Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Different Anaphoric Expressions Are Investigated by Event-Related Brain Potentials

  • Published:
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Event-related potentials were recorded to substantiate the claim of a distinct psycholinguistic status of (a) pronouns vs. proper names and (b) ellipses vs. proper names. In two studies 41 students read sentences in which the number of intervening words between the anaphor and its antecedent was either small or large. Comparing the far with the near distance condition revealed anaphor resolution specific effects: Ellipses triggered a potential shift with a short latency (∼120–200 ms) and with a fronto-central scalp distribution while pronouns and proper names triggered one with a longer latency (∼360–440 ms) and a parietal to right-occipital distribution. The early effect resembled the left-anterior negativity which has been related to syntax processing, while the latter resembled an N400 which is assumed to reflect semantic integration processes. These findings support the idea that ellipses and pronouns/proper names are processed by distinct mechanisms being implemented in distinct cortical cell assemblies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Anderson, J.E., & Holcomb, P.J. (1995). Auditory and visual semantic priming using different stimulus onset asynchronies:An event-related brain potential study.Psychophysi-ology,32,177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentin, S., McCarthy, G., & Wood, C.C. (1985). Event-related potentials,lexical decisions and semantic priming.Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,60,343–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besson, M., Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1992). An event-related potential (ERP)analysis of semantic congruity and repetition effects in sentences.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,4 (2),132–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiarello, C. (1991). Interpretation of word meaning by the cerebral hemispheres:One is not enough.In H.A. Whitaker (Ed.),Contemporary Reviews in Neuropsychology (pp.59–69). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H., & Sengul, C.J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns.Memory and Cognition,7,35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, K., & Rayner, K. (1983). Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading:Eye-movements and immediacy of processing.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,22,75–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraurud, K. (1990). Definiteness and the processing of NPs in natural discourse.Journal of Semantics,7,395–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederici, A.D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data.Brain and Language, 50,259–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S. (1994). Resolving pronouns and other anaphoric devices:The case for diversity in discourse processing.In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp.339–357).Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod, S., Freudenthal, D., & Boyle, E.A. (1994). The role of different types of anaphor in the online resolution of sentences in a discourse.Journal of Memory and Language,33, 39–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M.A. (1989). Mechanisms that improve referential access.Cognition,32,99–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990). Language Comprehension as Structure Building.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green,S.T., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,18,266–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hankamer, J., & Sag, I.A. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora.Linguistic Inquiry,7,391–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennighausen, E., Heil, M., & Rösler, F. (1993). A correction method for DC drift artifacts. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,86,199–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, M. (1998). Sprachverstehensprozesse bei unvollständigen Satzstrukturen.In H. Lachnit & F. Rösler (Eds.),Experimentelle Psychologie (p.140).Lengerich: Papst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, S.B., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Dell, G.A. (1986). Program of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.96–101).Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huynh, H., & Feldt, L.S. (1976). Estimation of the box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and split-plot designs.Journal of Educational Statistics,1,69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karayanidis, F., Andrews, S., Ward, P., & McConaghy, N. (1991). Effects of inter-item lag on word repetition:An event-related potential study.Psychophysiology,28 (3),307–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J.W. & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when?Using word-and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,7 (3), 376–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension:A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993a). Bridging the gap:Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,5 (2),196–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993b). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon.Language and Cognitive Processes,8,573–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M. (1997). Views on how the electrical activity that the brain generates reflects the functions of different language structures.Psychophysiology,34,383–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences:Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.Science,207,203–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S.A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.Nature,307,161–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C.K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electri ed:Event-related brain potentials investigations.In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.),Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp.83–143).San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-Wilson, W., & Tyler, L.K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding.Cognition,8,1–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauner, G., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Carlson, G.N. (1995). A note on parallelism effects in processing deep and surface verb-phrase anaphora.Language and Cognitive Processes, 10 (1),1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, G., & Wood, C.C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials:An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models.Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,62,203–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G.L. (1985). Processes of understanding anaphora.Journal of Memory and Language,24,290–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, G.L. (1990). Interpretation of verb phrase anaphora:Influences of task and syntactic context.The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42A,675–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, H.J., Mills, D.L., & Lawson, D.S. (1992). Fractionating language:Different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods.Cerebral Cortex,2,235–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedeggen, M., & Rösler, F. (1999). N400-effects reflect activation spread during arithmetic fact retrieval.Psychological Science,10,271–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigam, A., Hoffman, J.E., & Simons, R.F. (1992). N400 to semantically anomalous pictures and words.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,4,16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L.A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree.Journal of Memory and Language,34,739–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rösler, F., Friederici, A., Pütz, P., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,5 (3),345–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order:Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials.Journal of Memory and Language,38,150–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugg, M.D. (1987). Dissociation of semantic priming,word and nonword repetiton by event-related potentials.Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,39A,123–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runchin, D.S., Johnson, R. Jr., & Friedman, D. (1999). Scaling is necessary when making comparisons between shapes of event-related potential topographies:A reply to Haig et al. Psychophysiology,36,332–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sag, I., & Hankamer, J. (1984). Toward a theory of anaphoric processing.Linguistics and Philosophy,7,325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, A.J., Garrod, S.C., Lucas, A., & Henderson, R. (1983). Pronouns without explicit antecedents?Journal of Semantics,2,303–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity.In R.M.W. Dixon (Ed.),Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages.(pp.112–171).New Jersey: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streb, J., Rösler, F., & Hennighausen, E. (1999). Event-related responses to pronoun and proper name anaphora in parallel and non-parallel discourse structures.Brain & Language,70 (2),273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M.K., & Carlson, G.N. (1990). Comprehension of deep and surface verbphrase anaphors.Language and Cognitive Processes,5 (4),257–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanenhaus, M.K., Carlson, G.N., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1985). Do listeners compute linguistic representations?In D.R. Dowty, L. Karttunen & A.M. Zwicky (Eds.),Natural Language Parsing:Psychological,Computational,and Theoretical Perspectives (pp.359–408). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berkum, J.J.A., Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing:Evidence from event-related brain potentials.Journal of Memory and Language,41,147–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berkum, J., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse:Evidence from the N400.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,11 (6),657–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Petten, C., & Kutas, M. (1991). Electrophysiological evidence for the flexibility of lexical processing.In G.B. Simpson (Ed.),Understanding Word and Sentence (pp.129–174). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Experimental and Biological Psychology, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany

    Judith Streb, Erwin Hennighausen & Frank Rösler

  2. Fachbereich Psychologie, Gutenbergstr. 18, D-35032, Marburg, Germany

    Judith Streb

Authors
  1. Judith Streb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erwin Hennighausen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Rösler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Streb, J., Hennighausen, E. & Rösler, F. Different Anaphoric Expressions Are Investigated by Event-Related Brain Potentials. J Psycholinguist Res 33, 175–201 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000027961.12577.d8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPR.0000027961.12577.d8

Search

Navigation