Processing canonical and non-canonical sentences in Basque: The case of object–verb agreement as revealed by event-related brain potentials

Zawiszewski, Adam; Friederici, Angela D.

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.099

Cited by 35 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Meanwhile, the observation of an early posterior negativity in the present study is also consistent with earlier findings in Basque (Zawiszewski & Friederici, 2009;Zawiszewski et al, 2016). Given its posterior distribution, this effect is likely distinct from the left-anterior negativity (LAN) that has been reported in earlier studies in other languages and might be more similar to the N400.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…However, the posterior negativity observed in the present study peaked at around 320ms after target word onset, which is considerably earlier than typical N400 effects (see also the early negativity in Experiment 1 in Zawiszewski & Friederici, 2009). Therefore, for the remainder of our discussion we will refer to this effect simply as an early posterior negativity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

“…This positivity is sometimes found to be preceded by an increased negativity between 300-500 ms after stimulus onset. This negativity tends to have an anterior distribution and is at times found to be left-lateralised (a LAN; Caffarra, Siyanova-Chanturia, Pesciarelli, Vespignani, & Cacciari, 2015;De Vincenzi et al, 2003;Gunter, Friederici, & Schriefers, 2000;Münte, Heinze, & Mangun, 1993;Osterhout & Mobley, 1995;Silva-Pereyra & Carreiras, 2007), although in some cases it has also been found to be largest at central-posterior sites and has been considered an N400 effect instead (Barber & Carreiras, 2003;Guajardo & Wicha, 2014;Mancini et al, 2011;Zawiszewski & Friederici, 2009;Zawiszewski et al, 2016).…”

Section: Erp Components Implicated In Agreement Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the initial study, Zawiszewski and Friederici (2009) time interval, which they took to be an N400 effect. In a subsequent study, Díaz et al (2011) examined the effects of S-V and O-V number agreement violations as participants listened to transitive sentences in Basque.…”

Section: Previous Erp Studies On Agreement Processing In Basquementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous research has looked at different languages to examine and compare how the brain processes agreement that (i) involves different features, including number (De Vincenzi et al, 2003;Hagoort, Brown, & Groothusen, 1993;Kutas & Hillyard, 1983), gender (Barber & Carreiras, 2005;Hagoort & Brown, 1999), person (FrenckMestre, Osterhout, McLaughlin, & Foucart, 2008;Hinojosa, Martín-Loeches, Casado, Muñoz, & Rubia, 2003) as well as comparisons across features (Alemán Bañón, Fiorentino, & Gabriele, 2012;Alemán Bañón & Rothman, 2016;Barber & Carreiras, 2003, 2005Hagoort, 2003;Mancini, Molinaro, Rizzi, & Carreiras, 2011;Martín-Loeches, Nigbur, Casado, Hohlfeld, & Sommer, 2006;Nevins, Dillon, Malhotra, & Phillips, 2007;Silva-Pereyra & Carreiras, 2007;Zawiszewski, Santesteban, & Laka, 2016) and (ii) occurs between different constituents (Barber & Carreiras, 2005;Díaz, Sebastián-Gallés, Erdocia, Mueller, & Laka, 2011;Zawiszewski & Friederici, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of Subject-Case Marking on Agreement Processing: ERP evidence from Basque

Chow¹,

Nevins²,

Carreiras³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous cross-linguistic research has found that comprehenders are immediately sensitive to various kinds of agreement violations across languages. We focused on Basque, a verb-final ergative language with both subject-verb (S-V) and object-verb (O-V) agreement. We compared the effects of S-V agreement violations on comprehenders' event-related brain potentials (ERPs) in transitive sentences (where O-V agreement is present, and the subject is ergative) and intransitive sentences (where O-V agreement is absent, and the subject is absolutive). We observed a P600 effect in both cases, but only violations with intransitive subjects elicited an early posterior negativity. Such a qualitative difference suggests that distinct neurocognitive mechanisms are involved in processing agreement with transitive subjects (which are marked with ergative case) vs. intransitive subjects (which bear absolutive case). Building on theoretical proposals that in languages such as Basque, true agreement occurs with absolutive subjects but not with ergative subjects, we submit that the early posterior negativity may be an electrophysiological signature for true agreement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 40%

Section: Erp Components Implicated In Agreement Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Previous Erp Studies On Agreement Processing In Basquementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of Subject-Case Marking on Agreement Processing: ERP evidence from Basque

Chow¹,

Nevins²,

Carreiras³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sentence Processing: How Words Generate Syntactic Structures in the Brain

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word Order Processing in a Second Language: From VO to OV

Erdocia

Zawiszewski

Laka

2013

J Psycholinguist Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Event-related potential studies on second language processing reveal that L1/L2 differences are due either to proficiency, age of acquisition or grammatical differences between L1 and L2 (Kotz in Brain Lang 109(2-3):68-74, 2009). However, the relative impact of these and other factors in second language processing is still not well understood. Here we present evidence from behavioral and ERP experiments on Basque sentence word order processing by L1Spanish-L2Basque early bilinguals (Age of Aquisition [Formula: see text] 3 years) with very high proficiency in their L2. Results reveal that these L2 speakers have a preference towards canonical Subject-Object-Verb word order, which they processed faster and with greater ease than non-canonical Object-Subject-Verb. This result converges with the processing preferences shown by natives and reported in Erdocia et al. (Brain Lang 109(1):1-17, 2009). However, electrophysiological measures associated to canonical (SOV) and non-canonical (OSV) sentences revealed a different pattern in the non-natives, as compared to that reported previously for natives. The non-native group elicited a P600 component that native group did not show when comparing S and O at sentence's second position. This pattern of results suggests that, despite high proficiency, non-native language processing recruits neural resources that are different from those employed in native languages.

show abstract

Processing canonical and non-canonical sentences in Basque: The case of object–verb agreement as revealed by event-related brain potentials

Cited by 35 publications

References 50 publications

Effects of Subject-Case Marking on Agreement Processing: ERP evidence from Basque

Effects of Subject-Case Marking on Agreement Processing: ERP evidence from Basque

Sentence Processing: How Words Generate Syntactic Structures in the Brain

Word Order Processing in a Second Language: From VO to OV

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About