Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:58:17.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Nothing Entirely New under the Sun: ERP Responses to Manipulations of Syntax

from Part IV - Experimental Syntax beyond Acceptability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

By
Robert Kluender
Edited by
Grant Goodall
Grant Goodall
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access

Summary

Purportedly (morpho)syntactic-event-related brain wave components – P600, LAN, and e[arly]LAN – have over the years proved more likely to be domain-general responses. Studies comparing late positive responses to anomalies across cognitive domains, and manipulating their probability of occurrence, suggest that the P600 is a member of the P300 family. Other studies report individual variation in response to (morpho)syntactic anomalies, smudging the distinction between N400 and P600 responses, and suggesting that LAN responses to morphosyntactic anomaly may be an artifact of N400+P600 overlap. The eLAN has similarly been shown to be a methodological artifact. We argue that studies of long-distance dependencies have produced the most consistent and reliable results, partly because they largely avoid violation paradigms, although current insights may be profitably applied to ERP studies of syntactic islands. We also suggest that what are taken to be specialized effects of referential processing are in fact another manifestation of such long-distance (anaphoric) effects.

Keywords

event-related brain potential (ERP)N400P600LANeLANNreflong-distance dependencysyntactic islandanaphoric processingquantificational processing
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax , pp. 641 - 686
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barkley, C. & Kluender, R. (2018). Processing anaphoric relations: An electrophysiological perspective. In Gundel, J. & Abbott, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 384–410.Google Scholar
Barkley, C., Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (2015). Referential processing in the human brain: An event-related potential (ERP) study. Brain Research, 1629, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besson, M. & Macar, F. (1987). An event-related potential analysis of incongruity in music and other non-linguistic contexts. Psychophysiology, 24(1), 14–25.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multidimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(4), 495–522.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & Schlesewsky, M. (2008). An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1), 55–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brouwer, H. & Crocker, M. W. (2017). On the proper treatment of the N400 and P600 in language comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01327Google Scholar
Brouwer, H., Fitz, H., & Hoeks, J. (2012). Getting real about semantic illusions: Rethinking the functional role of the P600 in language comprehension. Brain Research, 1446, 127–143.Google Scholar
Caplan, D. (1987). Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Vergara, M., De La Cruz-Pavía, I., & Laka, I. (2010). Subject relative clauses are not universally easier to process: Evidence from Basque. Cognition, 115(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and Thought. Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Lau, E., Wang, S., & Phillips, C. (2018). Wait a second! Delayed impact of argument roles on on-line verb prediction. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(7). DOI:10.1080/23273798.2018.1427878Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y. & Phillips, C. (2013). No semantic illusions in the “Semantic P600” phenomenon: ERP evidence from Mandarin Chinese. Brain Research, 1506, 76–93.Google Scholar
Chow, W.-Y., Smith, C., Lau, E., & Phillips, C. (2015). A “bag-of-arguments” mechanism for initial verb predictions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(5), 577–596.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. M. (1984). Matter and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1996). The unity of noun-modifying clauses in Asian languages. In Pan-Asiatic Linguistics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Languages and Linguistics, 3. Salaya, Thailand: Institute of Language and Culture for Rural Development, Mahidol University at Salaya, pp. 1077–88.Google Scholar
Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Expect the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13(1), 21–58.Google Scholar
Courchesne, E., Hillyard, S. A., & Galambos, R. (1975). Stimulus novelty, task relevance and the visual evoked potential in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 39(2), 131–143.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2005). Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity. Nature Neuroscience, 8(6), 1117–1121.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M. (2017). Is there a replication crisis? Perhaps. Is this an example? No: A commentary on Ito, Martin, and Nieuwland (2016). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 966–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, A. & Bentin, S. (2001). Syntactic and semantic factors in processing gender agreement in Hebrew: Evidence from ERPs and eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(2), 200–224.Google Scholar
Dikker, S. & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Before the N400: Effects of lexical–semantic violations in visual cortex. Brain and Language, 118(1–2), 23–28.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T., & Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early occipital sensitivity to syntactic category is based on form typicality. Psychological Science, 21(5), 629–634.Google Scholar
Donchin, E. (1981). “Surprise! … Surprise?” Psychophysiology, 18(5), 493–513.Google Scholar
Featherston, S., Gross, M., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. (2000). Brain potentials in the processing of complex sentences: An ERP study of control and raising constructions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
Federmeier, K. D., Segal, J. B., Lombrozo, T., & Kutas, M. (2000). Brain responses to nouns, verbs and class-ambiguous words in context. Brain, 123(12), 2552–2566.Google Scholar
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F. (2003). Storage and integration in the processing of filler–gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87(3), 345–354.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Syntactic working memory and the establishment of filler–gap dependencies: Insights from ERPs and fMRI. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 321–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic working memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250–272.Google Scholar
Fiorentino, R., Covey, L., & Gabriele, A. (2018). Individual differences in the processing of referential dependencies: Evidence from event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 673, 79–84.Google Scholar
Fischler, I., Bloom, P. A., Childers, D. G., Roucos, S. E., & PerryJr., N. W. (1983). Brain potentials related to stages of sentence verification. Psychophysiology, 20(4), 400–409.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1981). The mind–body problem. Scientific American, 244(1), 114–123.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry, 9(3), 427–473.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1983). Phrase structure parsing and the island constraints. Linguistics and Philosophy, 6(2), 163–223.Google Scholar
Foley, S. & Wagers, M. (2017). The Subject Gap Preference in a split-ergative language: Reading time evidence from Georgian. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistics Society, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Clifton, C. Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4(2), 93–126.Google Scholar
Frenzel, S., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2011). Conflicts in language processing: A new perspective on the N400–P600 distinction. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 574–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A. D. (1995). The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language, 50(3), 259–281.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research 1(3), 183–192.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12(15), 3391–3394.Google Scholar
Frisch, S. & Schlesewsky, M. (2005). The resolution of case conflicts from a neurophysiological perspective. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(2), 484–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M. (1989). Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18(1), 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68(1), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., & O’Neil, W., eds., Image, Language, Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 95–126.Google Scholar
Grey, S., Tanner, D., & van Hell, J.G. (2017). How right is left? Handedness modulates neural responses during morphosyntactic processing. Brain Research, 1669, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunter, T. C., Stowe, L. A., & Mulder, G. (1997). When syntax meets semantics. Psychophysiology, 34, 660–676.Google Scholar
Hagiwara, H., Soshi, T., Ishihara, M., & Imanaka, K. (2007). A topographical study on the event-related potential correlates of scrambled word order in Japanese complex sentences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 175–193.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 439–483.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. & Friederici, A. D. (1999). Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: Early automatic and late controlled processes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(2), 194–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haupt, F. S., Schlesewsky, M., Roehm, D., Friedrici, A. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The status of subject–object reanalyses in the language comprehension literature. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 54–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeks, J. C. J., Stowe, L. A., & Doedens, G. (2004). Seeing words in context: The interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017a). How robust are prediction effects in language comprehension? Failure to replicate article-elicited N400 effects. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 954–965.Google Scholar
Ito, A., Martin, A. E., & Nieuwland, M. S. (2017b). Why the A/AN prediction effect may be hard to replicate: A rebuttal to Delong, Urbach, and Kutas (2017). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 974–983.Google Scholar
Janata, P. (1995). ERP measures assay the degree of expectancy violation of harmonic contexts in music. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7(2), 153–164.Google Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P. (2000). The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15(2), 159–201.Google Scholar
Kanno, K. (2007). Factors affecting the processing of Japanese relative clauses by L2 learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(2), 197–218.Google Scholar
Karimi, H., Swaab, T. Y., & Ferreira, F. (2018). Electrophysiological evidence for an independent effect of memory retrieval on referential processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 102, 68–82.Google Scholar
Kim, A. & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(2), 205–222.Google Scholar
King, J. W. & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 580–602.Google Scholar
King, J. W. & Kutas, M. A. (1995). Who did what and when: Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 376–395.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. (1992). Deriving island constraints from principles of predication. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M., eds., Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition, and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 223–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, R. (1998). On the distinction between strong and weak islands: A processing perspective. In Culicover, P. W. & McNally, L., eds., The Limits of Syntax (Syntax and Semantics, 29). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 241–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kluender, R. (2003). In search of the golden slash: Prospecting for biological explanations of language. In Moore, J. & Polinsky, M., eds., The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993a). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(2), 196–214.Google Scholar
Kluender, R. & Kutas, M. (1993b). Subjacency as a processing phenomenon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8(4), 573–633.Google Scholar
Kluender, R., Münte, T., Cowles, H. W., Szentkuti, A., Walenski, M., & Wieringa, B. (1998). Brain potentials to English and German questions. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain and Language, 100, 257–261.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. H. J., Chwilla, D. J., van Herten, M., & Oor, P. J. W. (2003). Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 85(1), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kos, M., Vosse, T., van den Brink, D., & Hagoort, P. (2010). About edible restaurants: Conflicts between syntax and semantics as revealed by ERPs. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00222Google Scholar
