Advertisement

Definiteness Marking Shows Late Effects during Discourse Processing: Evidence from ERPs

  • Petra B. Schumacher
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5847)

Abstract

This paper investigates the processing of indefinite and definite noun phrases in discourse. It presents data from an Event-Related brain Potential (ERP) study that contrasted definite and indefinite noun phrases following three distinct context sentences. The data suggest that coherence considerations influence early processing stages, while morphological definiteness features only affect later stages during reference resolution. In addition, the processing of a definite determiner (prior to encountering the subsequent noun) exerts processing demands, supporting the functional contribution of definiteness marking. Supplementary data from a plausibility questionnaire and two completion studies are also presented. The findings are discussed with respect to a neurocognitive model of reference resolution.

Keywords

Definiteness Referential processing Event-related brain potentials Inferences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, J.E., Holcomb, P.J.: An Electrophysiological Investigation of the Effects of Coreference on Word Repetition and Synonymy. Brain Lang. 94, 200–216 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asher, N., Lascarides, A.: Bridging. J. of Semantics 15, 83–113 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burkhardt, P.: The Syntax-Discourse Interface: Representing and Interpreting Dependency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burkhardt, P.: Inferential Bridging Relations Reveal Distinct Neural Mechanisms: Evidence From Event-Related Brain Potentials. Brain Lang. 98, 159–168 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burkhardt, P.: The P600 Reflects Cost of New Information in Discourse Memory. Neuroreport 18, 1851–1854 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burkhardt, P., Roehm, D.: Differential Effects of Saliency: An Event-Related Brain Potential Study. Neurosci. Lett. 413, 115–120 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coulson, S., Van Petten, C.: Conceptual Integration and Metaphor: An Event-Related Potential Study. Mem. Cogn. 30, 958–968 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donnellan, K.S.: Reference and Definite Descriptions. The Philosophical Review 77, 281–304 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraurud, K.: Definiteness and the Processing of Nps in Natural Language. J. of Semantics 7, 395–433 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frege, G.: Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik NF 100, 25–50 (1892)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gennari, S.P., MacDonald, M.C.: Linking Production and Comprehension Processes: The Case of Relative Clauses. Cognition 111, 1–23 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hawkins, J.A.: Definiteness and Indefiniteness. Humanities Press, Atlantic Highland (1978)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heim, I.: The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1982)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huynh, H., Feldt, L.S.: Conditions Under Which Mean Square Ratios Repeated Measurements Designs Have Exact F Distributions. J. of the American Statistical Assocation 65, 1582–1589 (1970)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jasper, H.H.: The Ten Twenty Electrode System of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 10, 371–375 (1958)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaan, E., Dallas, A.C., Barkley, C.M.: Processing Bare Quantifiers in Discourse. Brain Res. 1146, 199–209 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaan, E., Swaab, T.Y.: Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 98–110 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King, J.W., Kutas, M.: Who Did What and When? Using Word- and Clause-Level ERPs to Monitor Working Memory Usage in Reading. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 7, 376–395 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kutas, M., Federmeier, K.D.: Electrophysiology Reveals Semantic Memory Use in Language Comprehension. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4, 463–470 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Neville, H.J., Mills, D.L., Lawson, D.S.: Fractionating Language: Different Neural Subsystems With Different Sensitive Periods. Cereb. Cortex 2, 244–258 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Osterhout, L., Allen, M., McLaughlin, J.: Words in the Brain: Lexical Determinants of Word-Induced Brain Activity. J. Neurolinguist 15, 171–187 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P.J., Swinney, D.A.: Brain Potentials Elicited By Garden-Path Sentences - Evidence of the Application of Verb Information During Parsing. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn Mem. Cogn. 20, 786–803 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poesio, M., Vieira, R.: A Corpus-Based Investigation of Definite Description Use. Computational Linguistics 24, 183–216 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Prince, E.F.: Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information. In: Cole, P. (ed.) Radical Pragmatics, pp. 223–255. Academic, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Russell, B.: On Denoting. Mind 14, 479–493 (1905)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schumacher, P.B.: The Hepatitis Called.: Electrophysiological Evidence for Enriched Composition. In: Meibauer, J., Steinbach, M. (eds.) Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strawson, P.F.: On Referring. Mind 59, 320–344 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Streb, J., Rösler, F., Hennighausen, E.: Event-Related Responses to Pronoun and Proper Name Anaphors in Parallel and Nonparallel Discourse Structures. Brain Lang. 70, 273–286 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petra B. Schumacher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of English and LinguisticsUniversity of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations