ERPs reveal sensitivity to hypothetical contexts in spoken discourse

We used event-related potentials to examine the interaction between two dimensions of discourse comprehension: (i) referential dependencies across sentences (e.g. between the pronoun ‘it’ and its antecedent ‘a novel’ in: ‘John is reading a novel. It ends quite abruptly’), and (ii) the distinction between reference to events/situations and entities/individuals in the real/actual world versus in hypothetical possible worlds. Cross-sentential referential dependencies are disrupted when the antecedent for a pronoun is embedded in a sentence introducing hypothetical entities (e.g. ‘John is considering writing a novel. It ends quite abruptly’). An earlier event-related potential reading study showed such disruptions yielded a P600-like frontal positivity. Here we replicate this effect using auditorily presented sentences and discuss the implications for our understanding of discourse-level language processing.

[1]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

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

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

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

[5]  H. H. Clark,et al.  What's new? Acquiring New information as a process in comprehension , 1974 .

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

[7]  Douglas Saddy,et al.  Distinct Neurophysiological Patterns Reflecting Aspects of Syntactic Complexity and Syntactic Repair , 2002, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[8]  Natalie A. Phillips,et al.  The neural underpinnings of semantic ambiguity and anaphora , 2010, Brain Research.

[9]  R. Nebes,et al.  Patterns of Hand Preference in a Student Population , 1975, Cortex.

[10]  Lauri Karttunen,et al.  Discourse Referents , 1969, COLING.

[11]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  The neurocognition of language , 2000 .

[12]  Paul Portner,et al.  Syntax, concepts, and logic in the temporal dynamics of language comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[13]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400 , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

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

[15]  Mark W. Greenlee,et al.  Evidence of fronto-temporal interactions for strategic inference processes during language comprehension , 2008, NeuroImage.

[16]  S. Montrul,et al.  Modality and Discourse Processing , 2007 .

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

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

[19]  H. Coslett,et al.  ANALYZING SEMANTIC PROCESSING USING EVENT-RELATED BRAIN POTENTIALS , 1998 .

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

[21]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Situation models in language comprehension and memory. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics , 1990 .

[23]  Natalie A. Phillips,et al.  An electrophysiological study of mood, modal context, and anaphora , 2006, Brain Research.

[24]  Craige Roberts Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse , 1989 .

[25]  E. Kaan,et al.  Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: a comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[26]  Edward Nelson,et al.  Syntax and Semantics , 1974 .