Effects of Verbal Event Structure on Online Thematic Role Assignment

Overview

Journal J Psycholinguist Res

Publisher Springer

Specialty Psychology

Date 2011 Nov 29

PMID 22120140

Citations 4

Authors

Evie Malaia

Ronnie B Wilbur

Christine Weber-Fox

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Event structure describes the relationships between general semantics (Aktionsart) of the verb and its syntactic properties, separating verbs into two classes: telic verbs, which denote change of state events with an inherent end-point or boundary (catch, rescue), and atelic, which refer to homogenous activities (tease, host). As telic verbs describe events, in which the internal argument (Patient) is affected, we hypothesized that processing of telic verb template would activate syntactic position of the Patient during sentence comprehension. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 20 English speakers, who read sentences with reduced Object relative clauses, in which the verb was either telic or atelic. ERPs in relative clauses diverged on the definite article preceding the Agent: the atelic condition was characterized by larger amplitude negativity at the N100. Such processing differences are explained by activation of the syntactic position for the Patient by the event structure template of telic verbs.

Citing Articles

Predictive Processing in Sign Languages: A Systematic Review.

Radosevic T, Malaia E, Milkovic M Front Psychol. 2022; 13:805792.

PMID: 35496220 PMC: 9047358. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.805792.

Psycholinguistic mechanisms of classifier processing in sign language.

Krebs J, Malaia E, Wilbur R, Roehm D J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020; 47(6):998-1011.

PMID: 33211523 PMC: 8272559. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000958.

Beyond Verb Meaning: Experimental Evidence for Incremental Processing of Semantic Roles and Event Structure.

Philipp M, Graf T, Kretzschmar F, Primus B Front Psychol. 2017; 8:1806.

PMID: 29163250 PMC: 5670351. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01806.

Neural bases of syntax-semantics interface processing.

Malaia E, Newman S Cogn Neurodyn. 2015; 9(3):317-29.

PMID: 25972980 PMC: 4427590. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-015-9328-2.

References

Ferretti T, Rohde H, Kehler A, Crutchley M . Verb aspect, event structure, and coreferential processing. J Mem Lang. 2012; 61(2):191-205. PMC: 3371268. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.001. View

Dikker S, Rabagliati H, Pylkkanen L . Sensitivity to syntax in visual cortex. Cognition. 2009; 110(3):293-321. PMC: 2709501. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.09.008. View

Hagoort P, Hald L, Bastiaansen M, Petersson K . Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science. 2004; 304(5669):438-41. DOI: 10.1126/science.1095455. View

Kaan E, Wijnen F, Swaab T . Gapping: Electrophysiological evidence for immediate processing of "missing" verbs in sentence comprehension. Brain Lang. 2004; 89(3):584-92. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2004.02.004. View

Bornkessel I, Schlesewsky M . The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychol Rev. 2006; 113(4):787-821. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787. View

Madden C, Zwaan R . How does verb aspect constrain event representations?. Mem Cognit. 2003; 31(5):663-72. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196106. View

van Berkum J, Koornneef A, Otten M, Nieuwland M . Establishing reference in language comprehension: an electrophysiological perspective. Brain Res. 2006; 1146:158-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.06.091. View

Kuperberg G, Sitnikova T, Caplan D, Holcomb P . Electrophysiological distinctions in processing conceptual relationships within simple sentences. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2003; 17(1):117-29. DOI: 10.1016/s0926-6410(03)00086-7. View

Malaia E, Wilbur R, Weber-Fox C . ERP evidence for telicity effects on syntactic processing in garden-path sentences. Brain Lang. 2008; 108(3):145-58. PMC: 2720995. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.09.003. View

10.

Jackendoff R . Parts and boundaries. Cognition. 1991; 41(1-3):9-45. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(91)90031-x. View

11.

Kutas M, Hillyard S . Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association. Nature. 1984; 307(5947):161-3. DOI: 10.1038/307161a0. View

12.

Just M, Carpenter P, KELLER T, Eddy W, Thulborn K . Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science. 1996; 274(5284):114-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.274.5284.114. View

13.

Munte T, Wieringa B, Weyerts H, Szentkuti A, Matzke M, Johannes S . Differences in brain potentials to open and closed class words: class and frequency effects. Neuropsychologia. 2000; 39(1):91-102. DOI: 10.1016/s0028-3932(00)00095-6. View

14.

Frisch S, Schlesewsky M . The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. Neuroreport. 2001; 12(15):3391-4. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200110290-00048. View

15.

Neville H, Nicol J, Barss A, Forster K, Garrett M . Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related brain potentials. J Cogn Neurosci. 2013; 3(2):151-65. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.1991.3.2.151. View

16.

Lai G, Mangels J . Cueing effects on semantic and perceptual categorization: ERPs reveal differential effects of validity as a function of processing stage. Neuropsychologia. 2007; 45(9):2038-50. PMC: 2099310. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.02.013. View

17.

Friedmann N, Taranto G, Shapiro L, Swinney D . The Leaf Fell (the Leaf): The Online Processing of Unaccusatives. Linguist Inq. 2012; 39(3):355-377. PMC: 3399662. DOI: 10.1162/ling.2008.39.3.355. View

18.

Hagoort P . Interplay between syntax and semantics during sentence comprehension: ERP effects of combining syntactic and semantic violations. J Cogn Neurosci. 2003; 15(6):883-99. DOI: 10.1162/089892903322370807. View

19.

Kuperberg G, Kreher D, Sitnikova T, Caplan D, Holcomb P . The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: evidence from event-related potentials. Brain Lang. 2006; 100(3):223-37. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006. View

20.

Weckerly J, Kutas M . An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of object relative sentences. Psychophysiology. 1999; 36(5):559-70. View