Kounios, J. & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Structure and process in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related brain potentials and reaction times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 459–479.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D., & Holcomb, P. J. (2003). Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(1), 117–129.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(4427), 203–205.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980b). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words. Biological Psychology, 11(2), 99–116.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1983). Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11(5), 539–550.Google Scholar
Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307(5947), 161–163.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Lindamood, T., & Hillyard, S. (1984). Word expectancy and event-related brain potentials during sentence processing. In Kornblum, S. & Requin, J., eds., Preparatory States and Processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 217–237.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., Van Petten, C., & Besson, M. (1988). Event-related potential asymmetries during the reading of sentences. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 69(3), 218–233.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Kluender, R., Kutas, M., & Polinsky, M. (2013). Subject/object processing asymmetries in Korean relative clauses: Evidence from ERP data. Language, 8(3), 537–585.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Lee, Y., Gordon, P.C., Kluender, R., & Polinsky, M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic factors affecting subject/object asymmetry: An eye-tracking study of prenominal relative clauses in Korean. Language, 86(3), 546–582.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Polinsky, M., & Kluender, R. (2006). Subject preference in Korean. In Baumer, D., Montero, D., & Scanlon, M., eds., Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Kwon, N., Sturt, P., & Liu, P. (2017). Predicting semantic features in Chinese: Evidence from ERPs. Cognition, 166, 433–446.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Clarke, N., Socolof, M., Asatiani, R., & Polinsky, M. (2019). A subject relative clause preference in a split-ergative language: ERP evidence from Georgian. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Lau, E. & Liao, C.-H. (2017). Linguistic structure across time: ERP responses to coordinated and uncoordinated noun phrases. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33(5), pp. 633–647.Google Scholar
Lau, E., Stroud, C., Plesch, S., & Phillips, C. (2006). The role of structural prediction in rapid syntactic analysis. Brain and Language, 98(1), 74–88.Google Scholar
Luck, S. J. (2005). An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011a). When persons disagree: An ERP study of Unagreement in Spanish. Psychophysiology, 48, 1361–1371.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011b). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1410, 64–76.Google Scholar
McKinnon, R. & Osterhout, L. (1996). Constraints on movement phenomena in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11(5), 495–524.Google Scholar
Michel, D. (2014). Individual cognitive measures and working memory accounts of syntactic island phenomena. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Moore, J. & Polinsky, M., eds.. (2003). The Nature of Explanation in Linguistic Theory. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Heinze, H.-J., Matzke, M., Wieringa, B. M., & Johannes, S. (1998). Brain potentials and syntactic violations revisited: No evidence for specificity of the syntactic positive shift. Neuropsychologia, 36(3), 217–226.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9(3), 318–329.Google Scholar
Münte, T. F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395(6697), 71–73.Google Scholar
Neville, H., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. (1991). Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3(2), 151–165.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. & Kuperberg, G. (2008). When the truth is not too hard to handle: An event-related potential study on the pragmatics of negation. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 228–236.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., von Grebmer, zu Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G. A., Ferguson, H. J., Busch-Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Husband, E. M., Donaldson, D. I., Kohút, Z., Rueschemeyer, S.-A., & Huettig, F. (2018). Large-scale replication study reveals a limit on probabilistic prediction in language comprehension. eLIFE. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.33468.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwland, M. S. & van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution. Brain Research, 1118(1), 155–167.Google Scholar
Núñez-Peña, M.I. & Honrubia-Serrano, M.L. (2004). P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task. Cognitive Brain Research, 18(2), 130–141.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic Development. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Brain and Language, 59(3), 494–522.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(6), 785–806.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P. J., & Swinney, D. A. (1994). Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 786.Google ScholarPubMed
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8(6), 507–526.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1402–1456.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 426–488.Google Scholar
Patel, A. D., Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M., & Holcomb, P. J. (1998). Processing syntactic relations in language and music: An event-related potential study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 717–733.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2006). The real-time status of island phenomena. Language, 82(4), 795–823.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428.Google Scholar
Roehm, D., Schlesewsky, M., Bornkessel, I., Frisch, S., & Haider, H. (2004). Fractionating language comprehension via frequency characteristics of the human EEG. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology, 15(3), 409–412.Google Scholar
Roll, M., Horne, M., & Lindgren, M. (2007). Object shift and event-related brain potentials. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(6), 462–481.Google Scholar
Ruchkin, D. S., JohnsonJr., R., Grafman, J., Canoune, H., & Ritter, W. (1992). Distinctions and similarities among working memory processes: An event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(1), 53–66.Google Scholar
