., Lau E., Phillips C. Agreement attraction in comprehension: Representations and processes. Journal of Memory and Language 2009, 61:206-237.
62. Wicha N.Y.Y. Potato not pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters 2003, 346:165-168.
63. Wicha N.Y.Y., Moreno E.M., Kutas M. Expecting gender: An event-related potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex 2003, 39:483-508.
64. Wicha N.Y.Y., Moreno E.M., Kutas M. Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2004, 16:1272-1288.
65. Ye Z., Zhou X. Involvement of cognitive control in sentence comprehension: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research 2008, 1203:103-115.