Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neural Processing of Verbal Event Structure: Temporal and Functional Dissociation Between Telic and Atelic Verbs

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing

  • 1200 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter uses electroencephalography (EEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) evidence to explore neural bases of telicity/atelicity computation. We focus on understanding how general language processing resources (e.g., working memory), as well as language-specific ones contribute to online computation of event structure from its distinctive features in spoken (English) and sign languages (e.g., American Sign Language, Croatian Sign Language).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In a word maze task, the first word of the sentence is followed by a choice of two words, only one of which can be a grammatically correct continuation of the sentence. Once the participants choose the word that can correctly continue the sentence, the choice of two words for the next one is presented, and so on, until the sentence is completed. This task helps measure the typical expectancy of the word given prior context.

  2. 2.

    Not all unaccusative verbs are obviously telic, however: gradient verbs such as melt, cool, warm can denote incomplete events—e.g., “melt somewhat, but not completely.”

  3. 3.

    All stimuli sentences were completely grammatical, so re-analysis effects typically seen for ungrammatical or semantically incorrect sentences, such as P600 or N400, could not be expected.

  4. 4.

    There is still a bit of a controversy regarding whether telicity of the predicate, or affectedness (or quantization) of the object argument is the relevant feature of the predicate that contributes to telicity computation. Ramchand’s (2008) model encompasses both affectedness of the object and telicity in a cohesive structure, without suggesting that they are the same thing. In fact, as Ramchand (2008) notes, it is possible to have an affected quantized object in an atelic sentence (he pushed the cart around for hours), and non-quantized object in a telic predicate (they found gold in only 3 years). Importantly, telicity and object quantization tend to correlate in Germanic languages (cf. Ritter & Rosen 1998), but not in Slavic ones (cf. Malaia 2004).