Sassenhagen, J. & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2015). The P600 as a correlate of ventral attention network reorientation. Cortex, 66, A3–A20.Google Scholar
Severens, E., Jansma, B. M., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2008). Morphophonological influences on the comprehension of subject–verb agreement: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1228, 135–144.Google Scholar
Shao, J. & Neville, H. (1998). Analyzing semantic processing using event-related brain potentials. Newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, 11(5), 3–20.Google Scholar
Simson, R., Vaughan, H. G., & Ritter, W. (1977). The scalp topography of potentials in auditory and visual discrimination tasks. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 42(4), 528–535.Google Scholar
Squires, N. K., Squires, K. C., & Hillyard, S. A. (1975). Two varieties of long-latency positive waves evoked by unpredictable auditory stimuli in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 38(4), 387–401.Google Scholar
Staab, J. (2007). Negation in context: Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations of negation effects in discourse processing. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K. & Drury, J. E. (2012). On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120(2), 135–162.Google Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1(3), 227–245.Google Scholar
Sutton, S., Braren, M., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1965). Evoked potential correlates of stimulus uncertainty. Science, 150(3700), 1187–1188.Google Scholar
Sutton, S., Tueting, P., Zubin, J., & John, E. R. (1967). Information delivery and the sensory evoked potential. Science, 155(3768), 1436–1439.Google Scholar
Szewczyk, J. M. & Schriefers, H. (2013). Prediction in language comprehension beyond specific words: An ERP study on sentence comprehension in Polish. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(4), 297–324.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., Inoue, K., & Osterhout, L. (2014). Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(2), 277–293.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., McLaughlin, J., Herschensohn, J., & Osterhout, L. (2013). Individual differences reveal stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(2), 367–382.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.Google Scholar
Toscano, J. C., McMurray, B., Dennhardt, J., & Luck, S. A. (2010). Continuous perception and graded categorization: Electrophysiological evidence for a linear relationship between the acoustic signal and perceptual encoding of speech. Psychological Science, 2(10), 1532–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, M. & Garnsey, S. M. (2008). An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(5), 646–688.Google Scholar
Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2003). Event-related brain indices of scrambling in Japanese. Brain and Language, 86(2), 243–271.Google Scholar
Ueno, M. & Kluender, R. (2009). On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1290, 63–90.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P., DeLong, K. A., & Kutas, M. (2015). Quantifiers are incrementally interpreted in context, more or less. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 79–96.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2002). The intractability of scaling scalp distributions to infer neuroelectric sources. Psychophysiology, 39(6), 791–808.Google Scholar
Urbach, T. P. & Kutas, M. (2010). Quantifiers more or less quantify on-line: ERP evidence for partial incremental interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 158–179.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). Early referential context effects in sentence processing: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(2), 147–182.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Zwitserlood, P. (2003). Event‐related brain potentials reflect discourse‐referential ambiguity in spoken language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 40(2), 235–248.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Koornneef, A. W., Otten, M. & Nieuwland, M. S. (2007). Establishing reference in language comprehension: An electrophysiological perspective. Brain Research, 1146, 158–171.Google Scholar
van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Bastiaansen, M. C., Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (2004). So who’s “he” anyway? Differential ERP and ERSP effects of referential success, ambiguity and failure during spoken language comprehension. Supplement to the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16.Google Scholar
van Herten, M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). When heuristics clash with parsing routines: ERP evidence for conflict monitoring in sentence perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1181–1197.Google Scholar
van Herten, M., Kolk, H. H. J., & Chwilla, D. J. (2005). An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(2), 241–255.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C. & Kutas, M. (1991). Influences of semantic and syntactic context on open- and closed-class words. Memory and Cognition, 19(1), 95–112.Google Scholar
Van Petten, C. & Luka, B. J. (2012). Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 176–190.Google Scholar
Verleger, R. (1990). P3-evoking wrong notes: Unexpected, awaiting, or arousing? International Journal of Neuroscience, 55(2–4), 171–179.Google Scholar
Vissers, C. Th. W. M., Chwilla, D. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2006). Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences. Brain Research, 1106(1), 150–163.Google Scholar
Vos, S. H., Gunter, T. C., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2001). Working memory constraints on syntactic processing: An electrophysiological investigation. Psychophysiology, 38(1), 41–63.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346(3), 165–168.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Expecting gender: An event related brain potential study on the role of grammatical gender in comprehending a line drawing within a written sentence in Spanish. Cortex, 39(3), 483–508.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2004). Anticipating words and their gender: An event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(7), 1272–1288.Google Scholar
Wolff, S., Schlesewsky, M., Hirotani, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2008). The neural mechanisms of word order processing revisited: Electrophysiological evidence from Japanese. Brain and Language, 107(2), 133–157.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y.-X. & Zhang, J.-T. (2008). Brain responses to agreement violations of Chinese grammatical aspect. NeuroReport, 19(10), 1039–1043.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×