Advertisement

ERP Negativities During Syntactic Processing of Written Words

  • T. F. Münte
  • H.-J. Heinze

Abstract

The observation of a negative component in the event-related potential (ERP) in response to semantic anomalies by Kutas and Hillyard in 1980 represents a hallmark in the use of electrophysiological measures for the investigation of language processing. Subsequent work showed that this negative component can be reliably recorded with an onset latency of about 250 msec and a peak latency of 400 msec, thus leading to the label N400. Most of the research of the past decade has been devoted to the delineation of the factors that influence the N400. This line of experiments was reviewed recently by Kutas and Van Petten (1988), Halgren (1990), and Fischler (1990). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to summarize all the factors that have been investigated in relation to the N400. It should suffice to say that it varies reliably as a function of manipulations on the semantic level. However, the endeavor of language research by means of event-related potentials would be meaningless, if it was centered around components rather than processes. In this respect a cross-fertilization from the current theories of psycholinguis-tics is needed.

Keywords

Lexical Decision Critical Word Difference Wave Semantic Task Syntactic Processing 
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. Bach E, Brown C, Marslen-Wilson WD (1986): Crossed and nested dependencies in German and Dutch: A psycholinguistic study. Lang Cognit Proc 7:249-262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates E, MacWhinney B, Caselli C, Debescovi A, Natale F, Venza V (1984): A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategy. Child Develop 55:341-354.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentin S, McCarthy G, Wood CC (1985): Event-related potentials associated with semantic priming. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 60:343-355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cuetos F, Mitchell DG (1988): Cross linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish. Cognition 30:73-105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ferreira F, Clifton C (1986): The independence of syntactic processing. J Mem Lang 25:348-368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferreira F, Henderson JM (1990): Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: Evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self paced reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cognit 16:555-568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fischler I (1990): Comprehending language with event-related potentials. In: Event-Related brain potentials: Basic Issues and Applications, Rohrbaugh JW, Parasuraman R, Johnson R, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Ford M, Bresnan J, Kaplan RM (1982): A competence-based theory of syntactic closure. In: The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Bresnan J, ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Forster KI (1979): Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In: Sentence Processing: Psycholinguistic Studies Presented to Merril Garrett, Cooper WE, Walker ECT, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Frazier L (1987): Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In: Attention and Performance, Coltheart M, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Frazier L, Fodor JD (1978): The sausage machine: The new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6:291-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frazier L, Rayner K (1982): Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognit Psychol 14:178-210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gurjanov M, Lukatela G, Moskovljevic J, Savic M (1985): Grammatical priming of inflected nouns by inflected adjectives. Cognition 19:55-71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagoort P, Brown C, Groothusen J: The syntactic positive shift as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Lang Cognit Proc (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Halgren E (1990): Insights from evoked potentials into the neuropsychological mechanisms of reading. In: Neurobiology of Higher Cognitive Function, Scheibel AB, Wechsler AF, eds., New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Holdstock JS, Rugg MD (1993): Dissociation of auditory P300, differential brain response to target and novel non-target stimuli. In: New Developments in Event-Related Potentials, Heinze HJ, Münte TF, Mangun GR, eds. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  17. Katz L, Boyce S, Goldstein L, Lukatela G (1987): Grammatical information effects in auditory word recognition. Cognition 25:235-263.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kutas M, Hillyard SA (1980): Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science 207:203-205.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kutas M, Hillyard SA (1983): Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Mem Cognit 11:539-550.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kutas M, Van Petten C (1988): Event-related brain potential studies of language. In: Advances in Psychophysiology 3, Ackles PK, Jennings JR, Coles MGH, eds. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kutas M, Bates E, Kluender R, Van Petten C, Blesch F: What’s critical about the critical period? Effects of early experience in language processing in bilinguals (in manuscript).Google Scholar
  22. Lukatela G, Kostic A, Feldman L, Turvey M (1983): Grammatical priming of inflected nouns. Mem Cognit 11:59-63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lukatela G, Moraca J, Stojnov D, Savic M, Katz L, Turvey MT (1982): Grammatical priming effects between pronouns and inflected verb forms. Psychol Res 44:297-311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marslen-Wilson WD (1975): Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science 189: 226-228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marslen-Wilson WD, Tyler LK (1980): The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition 8:1-71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCarthy G, Wood CC (1985): Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 62:203-208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mitchell DC (1990): Verb-guidance and other lexical effects of parsing. Lang Cognit Proc 4:123-154.Google Scholar
  28. Mitchell DC, Holmes VM (1985): The role of specific information about the verb in parsing sentences with local structural ambiguity. J Mem Lang 24:542-559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Münte TF (1992): Hirnelektrische Korrelate von Sprache. Habilitation-Thesis, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover.Google Scholar
  30. Münte TF, Heinze HJ: Brain potential correlates of morphosyntactic processing in the Finnish language (in manuscript).Google Scholar
  31. Münte TF, Heinze HJ, Mangun GR (1993): Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. J Cognit Neurosci 5:343-352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Münte TF, Kossow K, Heinze HJ: Brain activity to words judged for phonologic, semantic, or syntactic properties: Topographical differences (in manuscript).Google Scholar
  33. Münte TF, Kunkel H, Heinze HJ (1989): Semantic distance and the electrophysiological priming effect. In: Brain Dynamics, Vol. II, Basar E, Bullock TH, eds., New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Münte TF, Schuchardt S, Heinze HJ: ERP effects specific to semantic, syntactic and orthographic errors in a story reading task Biological Psychology (1993, in press).Google Scholar
  35. Neville H, Nicol JL, Barss A, Forster KI, Garrett MF (1991): Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. J. Cognit Neurosci 3:151-165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rayner K, Frazier L (1987): Parsing temporarily ambiguous complements. Q J Exp Psychol 39A: 657-673.Google Scholar
  37. Rosier F, Friederici A, Pütz P, Hahne A: Event-related potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. J Cognit Neurosci (in press).Google Scholar
  38. Ruchkin DS, Johnson R, Jr., Mahaffey D, Sutton S (1988): Towards a functional categorization of slow waves. Psychophysiology 20:339-353.Google Scholar
  39. Rugg MD, Barrett SE (1987): Event-related potentials and the interaction between orthographic and phonological information in a rhyme judgment task. Brain Lang 32:336-361.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seidenberg MS, Tannenhaus MK, Leiman JL, Bienkowski M (1982): Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing. Cognit Psychol 14:489-537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Seidenberg MS, Waters G, Sanders M, Langer P (1984): Pre- and post-lexical loci of contextual effects on word recognition. Mem Cognit 12:315-328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taraban R, McClelland JL (1988): Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. J Mem Lang 27:597-632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. F. Münte
  • H.-J. Heinze

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations