Decomposing animacy reversals between agents and experiencers: An ERP study

Brain and Language

Volumn 122, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 179-189

  Bourguignon, Nicolas ^a,b   Drury, John E ^c   Valois, Daniel ^a,b   Steinhauer, Karsten ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

^b CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON BRAIN   (Canada)

^c STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Animacy; Cross linguistic differences; ERP; Language processing; N400; Psych verbs; Semantic P600; Thematic roles; Verbal aspect

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; GRAMMAR; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LANGUAGE PROCESSING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; RESPONSE TIME; RIGHT HANDEDNESS; SEMANTICS; STIMULUS RESPONSE; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; VISUAL STIMULATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BRAIN; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84865542612     PISSN: 0093934X     EISSN: 10902155     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.05.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Barber H.A., Carreiras M. Grammatical gender and number agreement in Spanish: An ERP comparison. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17(1):137-153.
2. Belletti A., Rizzi L. Psych-verbs and -theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1988, 6(3):291-352.
3. Besson M., Kutas M. The many facets of repetition - A cued-recall and event-related potential analysis of repeating words in same versus different sentence contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 1993, 19(5):1115-1133.
4. Bornkessel I., Schlesewsky M. The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. The Psychological Review 2006, 113(4):787-821.
5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Kretzschmar F., Tune S., Wang L., Genç S., Phillipp M., et al. Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language 2011, 117(3):133-152.
6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I., Schlesewsky M. An alternative perspective on "semantic P600" effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews 2008, 59:55-73.
7. 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.
8. Bouchard D. The semantics of syntax 1995, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
9. Brennan J., Pylkkänen L. Processing psych verbs: Behavioural and MEG measures of two different types of semantic complexity. Language and Cognitive Processes 2010, 25(6):777-807.
10. Donchin E., Coles M.G.H. Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1988, 11:357-373.
11. Doron E. Agency and voice. The semantics of the semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics 2003, 11:1-67.
12. 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, 11:305-323.
13. Frisch S., Schlesewsky M. The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport 2001, 12(15):3391-3394.
14. Gennari S., Poeppel D. Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition 2003, 89:B27-B41.
15. Gray H.M., Gray K., Wegner D.M. Dimensions of mind perception. Science 2007, 315:619.
16. Hale, K., Keyser, S. J. (1999). Bound feature, merge, and transitivity alternations. In L. Pylkkänen, A. Van Hout, H. Harley (Eds.), Papers from UPenn/MIT Roundtable on the Lexicon 35, pp. 49-72.
17. Kim A., Osterhout L. The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language 2005, 52:205-225.
18. Kolk H.H.J., Chwilla D.J., van Herten J., 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.
19. Kuperberg G.R. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 2007, 1146:23-49.
20. Kuperberg G.R., Sitnikova T., Caplan D., Holcomb P.J. Electrophysiological distinction in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research 2003, 22:117-129.
21. Kutas M., Hillyard S.A. Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 1980, 207(4427):203-205.
22. Landau I. The locative syntax of experiencers 2009, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
23. Landauer T., Dumais S.T. A solution to Plato's problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. The Psychological Review 1997, 104(2):211-240.
24. Lau E.F., Philips C., Poeppel D. A cortical network for semantics: (De)constructing the N400. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9:920-933.
25. Levin B. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary analysis 1993, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
26. MacWhinney B., Bates E. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
27. 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, 23:477-494.
28. 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.
29. Osterhout L., Holcomb P. Event related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 1992, 31(6):785-806.
30. Paczynski M., Kuperberg G.R. Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 2011, 26(9):1402-1456.
31. Pesetsky D. Zero syntax - Experiencers and cascades 1995, MIT Press, Cambridge.
32. Schlesewsky, M. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2009). When semantic P600s turn into N400s: On cross-linguistic differences in online verb-argument linking. In M. Horne, M. Lindgren, M. Roll, K. Alter, J. v. K. Torkildsen (Eds.), Brain talk: discourse with and in the brain. Papers form the first Brigit Rausing Language Program Conference in Linguistics. Lund: Bridit Rausing Language Program.
33. Steinhauer K., Drury J.E. On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language 2012, 120(2):135-162.
34. Steinhauer K., Drury J.E., Portner P., Walenski M. Syntax, concept, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia 2010, 48:1525-1542.
35. Steinhauer K., Mecklinger A., Friederici A.D., Meyer M. Probability and strategy: An event-related potential study of processing syntactic anomalies. Zeitschrift fuer Experimentelle Psychologie 1997, 2:305-331.
36. Stroud C., Phillips C. Examining the evidence for an independent semantic analyzer: An ERP study in Spanish. Brain and Language 2012, 120(2):108-126.
37. Van de Meerendonk N., Kolk H.H.J., Vissers C.Th.W.M., Chwilla D.J. Monitoring in language perception: Mild and strong conflicts elicit different ERP patterns. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2008, 22(1):67-82.
38. van Herten M., Chwilla D.J., Kolk 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.
39. Van Valin R.D. Exploring the syntax-semantic interface 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
40. Van Voorst J. The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 1992, 15:65-92.
41. Weckerly J., Kutas M. An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology 1999, 36:559-570.