Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 141–154 | Cite as

Brain Potentials in the Processing of Complex Sentences: An ERP Study of Control and Raising Constructions

  • Samuel Featherston
  • Matthias Gross
  • Thomas F. Münte
  • Harald Clahsen
Article

Abstract

In the present study we made use of Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) to examine raising and subject control constructions in German. Our most salient result is that the ERPs elicited at the empty subject position of a raising construction are clearly different from those elicited at the corresponding position of an otherwise identical subject control construction, the former producing a stronger P600. We argue that this result provides an electrophysiological correlate of the theoretical distinction between NP trace and PRO.

Keywords

Subject Control Cognitive Psychology Subject Position Brain Potential Complex Sentence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bever, T. G., & Sanz M. (1997). Empty categories access their antecedents during comprehension of Spanish unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 69–91.Google Scholar
  2. Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. Clahsen, H., & Featherston S. (1999). Antecedent priming at trace positions: evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28, 415–437.Google Scholar
  5. Crocker M. (1996). Computational Psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Felser, C., Gross, M., Clahsen, H., & Münte T. F. Brain potentials in the processing of complex sentences: an ERP study of wh constructions and object topicalizations in German (in preparation).Google Scholar
  7. Friederici, A. D., & Mecklinger A. (1996). Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses. First-pass and second-pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25, 157–176.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, R. (1986). A triarchic model of P300 amplitude. Psychophysiology 23, 367–84.Google Scholar
  9. Kluender, R., & Kutas M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5, 196–214.Google Scholar
  10. Kluender, R., & Münte T. F. Subject/object asymmetries: ERPs to grammatical and ungrammatical wh-questions in German (submitted).Google Scholar
  11. Kramer, A. F., Wickens, C. D., and Donchin E. (1985). Processing of stimulus properties: evidence for dual-task integrity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: 11, 393–408.Google Scholar
  12. McElree, B., & Bever T. G. (1989). The psychological reality of linguistically defined gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 21–35.Google Scholar
  13. MacDonald, M. (1989) Priming effects from gaps to antecedents. Language and Cognitive Processes 4, 35–56.Google Scholar
  14. Münte, T. F., Matzke M., & Johannes S. (1998a). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudowords. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9, 318–32.Google Scholar
  15. Münte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., Matzke M., Wieringa B. M., and Johannes S. (1998b). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: no evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia 36, 217–226.Google Scholar
  16. Nicol, J. Swinney, D. (1989). The role of structure in conference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18, 5–19.Google Scholar
  17. Osterhout, L., & Swinney D. (1993). On the temporal course of gap-filling during the comprehension of verbal passives. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 22, 273–286.Google Scholar
  18. Osterhout, L., & Holcomb P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language 31, 785–804.Google Scholar
  19. Osterhout, L., Holcomb P. J., & Swinney D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20, 786–803.Google Scholar
  20. Osterhout, L., (1994). Event-related brain potentials as tools for comprehending language comprehension. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Prospectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 15–44.Google Scholar
  21. Pickering, M., & Barry G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes 6, 229–259.Google Scholar
  22. Pollard, C., & Sag I. (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sag, I., & Fodor J. (1995). Extraction without traces. Proceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp. 365–384.Google Scholar
  24. Swinney, D. A., Ford, M., Frauenfelder, U., and Bresnan J. (1988). Coreference assignment during sentence processing. In B. Grosz, R. Kaplan, M. Macken, & I. Sag (Eds.), Language structure and processing, Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel Featherston
    • 1
  • Matthias Gross
    • 2
  • Thomas F. Münte
    • 2
  • Harald Clahsen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticUniversity of EssexColchesterEngland
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyMedical School of HanoverHanoverGermany
  3. 3.Department of LinguisticUniversity of EssexColchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations