Processing of non-canonical word orders in (in)felicitous contexts: evidence from event-related brain potentials

References

• Aissen, J. L. (1992). Topic and focus in Mayan. Language, 68, 43–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader, M., & Meng, M. (1999). Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 121–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birner, B. J., & Ward, G. (2009). Information structure and syntactic structure. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1167–1187.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009a). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 19–58.
   Google Scholar
• Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009b). Processing syntax and morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue internationale De Linguistique Generale, 118, 172–189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2016). A neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41, 1551–6709.
   Web of Science ®Google 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifton C, J., & Frazier, L. (2004). Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Memory and Cognition, 32, 886–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V. S., & Yoshita, H. (2003). Given-new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 669–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47(2), 250–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., Lohmann, G., von Gramon, D. Y., & Friederici, A. D. (2005). Revisiting the role of Broca’s area in sentence processing: Syntactic integration versus syntactic working memory. Human Brain Mapping, 24, 79–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier, L. & Clifton, C., Jr. (1989). Successive cyclicity in the grammar and the parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4, 93–126.
   Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43(3), 476–507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, E. (2000). The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In A. P. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O’Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95–126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, M. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grewe, T., Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Zysset, S., Wiese, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Schlesewsky, M. (2007). The role of the posterior superior temporal sulcus in the processing of unmarked transitivity. NeuroImage, 35, 343–352.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grodner, D., Gibson, E., & Watson, D. (2005). The influence of contextual contrast on syntactic processing: Evidence for strong-interaction in sentence comprehension. Cognition, 95, 275–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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, 175–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirotani, M., & Schumacher, P. B. (2011). Context and topic marking affect distinct processes during discourse comprehension in Japanese. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 276–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (1996). The origins of grammar: Evidence from early language comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Imamura, S. (2014). The influence of givenness and heaviness on OSV in Japanese. In W. Aroonmanakun, P. Boonkwan, & T. Supnithi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 224–233). Bangkok: Chulalongkon University.
   Google Scholar
• Imamura, S. (2015). The effects of givenness and heaviness on VP-internal scrambling and VP-external scrambling in Japanese. Studies in Pragmatics, 17, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Imamura, S., & Koizumi, M. (2011). A centering analysis of word order in Japanese. Tohoku Studies in Linguistics, 20, 59–74.
   Google Scholar
• Jasper, H. H. (1958). The ten-twenty electrode system of the international federation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371–375.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003a). Electrophysiological evidence for serial sentence processing: A comparison between non-preferred and ungrammatical continuations. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 621–635.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaan, E., & Swaab, T. Y. (2003b). Repair, revision, and complexity in syntactic analysis: An electrophysiological differentiation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(1), 98–110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaiser, E., & Trueswell, J. C. (2004). The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition, 94, 113–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karttunen, L., & Peters, S. (1976). What indirect questions conventionally implicate. In S. Mufwene, C. A. Walker, & S. B. Steever (Eds.), CLS 12: Papers from the twelfth regional meeting (pp. 351–368). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
   Google Scholar
• Kemmerer, D. (2012). The cross-linguistic prevalence of SOV and SVO word orders reflects the sequential and hierarchical representation of action in Broca’s Area. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6(1), 50–66.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J. (2012). Kankokugo kakimazegojyunbun-no puraimingu kooka [Priming effects in scrambled sentences in Korean]. Culture, 75, 228–213.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, J., Koizumi, M., Ikuta, N., Fukumitsu, Y., Kimura, N., Iwata, K., … Kawashima, R. (2009). Scrambling effects on the processing of Japanese sentences: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22, 151–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1995). Who did what and when? Using word- and clause-level ERPs to monitor working memory usage in reading. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1, 378–395.
   Google Scholar
• Kinno, R., Kawamura, M., Shioda, S., & Sakai, K. L. (2008). Neural correlates of non-canonical syntactic processing revealed by a picture-sentence matching task. Human Brain Mapping, 29, 1015–1027.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kluender, R., & Kutas, M. (1993). Bridging the gap: Evidence from ERPs on the processing of unbounded dependencies. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 196–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koizumi, M., & Imamura, S. (2017). Interaction between syntactic structures and information structures in the processing of a head-final language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46(1), 247–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koizumi, M., & Kim, J. (2016). Greater left inferior frontal activation for SVO than VOS during sentence comprehension in Kaqchikel. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koizumi, M., Yasugi, Y., Tamaoka, K., Kiyama, S., Kim, J., Ajsivinac Sian, J. E., & García Matzar, P. O. (2014). On the (non)universality of the preference for subject-object word order in sentence comprehension: A sentence-processing study in Kaqchikel Maya. Language, 90, 722–736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koizumi, M., & Yasunaga, D. (2017). Are event-related potentials differentially modulated by syntactic structure and information structure? Journal of Language Sciences, 24, 323–344.
