Priming prepositional phrase attachment: Evidence from eye-tracking and event-related potentials

REFERENCES

• Altmann, G. T. M., Garnham, A., & Henstra, J. A. (1994). Effects of syntax in human sentence parsing: Evidence against a structure-based proposal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 209–216.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247–264. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G. T. M., & Steedman, M. J. (1988). Interaction with context during human sentence processing. Cognition, 30, 191–238. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(88)90020-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arai, M., van Gompel, R. P. G., & Scheepers, C. (2007). Priming ditransitive structures in comprehension. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 218–250. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657–671. doi: 10.1162/089892999563724
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language, (pp. 279–352). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Blozis, S. A., & Traxler, M. J. (2007). Analyzing individual differences in sentence processing performance using multilevel models. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 31–38. doi: 10.3758/BF03192841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & McLean, J. F. (2005). Priming prepositional phrase attachment during comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 468–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C., & Hagoort, P. (1993). The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 34–44. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.1.34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C. M., van Berkum, J. J. A., & Hagoort, P. (2000). Discourse before gender: An event-related brain potential study on the interplay of semantic and syntactic information during spoken language understanding. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29(1), 53–68. doi: 10.1023/A:1005172406969
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camblin, C. C., Ledoux, K., Boudewyn, M., Gordon, P. C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). When and how do readers and listeners establish coreference with repeated names?. Brain Research, 1146, 172–184. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.07.033
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carminati, M. N., van Gompel, R. P. G., Scheepers, C., & Arai, M. (2008). Syntactic priming in comprehension: The role of argument order and animacy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1098–1110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christianson, K., Williams, C. C., Zacks, R. T., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Younger and older adults “good enough” interpretations of garden path sentences. Discourse Processes, 42, 205–238. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4202_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., & Kutas, M. (1999). Right words and left words: Electrophysiological evidence for hemispheric differences in meaning processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 8, 373–392. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(99)00036-1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies (Unpublished PhD dissertation), West Bend, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence processing: A tutorial review. In M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading, (pp. 559–586). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier, L., Clifton, C., Jr (1996). Construal, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 259–281. doi: 10.1006/brln.1995.1048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. NeuroImage, 20, S18–S29. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P. (2005). On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(9), 416–423. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution, , New York: Oxford University Press doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
   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. doi: 10.1080/016909600386084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98–110. doi: 10.1162/089892903321107855
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 37–55. doi: 10.1023/A:1021933015362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, A., & Osterhout, L. (2005). The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 205–225. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H., & Chwilla, D. (2007). Late positivities in unusual situations. Brain & Language, 100, 257–261. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2006.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 1–36. doi: 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Caplan, D., Sitnikova, T., Eddy, M. & Holcomb, P. J. (2006). Neural correlates of processing syntactic, semantic and thematic relationships in sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(5), 489–530.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Kreher, D. A., Sitnikova, T., Caplan, D. N., & Holcomb, P. J. (2007). The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 100, 223–237. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 117–129.
   Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1984). Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature, 307, 161–163. doi: 10.1038/307161a0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., van Petten, C., & Klueder, R. (2006). Psycholinguistics Electrified II (1994–2005). In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics, (2nd ed., pp. 659–724). London: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Ledoux, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials. Psychological Science, 18, 135–143. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01863.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, R. (2011, June 19–24). Integrating surprisal and uncertain-input models in online sentence comprehension: Formal techniques and empirical results. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meetings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, 1055–1065.
   Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Branigan, H. P., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (1998). Processing arguments and adjuncts in isolation and context: The case of by-phrase ambiguities in passives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 461–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liversedge, S. P., Pickering, M. J., Clayes, E. L., & Branigan, H. P. (2003). Thematic processing of adjuncts: Evidence from an eye-tracking experiment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 667–675. doi: 10.3758/BF03196530
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.676
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakano, H., Saron, C., & Swaab, T. Y. (2010). Speech and span: Working memory capacity impacts the use of animacy but not of world knowledge during spoken sentence comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2886–2898. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ni, W., Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1996). Sidestepping garden paths: Assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics, and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 11, 283–334. doi: 10.1080/016909696387196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. A. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.
   Google Scholar
• van Petten, C. (1993). A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects in event-related potentials. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 485–531. doi: 10.1080/01690969308407586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2011). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Evidence from eye-tracking, Manuscript in preparation.
   Google Scholar
• PickeringM. J.TraxlerM. J. (2004, March). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented to the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, College Park, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & van Gompel, R. P. G. (2006). Syntactic parsing. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Elsiever.
   Google Scholar
• Presentation® software (Version 0.70). Retrieved from www.neurobs.com
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner, K., Carlson, M., & Frazier, L. (1983). The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: Eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 358–374. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90236-0
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T. A., & Bosker, R. J. (1993). Standard errors and sample sizes for two-level research. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 237–259. doi: 10.2307/1165134
   Google Scholar
• Swaab, T. Y., Camblin, C. C., & Gordon, P. C. (2004). Electrophysiological evidence for reversed lexical repetition effects in language processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 715–726.
   Google Scholar
• Swaab, T. Y., Ledoux, K., Camblin, C. C., & Boudewyn, M. A. (2011). ERPs and language processing. In S. J. Luck & E. S. Kappenman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of event-related potential components (chapter 14). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: A psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 64–81. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.136.1.64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabor, W., Galantucci, B., & Richardson, D. (2004). Effects of merely local syntactic coherence on sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 355–370. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632–1634. doi: 10.1126/science.7777863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thothathiri, M., & Snedeker, J. (2008a). Give and take: Syntactic priming during spoken language comprehension. Cognition, 108, 51–68. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thothathiri, M., & Snedeker, J. (2008b). Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three and four year old children. Journal of Memory & Language, 58, 188–213. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tooley, K. M., Swaab, T. Y., Boudewyn, M. A., Zirnstein, M., & Traxler, M. J. (in press). Evidence for priming across intervening sentences during on-line sentence comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes.
   Google Scholar
• Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2010). Syntactic priming effects in comprehension: A critical review. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(10), 925–937.
   Google Scholar
• Tooley, K. M., & Traxler, M. J. (2012). Syntactic priming in comprehension: A dual mechanism account. In R. Mishra (Ed.), The relationship between language and thought. Munich, Germany: Lincom Europa.
   Google Scholar
• Tooley, K. M., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2009). Electrophysiological and behavioral evidence of syntactic priming in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 19–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J. (2008). Lexically independent priming in online sentence comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 149–155. doi: 10.3758/PBR.15.1.149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J. (2011). Parsing. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2, 353–364. doi: 10.1002/wcs.112
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science. Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Bybee, M. D., & Pickering, M. J. (1997). Influence of connectives on language comprehension: Eye-tracking evidence for incremental interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 50, 481–497. doi: 10.1080/027249897391982
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TraxlerM. J.PickeringM. J. (2005, March). Syntactic priming in comprehension. Paper presented to the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Pickering, M. J., Clifton, C., Jr (1998). Adjunct attachment is not a form of lexical ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 558–592. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2007). Lexical mediation and context effects in parsing. Brain Research, 1146, 59–74. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.10.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., & Tooley, K. M. (2008). Priming in sentence comprehension: Strategic or syntactic?. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 609–645. doi: 10.1080/01690960701639898
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxler, M. J., Williams, R. S., Blozis, S. A., & Morris, R. K. (2005). Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Journal of Memory & Language, 53, 204–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trueswell, J. C., & Kim, A. E. (1998). How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 102–123. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1998.2565
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2000). Syntactic structure assembly in human parsing: A computational model based on competitive inhibition and lexicalist grammar. Cognition, 75, 105–143. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00063-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vosse, T., & Kempen, G. (2009). The unification space implemented as a localist neural net: Predictions and error-tolerance in a constraint-based parser. Cognitive Neurodynamics, 3, 331–346. doi: 10.1007/s11571-009-9094-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, K., & Indefrey, P. (2009). Syntactic priming in German–English bilinguals during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage, 46, 1164–1172. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.040
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar