Is human sentence parsing serial or parallel? Evidence from event-related brain potentials.

In this ERP study we investigate the processes that occur in syntactically ambiguous German sentences at the point of disambiguation. Whereas most psycholinguistic theories agree on the view that processing difficulties arise when parsing preferences are disconfirmed (so-called garden-path effects), important differences exist with respect to theoretical assumptions about the parser's recovery from a misparse. A key distinction can be made between parsers that compute all alternative syntactic structures in parallel (parallel parsers) and parsers that compute only a single preferred analysis (serial parsers). To distinguish empirically between parallel and serial parsing models, we compare ERP responses to garden-path sentences with ERP responses to truly ungrammatical sentences. Garden-path sentences contain a temporary and ultimately curable ungrammaticality, whereas truly ungrammatical sentences remain so permanently--a difference which gives rise to different predictions in the two classes of parsing architectures. At the disambiguating word, ERPs in both sentence types show negative shifts of similar onset latency, amplitude, and scalp distribution in an initial time window between 300 and 500 ms. In a following time window (500-700 ms), the negative shift to garden-path sentences disappears at right central parietal sites, while it continues in permanently ungrammatical sentences. These data are taken as evidence for a strictly serial parser. The absence of a difference in the early time window indicates that temporary and permanent ungrammaticalities trigger the same kind of parsing responses. Later differences can be related to successful reanalysis in garden-path but not in ungrammatical sentences.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  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.

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

[5]  Merrill F. Garrett,et al.  Sentence processing , 1990 .

[6]  G. Hickok Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences , 1993 .

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

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

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

[10]  M. Penke,et al.  How the brain processes complex words: an event-related potential study of German verb inflections. , 1997, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[11]  Sönke Johannes,et al.  Human brain potentials to reading syntactic errors in sentences of different complexity , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

[12]  M Bader,et al.  Case and Reanalysis , 2000, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

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

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

[15]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The N400 as a function of the level of processing. , 1995, Psychophysiology.

[16]  Robert A. Wilson,et al.  Book Reviews: The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences , 2000, CL.

[17]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words , 1980, Biological Psychology.

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

[19]  H. M. Müller,et al.  Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. , 1997, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[20]  M. Kutas,et al.  Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[21]  M. Kutas Event related brain potential studies of language , 1988 .

[22]  Josef Bayer,et al.  Morphological underspecification meets oblique case : syntactic and processing effects in German , 2001 .

[23]  Peter Hagoort,et al.  The Processing Nature of the N400: Evidence from Masked Priming , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  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.

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

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

[27]  M. Kutas,et al.  Bridging the Gap: Evidence from ERPs on the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies , 1993, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[29]  Paul Gorrell,et al.  Establishing the loci of serial and parallel effects in syntactic processing , 1989 .

[30]  Arnold B. Scheibel,et al.  Neurobiology of higher cognitive function , 1990 .

[31]  M. Penke,et al.  Brain potentials indicate differences between regular and irregular German plurals , 1997, Neuroreport.

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

[33]  Angela D. Friederici,et al.  Brain potentials indicate immediate use of prosodic cues in natural speech processing , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[34]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension , 1989, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[35]  H. Heinze,et al.  ERP Negativities During Syntactic Processing of Written Words , 1994 .

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

[37]  A. Friederici The Time Course of Syntactic Activation During Language Processing: A Model Based on Neuropsychological and Neurophysiological Data , 1995, Brain and Language.

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

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