Abstract
Linguistic theories distinguish between syntax (sentence form) and semantics (sentence meaning). Correspondingly, recent studies have shown that syntactic and semantic anomalies elicit distinct changes in the event-related brain potential (ERP). However, these results have been obtained with highly artificial methodologies and have not yet been generalized to more natural reading conditions. Here, we recorded ERPs while subjects read a naturalistic prose passage. The subjects either read for comprehension with no other task being assigned or read for comprehension and made acceptability judgments after each sentence. Consistent with prior work and regardless of the subjects' assigned task, syntactic anomalies elicited a large positive wave (P600), whereas semantic anomalies elicited a large increase in N400 amplitude. These results demonstrate that the qualitatively distinct ERP responses elicited by syntactic and semantic anomalies are not artifacts of unnatural aspects of previously used stimuli, thereby providing additional evidence that separable syntactic and semantic processes exist.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allen, M., Badecker, W., & Osterhout, L. (in press). Syntactic features are analyzed independently of their hosts.Language & Cognitive Processes.
Angrilli, A., Penolazzi, B., Vespignani, F., De Vincenzi, M., Job, R., Ciccarelli, L., Palomba, D., &Stegagno, L. (2002). Cortical brain responses to semantic incongruity and syntactic violation in Italian language: An event-related potential study.Neuroscience Letters,322, 5–8.
Chomsky, N. (1986).Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.
Donchin, E. (1981). Surprise! … Surprise?Psychophysiology,30, 90–97.
Ferreira, F., &Clifton, C., Jr. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 348–368.
Frazier, L., &Rayner, K. (1982). Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences.Cognitive Psychology,14, 178–210.
Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data.Brain & Language,62, 311–341.
Friederici, A. D., Hahne, A., &Mecklinger, A. (1996). Temporal structure of syntactic processing: Early and late event-related potential effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1219–1248.
Hagoort, P., &Brown, C. M. (1994). Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.),Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 45–80). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hagoort, P., &Brown, C. M. (2000). ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: The P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation.Neuropsychologia,38, 1531–1549.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., &Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of sentence processing.Language & Cognitive Processes,8, 439–483.
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., &Osterhout, L. (1999). The neural architecture of syntactic processing. In C. Brown & P. Hagoort (Eds.),Neurocognition of language (pp. 273–316). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holcomb, P. J., &Neville, H. J. (1991). Natural speech processing: An analysis using event-related brain potentials.Psychobiology,19, 286–300.
Jasper, H. H. (1958). Report to the committee on the methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography.Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology,10, 371–375.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kenan, L. R. (1998).New American profiles. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch.
Keppel, G. (1982).Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kutas, M. (1993). In the company of other words: Electrophysiological evidence for single-word and sentence context effects.Language & Cognitive Processes,8, 533–572.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity.Science,207, 203–205.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies.Memory & Cognition,11, 539–550.
Kutas, M., &Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association.Nature,307, 161–163.
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., &Tyler, L. K. (1987). Against modularity. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.),Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 37–62). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McClelland, J. L., St. John, M., &Taraban, R. (1989). Sentence comprehension: A parallel distributed processing approach.Language & Cognitive Processes,4, 287–336.
McKinnon, R., &Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials.Language & Cognitive Processes,11, 495–523.
Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., &Mangun, G. R. (1993). Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,5, 335–344.
Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., &Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specif icity of the syntactic positive shift.Neuropsychologia,36, 217–226.
Neville, H. J., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., &Garrett, M. F. (1991). Syntactically based processing classes: Evidence from eventrelated potentials.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,3, 151–165.
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences.Brain & Language,59, 494–522.
Osterhout, L., &Hagoort, P. (1999). A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family: Counterarguments to Coulson, King, and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate.Language & Cognitive Processes,14, 1–14.
Osterhout, L., &Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.Journal of Memory & Language,31, 785–806.
Osterhout, L., &Holcomb, P. J. (1993). Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech.Language & Cognitive Processes,8, 413–438.
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, & Cognition,20, 786–803.
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., &Corey, V. (1996). On the language-specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family?Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,8, 507–526.
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., Allen, M., Inoue, K., & Loveless, J.(2002).Changes in brain activity associated with the first year of adult foreign-language instruction. Manuscript in preparation.
Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., &Bersick, M. (1997). Event-related potentials and human language.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,1, 203–209.
Osterhout, L., &Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree.Journal of Memory & Language,34, 739–773.
Osterhout, L., &Nicol, J. (1999). On the distinctiveness, independence, and time course of the brain responses to syntactic and semantic anomalies.Language & Cognitive Processes,14, 283–317.
Rösler, F., Friederici, A. D., Pütz, P., &Hahne, A. (1993). Eventrelated brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,5, 345–362.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by Grant 2 R01DC01947 from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health, awarded to L.O.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Osterhout, L., Allen, M.D., Mclaughlin, J. et al. Brain potentials elicited by prose-embedded linguistic anomalies. Mem Cogn 30, 1304–1312 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213412
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213412