Event-related potentials elicited during parsing of ambiguous relative clauses in Spanish.

Previous behavioural studies in Spanish have found a significant preference for attaching relative clauses preceded by a complex NP (N1 of N2 RC) to the first noun phrase. In the present study, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to help identify the nature of these processes by directly comparing ERPs to temporary ambiguous sentences containing relative clauses that were finally consistent with either high or low attachment resolution. The larger amplitude of the P600 effect for the low attachment condition suggests that high attachment was the preferred strategy. The P600 effect was widely distributed in the 500-700 ms window, including frontal areas, while the distribution was mainly posterior in the 700-1000 ms window. The results indicate that high attachment is the parsing strategy Spanish readers use for this type of ambiguity and suggest that the P600 may not be a monolithic effect.

[1]  A. Friederici,et al.  Temporal structure of syntactic parsing: early and late event-related brain potential effects. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  The diagnosis and cure of garden paths , 1994 .

[3]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  ERP effects of listening to speech compared to reading: the P600/SPS to syntactic violations in spoken sentences and rapid serial visual presentation , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[5]  Richard Shillcock,et al.  The On-line Study of Sentence Comprehension , 2004 .

[6]  Thomas F Münte,et al.  Electrophysiological estimates of biological and syntactic gender violation during pronoun processing. , 2002, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[7]  E. Kaan,et al.  Repair, Revision, and Complexity in Syntactic Analysis: An Electrophysiological Differentiation , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  G. Hickok,et al.  Recency preference in the human sentence processing mechanism , 1996, Cognition.

[9]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[10]  E Donchin,et al.  Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[11]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly , 1992 .

[12]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[13]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The neurocognition of syntactic processing , 1999 .

[14]  Shlomo Bentin,et al.  Syntactic and Semantic Factors in Processing Gender Agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and Eye Movements ☆ , 2001 .

[15]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Another word on parsing relative clauses: Eyetracking evidence from Spanish and English , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[16]  D Miroslav Ciric,et al.  Parsing in Different Languages , 2005 .

[17]  R. Job,et al.  AN INVESTIGATION OF LATE CLOSURE : THE ROLE OF SYNTAX, THEMATIC STRUCTURE,AND PRAGMATICS IN INITIAL AND FINAL INTERPRETATION , 1995 .

[18]  R. Job,et al.  Some observations on the universality of the late-closure strategy , 1993 .

[19]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Syntactic Attachment and Anaphor Resolution: The Two Sides of Relative Clause Attachment , 1999 .

[20]  L. Osterhout,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials Elicited by Failure to Agree , 1995 .

[21]  M. Kutas,et al.  Expect the Unexpected: Event-related Brain Response to Morphosyntactic Violations , 1998 .

[22]  Thomas F. Mnte,et al.  Brain Activity Associated with Syntactic Incongruencies in Words and Pseudo-Words , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[23]  J. Pynte,et al.  ‘Romancing’ Syntactic Ambiguity: Why the French and the Italians don't See Eye to Eye , 2000 .

[24]  Joël Pynte,et al.  Reading as a Perceptual Process , 2000 .

[25]  David A. Balota.  Comprehension Processes in Reading. , 1990 .

[26]  Stephanie W. Haas.  Construal , 1996, Inf. Process. Manag..

[27]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The syntactic positive shift (sps) as an erp measure of syntactic processing , 1993 .

[28]  Lyn Frazier,et al.  Parsing modifiers: Special purpose routines in the human sentence processing mechanism? , 1990 .

[29]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 1999 .

[30]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  Language processing in Spanish , 1997 .

[31]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[32]  C. C. Wood,et al.  Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: an ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. , 1985, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[33]  Douglas Saddy,et al.  Distinct Neurophysiological Patterns Reflecting Aspects of Syntactic Complexity and Syntactic Repair , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[34]  Janet Dean Fodor,et al.  Learning To Parse? , 1998 .

[35]  J. Pynte,et al.  Evidence for Early Closure Attachment on First Pass Reading Times in French , 1997 .

[36]  C. Clifton,et al.  Relative Clause Interpretation Preferences in Spanish and English , 1993, Language and speech.

[37]  Eva M. Fernández.  Bilingual Sentence Processing: Relative clause attachment in English and Spanish , 2003 .

[38]  Manuela Carreiras,et al.  Estrategias de análisis sintáctico en el procesamiento de frases: cierre temprano versus cierre tardío , 1992 .

[39]  E. Gibson,et al.  The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty , 2000 .

[40]  A. Friederici,et al.  Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. , 1993, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.