Meaning composition in minimal phrasal contexts: distinct ERP effects of intensionality and denotation

References

• Baggio, G. (2012). Selective alignment of brain responses by task demands during semantic processing. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 655–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.01.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggio, G. (2018). Meaning in the brain. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baggio, G., Choma, T., Van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Coercion and compositionality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(9), 2131–2140. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggio, G., & Hagoort, P. (2011). The balance between memory and unification in semantics: A dynamic account of the N400. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1338–1367. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.542671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggio, G., Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2016). Semantics and cognition. In M. Aloni, & P. Dekker (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of formal semantics (pp. 756–774). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139236157.025
   Google Scholar
• Baggio, G., Van Lambalgen, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). Computing and recomputing discourse models: An ERP study. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2008.02.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bambini, V., Bertini, C., Schaeken, W., Stella, A., & Di Russo, F. (2016). Disentangling metaphor from context: An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00559
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bemis, D. K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2011). Simple composition: A Magnetoencephalography investigation into the comprehension of minimal linguistic phrases. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(8), 2801. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5003-10.2011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bemis, D. K., & Pylkkänen, L. (2013). Basic linguistic composition recruits the left anterior temporal lobe and left angular gyrus during both listening and reading. Cerebral Cortex, 23(8), 1859–1873. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhs170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanco-Elorrieta, E., & Pylkkänen, L. (2016). Composition of complex numbers: Delineating the computational role of the left anterior temporal lobe. NeuroImage, 124, 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.08.049
   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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.05.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer, H., Crocker, M. W., Venhuizen, N. J., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017). A Neurocomputational model of the N400 and the P600 in language processing. Cognitive Science, 41(S6), 1318–1352. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12461
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Calloway, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (2017). Integrative and predictive processes in text reading: The N400 across a sentence boundary. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 32(8), 1001–1016. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2017.1279340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, S., & Fauconnier, G. (1999). Fake guns and stone lions: Conceptual blending and privative adjectives. In B. Fox, D. Jurafsky, & L. Michaelis (Eds.), Cognition and Function in language (pp. 143–158). CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Crowley, K. E., & Colrain, I. M. (2004). A review of the evidence for P2 being an independent component process: Age, sleep and modality. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(4), 732–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.11.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delogu, F., Brouwer, H., & Crocker, M. W. (2019). Event-related potentials index lexical retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) during language comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 135, 103569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2019.05.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Pinal, G. (2015). Dual content semantics, privative adjectives, and dynamic compositionality. Semantics & Pragmatics, 8(7), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.8.7
   Google Scholar
• Del Prato, P., & Pylkkänen, L. (2014). MEG evidence for conceptual combination but not numeral quantification in the left anterior temporal lobe during language production. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 524. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4045243/ https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domaneschi, F., Canal, P., Masia, V., Vallauri, E. L., & Bambini, V. (2018). N400 and P600 modulation in presupposition accommodation: The effect of different trigger types. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 45, 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Embick, D., & Poeppel, D. (2015). Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language: Correlational, integrated, and explanatory neurolinguistics. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.980750
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D. (2007). Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 44(4), 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00531.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (1998). Diagnosis and reanalysis: Two processing aspects the brain may differentiate. In J. D. Fodor, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), Reanalysis in sentence processing (pp. 177–200). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(2), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A. D. (2017). Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hagen, K., Johannessen, B., & Nøklestad, A. (2000). A constraint-based tagger for Norwegian. In C.-E. Lindberg, & S. Nordahl Lund (Eds.), 17th Scandinavian conference of linguistics, vol. I (pp. 31–48). Working Papers in Language and Communication, I (19).
   Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P. (2003). How the brain solves the binding problem for language: A neurocomputational model of syntactic processing. Neuroimage, 20, S18–S29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Baggio, G., & Willems, R. M. (2009). Semantic unification. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive Neurosciences (4th ed., pp. 819–836). MIT press.
   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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690969308407585
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304(5669), 438. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamp, H., & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57(2), 129–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277 doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(94)00659-9
   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(2), 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. (2007). Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research, 1146, 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R., Choi, A., Cohn, N., Paczynski, M., & Jackendoff, R. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of complement coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(12), 2685–2701. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21333
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., & Federmeier, K. D. (2011). Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 621–647. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). Lmertest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambalgen, M., & Hamm, F. (2005). Moschovakis's notion of meaning as applied to linguistics. In M. Baaz, S. Friedman, & J. Krajíček (Eds.), Logic colloquium ‘01 ( Lecture Notes in Logic, pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316755860.011
   Google Scholar
• Lau, E. F., Namyst, A., Fogel, A., & Delgado, T. (2016). A direct comparison of N400 effects of predictability and incongruity in adjective-noun combination. Collabra, 2(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.40
   Google Scholar
• Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG and MEG data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164(1), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. E., & Baggio, G. (2019). Modeling meaning composition from formalism to mechanisms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1791), 20190298. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0298
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McNally, L., & Boleda, G. (2004) Relational adjectives as properties of kinds. In O. Bonami, P. Cabredo (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 5. 5eme Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique à Paris, October 2–4, 2003, Paris, pp. 179–196.
