Event-Related Responses to Pronoun and Proper Name Anaphors in Parallel and Nonparallel Discourse Structures

Streb, Judith; Rösler, Frank; Hennighausen, Erwin

doi:10.1006/brln.1999.2177

Cited by 51 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If the LAN reflects working memory effort associated with this reactivation, it is therefore not surprising that no differences were found between the two conditions. Similarly, an N400 effect has been mainly found in studies in which a noun phrase or proper name was repeated (Anderson and Holcomb, 2005;Burkhardt, 2006;Streb, et al, 2004;Streb, et al, 1999;Swaab, et al, 2004) or the antecedent was harder to retrieve (Streb, et al, 2004), regardless of the given/new status of the critical noun phrase referent (Anderson and Holcomb, 2005). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…An N400 or N400-like component has also been reported for pronouns and repeated proper names that are relatively hard to integrate into the discourse model, either because they refer to more distal as opposed to recently mentioned antecedents (Streb, Henninghausen and Rösler, 2004), or because they refer to antecedents in syntactically non-parallel (harder) positions as opposed to parallel syntactic positions (easier) (Streb, Rösler and Henninghausen, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Processing bare quantifiers in discourse

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During reading or listening, language comprehenders construct a mental representation of the objects and events mentioned. This model is augmented and modified incrementally as the discourse unfolds. In this paper we focus on the interpretation of bare quantifiers, that is, expressions such as 'two', to investigate the processes underlying the construction and modification of the discourse model. Bare quantifiers are temporarily ambiguous when sentences are processed incrementally. For instance, in 'Three ships were in the port. Two…', 'two' can either refer to a subset of the set just mentioned (e.g.,'two of the three ships'), a different set of the entities mentioned (e.g., 'two other ships'), or a set of different entities (e.g., 'two people'). Data from previous studies, and a current completion study, suggest that the subset interpretation is preferred over the establishment of a different set. The current study aimed to investigate ERP correlates of quantifier interpretation and their timing. Quantifiers that unambiguously signaled the establishment of a new referent elicited a late positive component (900-1500 ms), which we interpret as a Late Positive Complex, related to the difficulty involved in context updating. An additional 500-700ms positivity was elicited only in a subset of readers, suggesting that there are individual differences in quantifier interpretation and the timing thereof.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing bare quantifiers in discourse

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is to say, this ERP effect is not the sole ''representative'' of referential problems in general. ERP studies investigating other referential aspects of language comprehension (e.g., Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2006a;Van Berkum et al, 2004, in press;Anderson & Holcomb, 2005;Swaab, Camblin, & Gordon, 2004;Harris, Wexler, & Holcomb, 2000;Streb, Rosler, & Hennighausen, 1999;Osterhout & Mobley, 1995) suggest that different referential ''problems'' (e.g., nonparallel discourse structures, referential failure, synonymy) may elicit ERP effects that are typically associated with semantic or syntactic problems (e.g., N400 or P600). Perhaps because establishing reference is intricately intertwined with phonological, syntactic, and semantic levels of linguistic representation, referential problems may sometimes affect the analysis at other levels and become manifest as such (see Van Berkum et al, in press, for a discussion).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who are You Talking About? Tracking Discourse-level Referential Processing with Event-related Brain Potentials

Nieuwland

Otten

Berkum

2007

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this event-related brain potentials (ERPs) study, we explored the possibility to selectively track referential ambiguity during spoken discourse comprehension. Earlier ERP research has shown that referentially ambiguous nouns (e.g., “the girl” in a two-girl context) elicit a frontal, sustained negative shift relative to unambiguous control words. In the current study, we examined whether this ERP effect reflects “deep” situation model ambiguity or “superficial” textbase ambiguity. We contrasted these different interpretations by investigating whether a discourse-level semantic manipulation that prevents referential ambiguity also averts the elicitation of a referentially induced ERP effect. We compared ERPs elicited by nouns that were referentially nonambiguous but were associated with two discourse entities (e.g., “the girl” with two girls introduced in the context, but one of which has died or left the scene), with referentially ambiguous and nonambiguous control words. Although temporally referentially ambiguous nouns elicited a frontal negative shift compared to control words, the “double bound” but referentially nonambiguous nouns did not. These results suggest that it is possible to selectively track referential ambiguity with ERPs at the level that is most relevant to discourse comprehension, the situation model.

show abstract

“…Streb et al [13] studied the recency preference and brought to light a N400 effect elicited by pronouns resolved to more distant inter-sentential antecedents than pronouns resolved to more recent ones. Streb et al [14], in turn, found a 510-630 ms parietal negativity elicited by pronouns resolved to inter-sentential antecedents in a non parallel grammatical function, in contrast to pronouns resolved to antecedents in parallel grammatical functions. The authors interpret this enhanced negativity as a member of the N400 family.…”

Section: Previous Electrophysiological Workmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Some studies have been concerned with ambiguous anaphors or the contrast between different types of anaphoric expressions. For instance, Streb et al [14] found a 270-400 ms frontal negativity and a 510-600 ms parietal negativity elicited by pronouns in contrast to definite descriptions that are resolved to the same extra-sentential antecedent. Van Berkum et al [15,16] identified a sustained frontal negativity, emerging at about 300-400 ms, elicited by ambiguous pronouns in contrast to non-ambiguous ones.…”

Section: Previous Electrophysiological Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pronoun Resolution to Commanders and Recessors: A View from Event-Related Brain Potentials

Leitão

Branco

Piñango

et al. 2009

Anaphora Processing and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present results from an online experiment designed to probe the cognitive underpinnings of intra-sentential pronoun resolution. Event-related brain potentials were used to test the hypothesis that the processing of anaphoric links established between pronouns and non commanding antecedents demands more cognitive resources than the processing of anaphoric links to commanding antecedents. The experimental results obtained show, among others, a major N400-like effect elicited by the pronouns resolved to the non-commanding antecedent. This enhanced negativity suggests that, as hypothesized, resolving a pronoun to a non commanding antecedent is a more resource demanding process than resolving it to an antecedent in a commanding position. Our results can be interpreted within a theoretical framework for anaphor resolution that distinguishes two processing routes: a more resource-demanding discoursebased route and a less taxing syntax-only route.

show abstract

Event-Related Responses to Pronoun and Proper Name Anaphors in Parallel and Nonparallel Discourse Structures

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

Processing bare quantifiers in discourse

Processing bare quantifiers in discourse

Who are You Talking About? Tracking Discourse-level Referential Processing with Event-related Brain Potentials

Pronoun Resolution to Commanders and Recessors: A View from Event-Related Brain Potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About