   Google Scholar
• Koso, A., Hagiwara, H., & Soshi, T. (2007). Event-related brain potentials associated with scrambled Japanese ditransitive sentences. In T. Sakamoto (Ed.), Communicating skills of intention (pp. 337–352). Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kuno, S. (1978). Danwa-no Bunpo [Grammar of Discourse]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
   Google Scholar
• Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146(1), 23–49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting finding meaning in the N400 component of the eventrelated brain potential. The Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 621–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. (1988). Event-related brain potential studies of language. In P. K. Ackles, J. R. Jennings, & M. G. H. Coles (Eds.), Advances in psychophysiology (pp. 139–187). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, E., & Liao, C.-H. (2018). Linguistic structure across time: ERP responses to coordinated and uncoordinated noun phrases. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(5), 633–647.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Calderon, J., & Luck, S. J. (2014). ERPLAB: An open-source toolbox for the analysis of event-related potentials. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matzke, M., Mai, H., Nager, W., Rüsseler, J., & Münte, T. F. (2002). The costs of freedom: An ERP – Study of non-canonical sentences. Clinical Neurophysiology, 113, 844–852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazuka, R., Itoh, K., & Kondo, T. (2002). Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing. In M. Nakayama (Ed.), Sentence processing in east Asian languages (pp. 131–166). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, M., Bader, M., & Bayer, J. (1999). Die Verarbeitung von Subjekt– Objekt Ambiguitäten im Kontext [The processing of subject-object ambiguities in context]. In I. Wachsmuth & B. Jung (Eds.), Proceedings der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Kognitionswissenschaft (pp. 244–249). St. Augustin, FL: Infix Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H. M., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1997). Event-related potentials elicited by spoken relative clauses. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 193–203.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Petersson, K. M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2007). On sense and reference: Examining the functional neuroanatomy of referential processing. NeuroImage, 37, 993–1004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2006). Individual differences and contextual bias in pronoun resolution: Evidence from ERPs. Brain Research, 1118(1), 155–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oldfield, R. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L. (1997). On the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Manipulations of word position and word class reveal individual differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476–507.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. (2005). ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22(3), 407–428.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Postal, P. M. (1971). Cross-over phenomena. Holt: Rinehart & Winston of Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Primus, B. (1999). Cases and thematic roles. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Roland, D., Mauner, G., O’Meara, C., & Yun, H. (2012). Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 479–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sekerina, I. A. (1997). The syntax and processing of Russian scrambled constructions in Russian. (Doctoral dissertation). City University of New York, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Sekerina, I. (2003). Scrambling and processing: Dependencies, complexity and constraints. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 301–324). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Slobin, D. I., & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12, 229–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamaoka, K., Kanduboda, P. B. A., & Sakai, H. (2011). Effects of word order alternation on the sentence processing of Sinhalese written and spoken forms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 24–32.
   Google Scholar
• Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H., & Koizumi, M. (2005). Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 281–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanaka, M. N., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 318–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsuchiya, S., Yoshimura, N., & Nakayama, M. (2015). Subject nouns in L2 Japanese storytelling: A preliminary study. Ars Linguistica, 21, 89–102.
   Google Scholar
• Ueno, M., & Kluender, R. (2003). Event-related brain indices of Japanese scrambling. Brain and Language, 86, 243–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ueno, M., & Kluender, R. (2009). On the processing of Japanese wh-questions: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1290(22), 63–90.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2004). Sentence comprehension in a wider discourse: Can we use ERPs to keep track of things? In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 229–270). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   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, 147–182.
   Web of Science ®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, 235–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., 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. Annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, April 18–20.
   Google Scholar
• Vissers, C. T. 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wagers, M., & Phillips, C. (2009). Multiple dependencies and the role of the grammar in real-time comprehension. Journal of Linguistics, 45, 395–433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagers, M. W., & Phillips, C. (2014). Going the distance: Memory and control processes in active dependency construction. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1274–1304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yano, M., Niikuni, K., Ono, H., Kiyama, S., Sato, M., Tang, A. A. … Koizumi, M. (2017). VOS preference in Truku sentence processing: Evidence from event-related potentials. The Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL2017), Baltimore, Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Yano, M., Yasunaga, D., & Koizumi, M. (2017). Event-related brain indices of gap-filling processing in Kaqchikel. In S. R. Harris (Ed.), Event-related potential (ERP): Methods, outcomes, research insights (pp. 89–122). New York: NOVA Science Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Yasunaga, D., Yano, M., Yasugi, Y., & Koizumi, M. (2015). Is the subject-before-object preference universal? An event-related potential study in the Kaqchikel Mayan language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(9), 1209–1229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar