Effects of Type of Agreement Violation and Utterance Position on the Auditory Processing of Subject-Verb Agreement: An ERP Study

被引:15
作者
Dube, Sithembinkosi [1 ,2 ]
Kung, Carmen [1 ,2 ]
Peter, Varghese [3 ]
Brock, Jon [2 ,4 ]
Demuth, Katherine [1 ,2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Macquarie Univ, Dept Linguist, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Macquarie Univ, ARC Ctr Cognit & Its Disorders, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ Western Sydney, MARCS Inst Brain Behav & Dev, Penrith, NSW, Australia
[4] Macquarie Univ, Dept Cognit Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[5] Santa Fe Inst, Santa Fe, NM 87501 USA
来源
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY | 2016年 / 7卷
关键词
subject-verb agreement; utterance position; type of agreement violation; ERPs; auditory modality; 3RD-PERSON SINGULAR S; BRAIN POTENTIALS; SENTENCE COMPREHENSION; ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE; SYNTACTIC VIOLATIONS; CHILDRENS PRODUCTION; LANGUAGE PRODUCTION; PHRASE BOUNDARIES; NEURAL MECHANISMS; ENGLISH;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01276
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Previous ERP studies have often reported two ERP components LAN and P600 in response to subject-verb (S-V) agreement violations (e.g., the boys *runs). However, the latency, amplitude and scalp distribution of these components have been shown to vary depending on various experiment-related factors. One factor that has not received attention is the extent to which the relative perceptual salience related to either the utterance position (verbal inflection in utterance-medial vs. utterance-final contexts) or the type of agreement violation (errors of omission vs. errors of commission) may influence the auditory processing of S-V agreement. The lack of reports on these effects in ERP studies may be due to the fact that most studies have used the visual modality, which does not reveal acoustic information. To address this gap, we used ERPs to measure the brain activity of Australian English-speaking adults while they listened to sentences in which the S-V agreement differed by type of agreement violation and utterance position. We observed early negative and positive clusters (AN/P600 effects) for the overall grammaticality effect. Further analysis revealed that the mean amplitude and distribution of the P600 effect was only significant in contexts where the S-V agreement violation occurred utterance-finally, regardless of type of agreement violation. The mean amplitude and distribution of the negativity did not differ significantly across types of agreement violation and utterance position. These findings suggest that the increased perceptual salience of the violation in utterance final position (due to phrase-final lengthening) influenced how S-V agreement violations were processed during sentence comprehension. Implications for the functional interpretation of language-related ERPs and experimental design are discussed.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 66 条
[1]   The Human Brain Processes Syntax in the Absence of Conscious Awareness [J].
Batterink, Laura ;
Neville, Helen J. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 33 (19) :8528-8533
[2]  
Boersma P., 2012, PRAAT VERSION 5 5
[3]   The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages [J].
Bornkessel, Ina ;
Schlesewsky, Matthias .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2006, 113 (04) :787-821
[4]   Neurobiological roots of language in primate audition: common computational properties [J].
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina ;
Schlesewsky, Matthias ;
Small, Steven L. ;
Rauschecker, Josef P. .
TRENDS IN COGNITIVE SCIENCES, 2015, 19 (03) :142-150
[5]   Phonological phrase boundaries constrain lexical access I. Adult data [J].
Christophe, A ;
Peperkamp, S ;
Pallier, C ;
Block, E ;
Mehler, J .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2004, 51 (04) :523-547
[6]   Discovering words in the continuous speech stream: the role of prosody [J].
Christophe, A ;
Gout, A ;
Peperkamp, S ;
Morgan, J .
JOURNAL OF PHONETICS, 2003, 31 (3-4) :585-598
[7]   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
[8]   Differences in the perception and time course of syntactic and semantic violations [J].
De Vincenzi, M ;
Job, R ;
Di Matteo, R ;
Angrilli, A ;
Penolazzi, B ;
Ciccarelli, L ;
Vespignani, F .
BRAIN AND LANGUAGE, 2003, 85 (02) :280-296
[9]   From time to time: Processing time reference violations in Dutch [J].
Dragoy, Olga ;
Stowe, Laurie A. ;
Bos, Laura S. ;
Bastiaanse, Roelien .
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE, 2012, 66 (01) :307-325
[10]   Neural mechanisms of sentence comprehension based on predictive processes and decision certainty: Electrophysiological evidence from non-canonical linearizations in a flexible word order language [J].
Droege, Alexander ;
Fleischer, Juerg ;
Schlesewsky, Matthias ;
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina .
BRAIN RESEARCH, 2016, 1633 :149-166