References

  • Borer, H. (1994). The projection of arguments. In E. Benedicto & J. Runner (Eds.), Functional projections (University of Massachusetts occasional papers 17) (pp. 19–47). Amherst: GSLA, University of Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, H., & Demidarche, H. (2000). On lexical verb meaning: Evidence from Salish. In C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects. Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2006). What language says about the psychology of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 91–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 178–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann, N., Shapiro, L. P., Taranto, G., & Swinney, D. (2008). The leaf fell (the leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 39(3), 355–377.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20: A festschrift for Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53–109). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaan, E., Wijnen, F., & Swaab, T. Y. (2004). Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediate processing of “missing” verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 89(3), 584–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemmerer, D., & Gonzalez-Castillo, J. (2008). The two-level theory of verb meaning: An approach to integrating the semantics of action with the mirror neuron system. Brain and Language, 112(1), 54–76.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E. (2014). It still isn’t over: Event boundaries in language and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(3), 89–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E. (2004). Event structure and telicity in Russian: An event-based analysis for telicity puzzle in Slavic languages. Ohio State UniversityWorking Papers in Slavic Studies,Vol. 4, (pp.87–98), Columbus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B. (in press) Enhancement of spatial processing in sign language users. In D. R. Montello, K. E. Grossner, & D. G. Janelle (Eds.), Space in mind: Concepts and ontologies for spatial thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B. (2012a). Telicity expression in visual modality. In L. McNally & V. Delmonte (Eds.), Telicity, change, and state: A cross-categorial view of event structure (pp. 122–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B. (2012b). Motion capture signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Language and Speech, 55(3), 407–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B. (2012c). What sign languages show: Neurobiological bases of visual phonology. In A. M. Di Sciullo (Ed.), Towards a biolinguistic understanding of grammar: Essays on interfaces (pp. 265–275). John Benjamins: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2008). ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain and Language, 108(3), 145–158.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., Ranaweera, R., Wilbur, R. B., & Talavage. T. M. (2012a). Event segmentation in a visual language: Neural bases of processing American Sign Language predicates. NeuroImage, 59(4), 4094–4101.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2012b). Down the garden path in EEG: Telicity effects on thematic role re-assignment in relative clauses with transitive verbs. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41(5), 323–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Milković, M. (2013a). Kinematic parameters of signed verbs at morpho-phonology interface. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malaia, E., Wilbur, R. B., & Weber-Fox, C. (2013b). Event end-point primes the undergoer argument: A look at neurobiological bases of event structure. In B. Gehrke & B. Arsenijevic (Eds.), Subatomic semantics of event predicates (pp. 231–248). Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, S., Malaia, E., Seo, R., & Hu, C. (2013). The effect of individual differences in working memory capacity on sentence comprehension: An fMRI study. Brain Topography, 26(3), 458–467.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Bryan, E. L., Folli, R., Harley, H., & Bever, T. G. (2003). Event structure is accessed immediately during comprehension. Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting, Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, E., & Rosen, S. (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments (pp. 135–164). Stanford: CSLI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schalber, K. (2004). Phonological visibility of event structure in Austrian Sign Language: A comparison of ASL and ÖGS. Master’s thesis, Purdue University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Son, M., & Cole, P. (2008). An event-based account of -kan constructions in standard Indonesian. Language, 84(1), 120–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streb, J., Hennighausen, E., & Rösler, F. (2004). Different anaphoric expressions are investigated by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 33(3), 175–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swallow, K. M., Zacks, J. M., & Abrams, R. A. (2009). Event boundaries in perception affect memory encoding and updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valin, R. (2007). Some universals of verb semantics. In R. Mairal & J. Gil (Eds.), Linguistic universals (pp. 155–178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Fox, C., & Neville, H. J. (2001). Sensitive periods differentiate processing of open- and closed-class words: An ERP study of bilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 44(6), 1338–1353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, R. B. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 354–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, R. B. (2008). Complex predicates involving events, time and aspect: Is this why sign languages look so similar? In J. Quer (Ed.), Signs of the time (pp. 217–250). Hamburg: Signum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, R. B. (2009). Productive reduplication in ASL, a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences, 31, 325–342.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilbur, R., & Malaia, E. (2008). Event visibility hypothesis: Motion capture evidence for overt marking of telicity in ASL. Presentation, Linguistic Society of America meeting, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamada, Y., & Neville, H. J. (2007). An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences. Brain Research, 1130(1), 167–180.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 80–84.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zacks, J. M., Braver, T. S., Sheridan, M. A., Donaldson, D. I., Snyder, A. Z., Ollinger, J. M., et al. (2001). Human brain activity time-locked to perceptual event boundaries. Nature Neuroscience, 4(6), 651–655.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by National Science Foundation Grant 0345314 to RBW, NIH DC00524 grant to RBW, NIH EB003990 grant to TMT, and Research Enhancement Program grant from the University of Texas at Arlington to EM.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX, USA

    E. Malaia

  2. Section on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and Cognition, National Institute of Mental Health, Building 10, Room 1D80, 10 Center Dr. MSC 1148, Bethesda, MD 20892-1148, USA

    J. Gonzalez-Castillo

  3. Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, Lyles-Porter Hall, 715 Clinic Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

    C. Weber-Fox & R. B. Wilbur

  4. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, Electrical Engineering Building, 465 Northwestern Ave., 47907, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    T. M. Talavage

  5. Linguistic Program, School of Interdisciplinary Studies, Purdue University, Lyles-Porter Hall, 715 Clinic Drive, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

    R. B. Wilbur

Authors
  1. E. Malaia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Gonzalez-Castillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Weber-Fox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. M. Talavage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. B. Wilbur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Malaia .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Roberto G. de Almeida

  2. Department of Philology, University of Patras, Rio Patras, Greece

    Christina Manouilidou

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Malaia, E., Gonzalez-Castillo, J., Weber-Fox, C., Talavage, T., Wilbur, R. (2015). Neural Processing of Verbal Event Structure: Temporal and Functional Dissociation Between Telic and Atelic Verbs. In: de Almeida, R., Manouilidou, C. (eds) Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation