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

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.

[1]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  Words in the brain: lexical determinants of word-induced brain activity , 2002, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[2]  Frank Rösler,et al.  Event-Related Responses to Pronoun and Proper Name Anaphors in Parallel and Nonparallel Discourse Structures , 1999, Brain and Language.

[3]  P. Burkhardt.  The P600 reflects cost of new information in discourse memory , 2007, Neuroreport.

[4]  C. Petten,et al.  Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study , 2002, Memory & cognition.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  Ellen F. Prince,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of given-new information , 1981 .

[8]  Dietmar Roehm,et al.  Differential effects of saliency: An event-related brain potential study , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.

[9]  Keith S. Donnellan.  Reference and Definite Descriptions , 1966 .

[10]  Edith Kaan,et al.  Processing bare quantifiers in discourse , 2007, Brain Research.

[11]  Irene Heim,et al.  The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases : a dissertation , 1982 .

[12]  H. Jasper,et al.  The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. , 1999, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology. Supplement.

[13]  Kari Fraurud,et al.  Definiteness and the Processing of Noun Phrases in Natural Discourse , 1990, J. Semant..

[14]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  Petra Burkhardt,et al.  Inferential bridging relations reveal distinct neural mechanisms: Evidence from event-related brain potentials , 2006, Brain and Language.

[16]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses , 2009, Cognition.

[17]  H. Neville,et al.  Fractionating language: different neural subsystems with different sensitive periods. , 1992, Cerebral cortex.

[18]  P. Strawson.  III.—ON REFERRING , 1950 .

[19]  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.

[20]  H. Huynh,et al.  Conditions under Which Mean Square Ratios in Repeated Measurements Designs Have Exact F-Distributions , 1970 .

[21]  Phillip J. Holcomb,et al.  An electrophysiological investigation of the effects of coreference on word repetition and synonymy , 2005, Brain and Language.

[22]  Petra Burkhardt.  The syntax-discourse interface : representing and interpreting dependency , 2005 .

[23]  Renata Vieira,et al.  A Corpus-based Investigation of Definite Description Use , 1997, CL.

[24]  G. Frege.  Über Sinn und Bedeutung , 1892 .