The neurophysiological correlate to grammatical function reanalysis in Swedish

Language comprehension is assumed to proceed incrementally, and comprehenders commit to initial interpretations even in the absence of unambiguous information. Initial ambiguous object arguments are therefore preferably interpreted as subjects, an interpretation that needs to be revised towards an object initial interpretation once the disambiguating information is encountered. Most accounts of such grammatical function reanalyses assume that they involve phrase structure revisions, and do not differ from other syntactic reanalyses. A number of studies using measurements of event-related brain potentials (ERPs) provide evidence for this view by showing that both reanalysis types engender similar neurophysiological responses (e.g., P600 effects). Others have claimed that grammatical function reanalyses rather involve revisions of the mapping of thematic roles to argument noun phrases (NPs). In line with this, it has been shown that grammatical function reanalysis during spoken language comprehension engenders a N400 effect, an effect which has been shown to correlate with general problems in the mapping of thematic roles to argument NPs in a number of languages. This study investigated the ERP correlate to grammatical function reanalysis in Swedish. Postverbal NPs that disambiguated the interpretation of object-topicalised sentences towards an object-initial reading engendered a N400 effect with a local, right-parietal distribution. This “reanalysis N400” effect provides further support for the view that grammatical function reanalysis is functionally distinct from syntactic reanalyses and rather involves a revision of the mapping of thematic roles to the sentence arguments. Postverbal subject pronouns in object-topicalised sentences were also found to engender an enhanced P300 wave in comparison to object pronouns, an effect which seems to depend on the overall infrequency of object-topicalised constructions. This finding provides support for the view that the “reanalysis N400” in some cases can be attenuated by a task-related P300 component.

[1]  M. Kutas,et al.  An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[2]  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.

[3]  Magnus Lindgren,et al.  Object Shift and Event-Related Brain Potentials , 2007, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[4]  L. Frazier,et al.  Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in dutch , 1989 .

[5]  E. Donchin,et al.  Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? , 1988, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

[7]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG , 2004, Neuroreport.

[8]  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.

[9]  Michael Meng,et al.  Ungrammaticality detection and garden path strength: Evidence for serial parsing , 2000 .

[10]  J. Dien.  Looking both ways through time: The Janus model of lateralized cognition , 2008, Brain and Cognition.

[11]  Brigitte Röder,et al.  Parsing of Sentences in a Language with Varying Word Order: Word-by-Word Variations of Processing Demands Are Revealed by Event-Related Brain Potentials ☆ ☆☆ ★ , 1998 .

[12]  J. Hawkins.  Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it , 2007 .

[13]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity , 2002, Cognition.

[14]  Magnus Lindgren,et al.  Activating without Inhibiting: Left-edge Boundary Tones and Syntactic Processing , 2011, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  A. Szentkuti,et al.  Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: class and frequency effects , 2001, Neuropsychologia.

[16]  J. Mauchly.  Significance Test for Sphericity of a Normal $n$-Variate Distribution , 1940 .

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

[18]  T W Picton,et al.  The P300 Wave of the Human Event‐Related Potential , 1992, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[19]  Manuel Martín-Loeches,et al.  Are semantic and syntactic cues inducing the same processes in the identification of word order? , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

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

[21]  J. Hawkins.  Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[22]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish , 2008, Cognition.

[23]  J. Polich.  Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b , 2007, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[24]  A. Rodríguez-Fornells,et al.  Syntactic complexity and ambiguity resolution in a free word order language: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidences from Basque , 2009, Brain and Language.

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

[26]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  Context-sensitive neural responses to conflict resolution: Electrophysiological evidence from subject–object ambiguities in language comprehension , 2006, Brain Research.

[27]  Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,et al.  Exploring the nature of the ‘subject’-preference: Evidence from the online comprehension of simple sentences in Mandarin Chinese , 2009 .

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

[29]  Vicka R. Corey,et al.  On the Language Specificity of the Brain Response to Syntactic Anomalies: Is the Syntactic Positive Shift a Member of the P300 Family? , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[30]  김상혁.  영어의 능격성(Ergativity) , 2003 .

[31]  C. Felser,et al.  Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German , 2003, Brain and Language.

[32]  Markus Bader,et al.  Subject-Object Ambiguities in German Embedded Clauses: An Across-the-Board Comparison , 1999 .

[33]  F. Perrin,et al.  Mapping of scalp potentials by surface spline interpolation. , 1987, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[34]  M. Schlesewsky,et al.  The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese , 2008, Brain and Language.

[35]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  How the brain solves the binding problem for language: a neurocomputational model of syntactic processing , 2003, NeuroImage.

[36]  P. Hagoort.  On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[37]  C. Fiebach,et al.  Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: the processing of German WH-questions , 2002 .

[38]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Working memory constraints on syntactic ambiguity resolution as revealed by electrical brain responses , 1998, Biological Psychology.

[39]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Mismatches in semantic-role hierarchies and the dimensions of role semantics , 2006 .

[40]  E. Gibson.  Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[41]  Van Valin,et al.  Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface: List of abbreviations , 2005 .

[42]  Ming-Wei Lee,et al.  Another Look at the Role of Empty Categories in Sentence Processing (and Grammar) , 2004, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[43]  A. Friederici,et al.  The status of subject-object reanalyses in the language comprehension architecture , 2008 .

[44]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The neurophysiological basis of word order variations in German , 2003, Brain and Language.

[45]  Anna Siewierska,et al.  Word order rules , 1988 .

[46]  Comrie Bernard.  Language Universals and Linguistic Typology , 1982 .

[47]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. , 2006, Psychological review.

[48]  Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,et al.  The Role of Prominence Information in the Real-Time Comprehension of Transitive Constructions: A Cross-Linguistic Approach , 2009, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

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

[50]  Takahiro Soshi,et al.  A Topographical Study on the Event-related Potential Correlates of Scrambled Word Order in Japanese Complex Sentences , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[51]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Grammar overrides frequency: evidence from the online processing of flexible word order , 2002, Cognition.

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

[53]  A D Friederici,et al.  Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First-pass and second-pass parsing processes , 1996, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[54]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  To Predict or Not to Predict: Influences of Task and Strategy on the Processing of Semantic Relations , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[56]  S. Frisch,et al.  The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing , 2001, Neuroreport.

[57]  Matthias Schlesewsky,et al.  The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[58]  L A Lefton,et al.  Information extraction from different retinal locations. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

[61]  H. Mai,et al.  The costs of freedom: an ERP – study of non-canonical sentences , 2002, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[62]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[63]  Marica de Vincenzi,et al.  Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian , 1991 .

[64]  Anders Holmberg,et al.  The Role of Inflection in Scandinavian Syntax , 1995 .

[65]  Christopher J. May,et al.  Is “Blank” a suitable neutral prime for event-related potential experiments? , 2006, Brain and Language.

[66]  M. Hershenson,et al.  Perception of letter arrays as a function of absolute retinal locus. , 1969, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

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

[68]  R. M. W. Dixon,et al.  Ergativity: Index of languages and language families , 1994 .

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

[70]  Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky,et al.  The role of animacy in the real time comprehension of Mandarin Chinese: Evidence from auditory event-related brain potentials , 2008, Brain and Language.