Distinct Neurophysiological Patterns Reflecting Aspects of Syntactic Complexity and Syntactic Repair

Aspects of syntactic complexity and syntactic repair were investigated by comparing the event-related (brain) potentials (ERPs) for sentences of different syntactic complexity to those containing a syntactic violation. Previous research had shown that both aspects of syntactic processing are reflected in a late positivity (P600). Results from the present reading experiment demonstrate, however, that although both processing aspects elicit a late positivity, they are different in distribution. The repair-related positivity preceded by a negativity displayed a centroparietal distribution, whereas the complexity-related positivity showed a frontocentral scalp distribution. These data indicate that the P600 is not a unitary phenomenon. Moreover, the distributional differences strongly suggest that different neural structures underlie the two aspects of processing, namely syntactic repair and syntactic integration difficulties, most evident when processing syntactically complex sentences.

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

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

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

[5]  Hans-Jochen Heinze,et al.  Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: no evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[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]  A D Friederici,et al.  Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[8]  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.

[9]  T F Münte,et al.  Brain Potentials in the Processing of Complex Sentences: An ERP Study of Control and Raising Constructions , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

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

[12]  A. Friederici,et al.  Processing a second language: Late learners''comprehension mechanisms as revealed by event-related b , 2001 .

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

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

[15]  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.

[16]  A. Friederici,et al.  Verb Argument Structure Processing: The Role of Verb-Specific and Argument-Specific Information☆☆☆ , 2000 .

[17]  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.

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

[19]  A. Friederici,et al.  Concerning the automaticity of syntactic processing. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[20]  Michael D. Rugg,et al.  The ERP and cognitive psychology: Conceptual issues. , 1995 .

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

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

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

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

[25]  G. Müller.  Incomplete category fronting : a derivational approach to remnant movement in German , 1998 .

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

[27]  F Pulvermüller,et al.  [Neurobiology of language processing]. , 1995, Die Naturwissenschaften.

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

[29]  H. Lüders,et al.  American Electroencephalographic Society Guidelines for Standard Electrode Position Nomenclature , 1991, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

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

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

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

[33]  Lee Osterhout,et al.  A Super cial Resemblance Does Not Necessarily Mean You Are Part of the Family : Counterarguments to Coulson , King and Kutas ( 1998 ) in the P 600 / SPS-P 300 Debate , 2004 .

[34]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Wahrscheinlichkeit und Strategie: Eine EKP-Studie zur verarbeitung syntaktischer anomalien = Probability and strategy: An ERP study on the processing of syntactic anomalies , 1997 .

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

[36]  J. Hopf,et al.  Event-Related Brain Potentials and Case Information in Syntactic Ambiguities , 1998, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[37]  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.

[38]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Syntactic parsing and working memory: The effects of syntactic complexity, reading span, and concurrent load , 2001 .

[39]  P. Hagoort,et al.  A superficial resemblance does not necessarily mean you are part of the family : Counterarguments to Coulson, King and Kutas (1998) in the P600/SPS-P300 debate , 1999 .

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

[41]  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.

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

[43]  M. Kutas,et al.  ERPs and Domain Specificity: Beating a Straw Horse , 1998 .