Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials

被引:129
作者
Friederici, AD [1 ]
Mecklinger, A
Spencer, KM
Steinhauer, K
Donchin, E
机构
[1] Max Planck Inst Cognit Neurosci, POB 500 355, D-04303 Leipzig, Germany
[2] Univ Illinois, Dept Psychol, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
[3] Univ Illinois, Beckman Inst, Urbana, IL 61801 USA
来源
COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH | 2001年 / 11卷 / 02期
关键词
event-related potential; language processing; syntactic ambiguity; spatio-temporal principal component analysis; P600/SPS; P300; ERP sub-component;
D O I
10.1016/S0926-6410(00)00065-3
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
The present study investigates the processes involved in the recovery from temporarily ambiguous garden-path sentences. Event-related brain potentials (ERP) were recorded while subjects read German subject-object ambiguous relative and complement clauses. As both clause types are initially analyzed as subject-first structures, object-first structures require a revision which is more difficult for complement than for relative clauses. The hypothesis is tested that the revision process consists of two sub-processes, namely diagnosis and actual reanalysis. Applying a spatio-temporal principal component analysis to the ERP data, distinct positive sub-components presumably reflecting different sub-processes could be identified in the time range of the P300 and P600. It will be argued that the P600 is not a monolithic component, and that different subprocesses may be involved at varying time points depending on the type of garden-path sentence. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:305 / 323
页数:19
相关论文
共 81 条
[1]   Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison [J].
Bader, M ;
Meng, M .
JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RESEARCH, 1999, 28 (02) :121-143
[2]  
BADER M, 1994, PERSPECTIVES ON SENTENCE PROCESSING, P225
[3]  
Bader M., 1998, REANALYSIS SENTENCE, P1, DOI [10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_1, DOI 10.1007/978-94-015-9070-9_1]
[4]   PUNCTUATION AND THE PROSODY OF WRITTEN LANGUAGE [J].
CHAFE, W .
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, 1988, 5 (04) :395-426
[5]   THE N400 AS A FUNCTION OF THE LEVEL OF PROCESSING [J].
CHWILLA, DJ ;
BROWN, CM ;
HAGOORT, P .
PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 1995, 32 (03) :274-285
[6]   Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations [J].
Coulson, S ;
King, JW ;
Kutas, M .
LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES, 1998, 13 (01) :21-58
[7]   INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES IN WORKING MEMORY AND READING [J].
DANEMAN, M ;
CARPENTER, PA .
JOURNAL OF VERBAL LEARNING AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR, 1980, 19 (04) :450-466
[8]  
DeVincenzi M., 1991, Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian
[9]   IS THE P300 COMPONENT A MANIFESTATION OF CONTEXT UPDATING [J].
DONCHIN, E ;
COLES, MGH .
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1988, 11 (03) :357-374
[10]  
Donchin E., 1978, P 4 INT C EVENT RELA, P555