   Google Scholar
• Michalon, O., & Baggio, G. (2019). Meaning-driven syntactic predictions in a parallel processing architecture: Theory and algorithmic modeling of ERP effects. Neuropsychologia, 131, 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moschovakis, Y. N. (1994). Sense and denotation as algorithm and value. Lecture Notes in Logic, 2, 210–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316718254.015.
   Google Scholar
• Nayak, N., Kowarsky, M., Angeli, G., & Manning, C. D. (2014). A dictionary of nonsubsective adjectives (Technical Report CSTR 2014-04), Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, October.
   Google Scholar
• Neufeld, C., Kramer, S. E., Lapinskaya, N., Heffner, C. C., Malko, A., & Lau, E. F. (2016). The electrophysiology of basic phrase Building. PLoS ONE, 11(10), Article e0158446. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5053407/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Barr, D. J., Bartolozzi, F., Busch-Moreno, S., Darley, E., Donaldson, D. I., … Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S. (2020). Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: Evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1791), 20180522. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nieuwland, M. S., Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. (2007). Who are you talking about? Tracking discourse-level referential processing with event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.228
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oostenveld, R., Fries, P., Maris, E., & Schoffelen, J. M. (2011). FieldTrip: Open source software for advanced analysis of MEG, EEG, and invasive electrophysiological data. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2011, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/156869
   PubMed 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(6), 785–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90039-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paczynski, M., Jackendoff, R., & Kuperberg, G. (2014). When events change their nature: The neurocognitive mechanisms underlying aspectual coercion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(9), 1905–1917. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Partee, B. (2009). Formal semantics, lexical semantics, and compositionality: The puzzle of privative adjectives. Philologia, 7, 11–23.
   Google Scholar
• Partee, B. (2010). Privative adjectives: Subsective plus coercion. In R. Bauerle, U. Reyle, & T. Zimmermann (Eds.), Presuppositions and discourse: Essays offered to Hans Kamp, volume 21 of current research in semantics/pragmatics interface (pp. 273–285). Emerald Group Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Partee, B. H. (2007). Compositionality and coercion in semantics: The dynamics of adjective meaning. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 145–161). The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L. (2016). Composition of complex meaning: Interdisciplinary perspectives on the left anterior temporal lobe. In G. Hickok, & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 621–631). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L., Brennan, J., & Bemis, D. K. (2011). Grounding the cognitive neuroscience of semantics in linguistic theory. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(9), 1317–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.527490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. (2013). When combinatorial processing results in reconceptualization: Toward a new approach of compositionality. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(677). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0179-6
   Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P. (2014). Content and context in incremental processing: “The ham sandwich” revisited. Philosophical Studies, 168(1), 151–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-013-0179-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumacher, P., Brandt, P., & Weiland-Breckle, H. (2018). Online processing of “real” and “fake”: The cost of being Too Strong. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. Weidman Sassoon (Eds.), The semantics of Gradability, Vagueness, and Scale structure: Experimental Perspectives (pp. 93–111). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Segaert, K., Mazaheri, A., & Hagoort, P. (2018). Binding language: Structuring sentences through precisely timed oscillatory mechanisms. European Journal of Neuroscience, 48(7), 2651–2662. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.13816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, S. L., & Hickok, G. (2016). The neurobiology of language. In G. Hickok, & S. L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 3–9). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szymanik, J. (2016). Quantifiers and cognition: Logical and computational Perspectives. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J. (2009). The neuropragmatics of “simple” utterance comprehension: An ERP review. In R. Breheny, U. Sauerland, & K. Yatsushiro (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: From experiment to theory (pp. 276–316). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Westerlund, M., Kastner, I., Al Kaabi, M., & Pylkkänen, L. (2015). The LATL as locus of composition: MEG evidence from English and Arabic. Brain and Language, 141, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.12.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westerlund, M., & Pylkkänen, L. (2017). How does the left anterior temporal lobe contribute to conceptual combination? Interdisciplinary perspectives. In J. A. Hampton, & Y. Winter (Eds.), Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology (pp. 269–290). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., & Pylkkänen, L. (2015). The interplay of composition and concept specificity in the left anterior temporal lobe: An MEG study. NeuroImage, 111, 228–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.02.028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziegler, J., & Pylkkänen, L. (2016). Scalar adjectives and the temporal unfolding of semantic composition: An MEG investigation. Neuropsychologia, 89, 161–171. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.06.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar