The costs of freedom: an ERP – study of non-canonical sentences

Matzke, Mike; Mai, Heinke; Nager, Wido; Rüsseler, Jascha; Münte, Thomas F.

doi:10.1016/s1388-2457(02)00059-7

Cited by 104 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As CIANet also processes sentences correctly in the absence of scenes, we further examine a possible correlation between the hidden layer activation changes of CIANet and the ERP findings of Matzke et al (2002). Specifically, Matzke et al (2002) found a larger negativity with a left anterior maximum (LAN) to the first word of unambiguous OVS vs. SVO sentences.…”

Section: Linking Hypothesis: Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Specifically, Matzke et al (2002) found a larger negativity with a left anterior maximum (LAN) to the first word of unambiguous OVS vs. SVO sentences. In addition, they observed a further negativity to the second determiner of unambiguous sentences: the second determiner of OVS sentences elicited a larger negativity than that of SVO sentences.…”

Section: Linking Hypothesis: Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Prior research (Matzke et al, 2002) had observed a positivity time-locked to linguistic cues such as case marking that disambiguated a temporarily ambiguous, sentence-initial noun phrase towards the dispreferred, objectinitial structure. That positivity occurred approximately 600 ms after the onset of the disambiguating word, was larger when case marking disambiguated towards the dispreferred (e.g., object-initial) rather than the preferred (e.g., subject-initial) structure in German, and had a centro-parietal maximum ('P600').…”

Section: Linking Hypothesis: Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By incremental interpretation, we mean that each word is structured into the linguistically wellformed and interpretable (if partial) representation of the sentence fragment that has been read or heard so far. Numerous ERP studies have demonstrated the incrementality of language comprehension as revealed by the on-line detection of semantic (e.g., Kutas & Hillyard, 1980, 1983van Petten & Kutas, 1990) and syntactic (e.g., Osterhout & Holcomb, 1992Matzke, Mai, Nager, Rüsseler, & Münte, 2002) violations, as indexed broadly by deflections in scalp activation such as the so-called N400 and P600 (see also Kutas, van Petten, & Kluender, 2006, for overview and discussion). Incremental processing is also revealed by visual world studies examining the incremental use of adjectival modifiers in narrowing down possible referents (e.g., Sedivy, Tanenhaus, Chambers, & Carlson, 1999;Spivey, Tyler, Eberhard, & Tanenhaus, 2001;Weber, Braun, & Crocker, 2006), and in studies that show motor representations are activated during incremental (self-paced) reading, precisely in the region where a relevant verb (that mediated a motor action) was being read (Zwaan & Taylor, 2006).…”

Section: Sentence Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this section we briefly sketch the model, its embodiment of the CIA, and the central behavioral findings accounted for by the model. We then consider the relevant ERP findings of Knoeferle, Habets, et al (2008), and provide a linking hypothesis for CIANet which accounts for those findings, and also those of Matzke et al (2002) (see Kluender & Kutas, 1993;Rösler, Pechmann, Streb, Röder, & Hennighausen, 1998, for related ERP findings on syntactic processing of word order variations).…”

Section: Pat2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Situated sentence processing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical evidence demonstrating that sentence meaning is rapidly reconciled with the visual environment has been broadly construed as supporting the seamless interaction of visual and linguistic representations during situated comprehension. Based on recent behavioral and neuroscientific findings, however, we argue for the more deeply rooted coordination of the mechanisms underlying visual and linguistic processing, and for jointly considering the behavioral and neural correlates of scene-sentence reconciliation during situated comprehension. The Coordinated Interplay Account (CIA; Knoeferle & Crocker, 2007) asserts that incremental linguistic interpretation actively directs attention in the visual environment, thereby increasing the salience of attended scene information for comprehension. We review behavioral and neuroscientific findings in support of the CIA's three processing stages: (i) incremental sentence interpretation, (ii) language-mediated visual attention, and (iii) the on-line influence of non-linguistic visual context. We then describe a recently developed connectionist model which both embodies the central CIA proposals and has been successfully applied in modeling a range of behavioral findings from the visual world paradigm (Mayberry, Crocker, & Knoeferle, in press). Results from a new simulation suggest the model also correlates with event-related brain potentials elicited by the immediate use of visual context for linguistic disambiguation (Knoeferle, Habets, Crocker, & Münte, 2008). Finally, we argue that the mechanisms underlying interpretation, visual attention, and scene apprehension are not only in close temporal synchronization, but have co-adapted to optimize real-time visual grounding of situated spoken language, thus facilitating the association of linguistic, visual and motor representations that emerge during the course of our embodied linguistic experience in the world.

show abstract

Section: Linking Hypothesis: Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Linking Hypothesis: Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Linking Hypothesis: Behavioralmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sentence Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Pat2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Situated sentence processing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Linguistic Annotation

Palmer

Xue

2010

The Handbook of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

show abstract

An fMRI study of canonical and noncanonical word order in German

Bahlmann

Rodrı́guez-Fornells

Rotte

et al. 2007

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding a complex sentence requires the processing of information at different (e.g., phonological, semantic, and syntactic) levels, the intermediate storage of this information and the unification of this information to compute the meaning of the sentence information. The present investigation homed in on two aspects of sentence processing: working memory and reanalysis. Event-related functional MRI was used in 12 healthy native speakers of German, while they read sentences. Half of the sentences had unambiguous initial noun-phrases (masculine nominative, masculine accusative) and thus signaled subject-first (canonical) or object-first (noncanonical) sentences. Noncanonical unambiguous sentences were supposed to entail greater demand on working memory, because of their more complex syntactic structure. The other half of the sentences had case-ambiguous initial noun-phrases (feminine gender). Only the second unambiguous noun-phrase (eighth position in the sentences) revealed, whether a canonical or noncanonical word order was present. Based on previous data it was hypothesized that ambiguous noncanonical sentences required a recomputation of the sentence, as subjects would initially commit to a subject first reading. In the respective contrasts two main areas of brain activation were observed. Unambiguous noncanonical sentences elicited more activation in left inferior frontal cortex relative unambiguous canonical sentences. This was interpreted in conjunction with the greater demands on working memory in the former condition. For noncanonical ambiguous relative to canonical ambiguous sentences, an activation of the left supramarginal gyrus was revealed, which was interpreted as a reflection of the reanalysis-requirements induced by this condition.

show abstract

The costs of freedom: an ERP – study of non-canonical sentences

Cited by 104 publications

References 25 publications

Situated sentence processing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model

Situated sentence processing: The coordinated interplay account and a neurobehavioral model

Linguistic Annotation

An fMRI study of canonical and noncanonical word order in German

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About