The sentence wrap-up dogma

Current sentence processing research has focused on early effects of the on-line incremental processes that are performed at each word or constituent during processing. However, less attention has been devoted to what happens at the end of the clause or sentence. More specifically, over the last decade and a half, a lot of effort has been put into avoiding measuring event-related brain potentials (ERPs) at the final word of a sentence, because of the possible effects of sentence wrap-up. This article reviews the evidence on how and when sentence wrap-up impacts behavioral and ERP results. Even though the end of the sentence is associated with a positive-going ERP wave, thus far this effect has not been associated with any factors hypothesized to affect wrap-up. In addition, ERP responses to violations have not been affected by this positivity. "Sentence-final" negativities reported in the literature are not unique to sentence final positions, nor do they obscure or distort ERP effects associated with linguistic manipulations. Finally, the empirical evidence used to argue that sentence-final ERPs are different from those recorded at sentence-medial positions is weak at most. Measuring ERPs at sentence-final positions is therefore certainly not to be avoided at all costs, especially not in cases where the structure of the language under investigation requires it. More importantly, researchers should follow rigorous method in their experimental design, avoid decision tasks which may induce ERP confounds, and ensure all other possible explanations for results are considered. Although this article is directed at a particular dogma from a particular literature, this review shows that it is important to reassess what is regarded as "general knowledge" from time to time.

[1]  H. Barber,et al.  Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions , 2011, Cortex.

[2]  A. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic Gender and Semantic Expectancy: ERPs Reveal Early Autonomy and Late Interaction , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[3]  J. Fodor,et al.  The psychological reality of linguistic segments , 1965 .

[4]  D. Swinney Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects , 1979 .

[5]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension , 2008, Brain Research Reviews.

[6]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Syntax-related ERP-effects in Dutch. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[7]  K. Rayner,et al.  The Effect of Clause Wrap-Up on Eye Movements during Reading , 2000, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[9]  D. Swinney,et al.  Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[10]  Marcel Adam Just,et al.  Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension , 1982 .

[11]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Lexical retrieval and error recovery in reading: A model based on eye fixations , 1981 .

[12]  B. McElree,et al.  Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking , 2004 .

[13]  Fernanda Ferreira,et al.  The 'Good Enough' Approach to Language Comprehension , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[14]  Todd R. Ferretti,et al.  Discourse Factors That Influence Online Reading of Metaphor and Irony , 2000 .

[15]  Robin K. Morris,et al.  Eye movements and on-line language comprehension processes , 1989 .

[16]  Jukka Hyönä,et al.  The role of context in morphological processing: Evidence from Finnish , 2000 .

[17]  Karsten Steinhauer Electrophysiological correlates of prosody and punctuation , 2003, Brain and Language.

[18]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400 , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[19]  Francesco Vespignani,et al.  Differences in the perception and time course of syntactic and semantic violations , 2003, Brain and Language.

[20]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech , 1993 .

[21]  Jason Bohan,et al.  The processing of good-fit semantic anomalies: An ERP investigation , 2012, Neuropsychologia.

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

[23]  J. Fodor,et al.  The active use of grammar in speech perception , 1966 .

[24]  G. Altmann,et al.  Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference , 1999, Cognition.

[25]  Hartmut Fitz,et al.  Getting real about Semantic Illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension , 2012, Brain Research.

[26]  A. Friederici,et al.  Electrophysiological Evidence for Two Steps in Syntactic Analysis: Early Automatic and Late Controlled Processes , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  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.

[28]  P. Hagoort Interplay between Syntax and Semantics during Sentence Comprehension: ERP Effects of Combining Syntactic and Semantic Violations , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[29]  K Rayner,et al.  Parafoveal identification during a fixation in reading. , 1975, Acta psychologica.

[30]  A D Friederici,et al.  Syntactic Working Memory and the Establishment of Filler-Gap Dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[31]  D. Tanner,et al.  On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement: A Commentary on “Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions” by Molinaro et al., 2014 , 2015, Cortex.

[32]  J. Jescheniak,et al.  What's left if the Jabberwock gets the semantics? An ERP investigation into semantic and syntactic processes during auditory sentence comprehension. , 2001, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[33]  D. Caplan,et al.  Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[34]  K. Rayner,et al.  Punctuation and intonation effects on clause and sentence wrap-up: Evidence from eye movements , 2006 .

[35]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis ☆ , 1990 .

[36]  W. Kintsch,et al.  Strategies of discourse comprehension , 1983 .

[37]  M. Kutas,et al.  Interactions between sentence context and word frequencyinevent-related brainpotentials , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[38]  M. Kutas,et al.  Anticipating Words and Their Gender: An Event-related Brain Potential Study of Semantic Integration, Gender Expectancy, and Gender Agreement in Spanish Sentence Reading , 2004, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[39]  Laura Sabourin,et al.  Memory effects in syntactic ERP tasks , 2004, Brain and Cognition.

[40]  D. Tanner,et al.  ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[41]  J. Nicol,et al.  On the Distinctiveness, Independence, and Time Course of the Brain Responses to Syntactic and Semantic Anomalies. , 1999 .

[42]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  ERP effects of listening to speech: semantic ERP effects , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[43]  Lea Fleischer Eye Movements And The Higher Psychological Functions , 2016 .

[44]  Anja Hahne,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials While Encountering Semantic and Syntactic Constraint Violations , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[45]  A. Friederici Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[46]  Weijia Ni,et al.  Readers' Eye Movements Distinguish Anomalies of Form and Content , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[47]  F. Rubia,et al.  Similarities and differences between phrase structure and morphosyntactic violations in Spanish: An event-related potentials study , 2003 .

[48]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Finitary models of language users , 1963 .

[49]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Preferred verb argument structure in sentence comprehension-an erp study , 1989 .

[50]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective , 2007, Brain Research.

[51]  C. Clifton,et al.  Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[52]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Investigating the causes of wrap-up effects: Evidence from eye movements and E–Z Reader , 2009, Cognition.

[53]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[54]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[55]  P Hagoort,et al.  Gender Electrified: ERP Evidence on the Syntactic Nature of Gender Processing , 1999, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[56]  D. Ruchkin,et al.  Short-term memory storage and retention: an event-related brain potential study. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[57]  R. Jarvella Syntactic processing of connected speech , 1971 .

[58]  E. Kaan Investigating the Effects of Distance and Number Interference in Processing Subject-Verb Dependencies: An ERP Study , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[59]  Laurie A. Stowe,et al.  Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location , 1986 .

[60]  Steven A. Hillyard,et al.  Word Expectancy and Event-Related Brain Potentials During Sentence Processing , 2019, Preparatory States & Processes.

[61]  Christoph Scheepers,et al.  Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Information in Predictive Processing: Cross-Linguistic Evidence from German and English , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[62]  Katherine A. DeLong,et al.  Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[63]  M. Tanenhaus,et al.  Linguistic Gender and Spoken-Word Recognition in French , 2000 .

[64]  M. Kutas,et al.  Who Did What and When? Using Word- and Clause-Level ERPs to Monitor Working Memory Usage in Reading , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[65]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. , 1994 .

[66]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual Differences in Integrating Information between and within Sentences. , 1983 .

[67]  M. Kutas,et al.  Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[68]  A D Friederici,et al.  Prosodic Boundaries, Comma Rules, and Brain Responses: The Closure Positive Shift in ERPs as a Universal Marker for Prosodic Phrasing in Listeners and Readers , 2001, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[69]  Janet L. McDonald,et al.  THE TIME COURSE OF ANAPHOR RESOLUTION: EFFECTS OF IMPLICIT VERB CAUSALITY AND GENDER , 1995 .

[70]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[71]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[72]  K. Rayner,et al.  Pronoun assignment and semantic integration during reading: eye movements and immediacy of processing , 1983 .

[73]  G. Mulder,et al.  When syntax meets semantics. , 1997, Psychophysiology.

[74]  Marie Bienkowski,et al.  Automatic access of the meanings of ambiguous words in context: Some limitations of knowledge-based processing , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[75]  Robert Kluender,et al.  Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling , 2003, Brain and Language.

[76]  A. Friederici,et al.  Word category and verb–argument structure information in the dynamics of parsing , 2004, Cognition.

[77]  Stefan Koelsch,et al.  Interaction between Syntax Processing in Language and in Music: An ERP Study , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[78]  Helen J. Neville,et al.  Proficiency Differences in Syntactic Processing of Monolingual Native Speakers Indexed by Event-related Potentials , 2010, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[79]  D. Mitchell,et al.  The Effects of Context and Content on Immediate Processing in Reading , 1978 .

[80]  Martin Paczynski,et al.  Establishing Causal Coherence across Sentences: An ERP Study , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[81]  P. Gordon,et al.  The interplay of discourse congruence and lexical association during sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs and eye tracking. , 2007, Journal of memory and language.

[82]  C. Phillips,et al.  ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[84]  M. Crocker,et al.  On the Proper Treatment of the N400 and P600 in Language Comprehension , 2017, Front. Psychol..

[85]  Gina R. Kuperberg,et al.  Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax , 2007, Brain Research.

[86]  L. Osterhout,et al.  Brain potentials elicited by prose-embedded linguistic anomalies , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[87]  D Friedman,et al.  The late positive component (P300) and information processing in sentences. , 1975, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[88]  M. Garrett,et al.  Syntactically Based Sentence Processing Classes: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials , 1991, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[90]  P. Holcomb,et al.  Event related potentials and language comprehension. , 1995 .

[91]  Julie E. Boland Linking Eye Movements to Sentence Comprehension in Reading and Listening , 2004 .

[92]  T. Ditman,et al.  An investigation of concurrent ERP and self-paced reading methodologies. , 2007, Psychophysiology.

[93]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  The underlying structures of sentences are the primary units of immediate speech processing , 1969 .

[94]  K. Rayner,et al.  Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[95]  Manuel Carreiras,et al.  An ERP study of agreement features in Spanish , 2007, Brain Research.

[96]  Reiko Mazuka,et al.  Immediate use of prosody and context in predicting a syntactic structure , 2012, Cognition.

[97]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Dissociation of Brain Activity Related to Syntactic and Semantic Aspects of Language , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[98]  Gina R Kuperberg,et al.  Building up linguistic context in schizophrenia: evidence from self-paced reading. , 2006, Neuropsychology.

[99]  J. Fodor,et al.  Some syntactic determinants of sentential complexity, II : Verb structure , 1968 .

[100]  Simon Garrod,et al.  The Contribution of Lexical and Situational Knowledge to Resolving Discourse Roles: Bonding and Resolution , 2000 .

[101]  Francesco Vespignani,et al.  A deeper reanalysis of a superficial feature: An ERP study on agreement violations , 2008, Brain Research.

[102]  Kiwako Ito,et al.  Anticipatory effects of intonation: Eye movements during instructed visual search. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[103]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  On the Brain Response to Syntactic Anomalies: Manipulations of Word Position and Word Class Reveal Individual Differences , 1997, Brain and Language.