Advertisement

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

  • E. MalaiaEmail author
  • J. Gonzalez-Castillo
  • C. Weber-Fox
  • T. M. Talavage
  • R. B. Wilbur
Chapter

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).

Keywords

Telicity EEG Event structure American sign language Atelic 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Brentari, D. (1998). A prosodic model of sign language phonology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2006). What language says about the psychology of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 91–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(2), 72–79.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676.Google Scholar
  12. Malaia, E. (2014). It still isn’t over: Event boundaries in language and perception. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8(3), 89–98.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B. (2012b). Motion capture signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Language and Speech, 55(3), 407–421.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Son, M., & Cole, P. (2008). An event-based account of -kan constructions in standard Indonesian. Language, 84(1), 120–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilbur, R. B. (2003). Representations of telicity in ASL. Chicago Linguistic Society, 39(1), 354–368.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Wilbur, R. B. (2009). Productive reduplication in ASL, a fundamentally monosyllabic language. Language Sciences, 31, 325–342.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Yamada, Y., & Neville, H. J. (2007). An ERP study of syntactic processing in English and nonsense sentences. Brain Research, 1130(1), 167–180.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 80–84.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Malaia
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Gonzalez-Castillo
    • 2
  • C. Weber-Fox
    • 3
  • T. M. Talavage
    • 4
  • R. B. Wilbur
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.University of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Section on Functional Imaging Methods, Laboratory of Brain and CognitionNational Institute of Mental HealthBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.School of Electrical and Computer EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Linguistic Program, School of Interdisciplinary StudiesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations