Advertisement

Event Knowledge and Verb Knowledge Predict Sensitivity to Different Aspects of Semantic Anomalies in Aphasia

  • Michelle Colvin
  • Tessa Warren
  • Michael Walsh DickeyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)

Abstract

There has been considerable debate as to whether linguistic and world knowledge are dissociable and make distinguishable contributions to language comprehension (e.g. Hagoort et al. in Science 304:438–441, 2004; Warren & McConnell in Bulletin & Review 14:770–775, 2007). To address this question, we related people with aphasia’s performance on independent tests of event knowledge and linguistic knowledge to their sensitivity to violations of selectional restrictions and possibility in a self-paced reading task, using materials from Warren et al. (Lang Cognit Neurosci 30(8):1–8, 2015). Results suggested that better performance on a task designed to index verb argument structure knowledge predicted increased sensitivity to selectional restriction violations, whereas better performance on a task designed to index event knowledge predicted increased sensitivity to possibility violations. Consistent with previous findings, this pattern provides evidence that behavioral responses to violations of linguistic and event knowledge may diverge. The relationships between sensitivity to violations and task performance additionally support the assumption that selectional restrictions are a feature of verb knowledge, whereas possibility is a feature of event knowledge.

References

  1. Bak, T. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2003). Kissing and dancing–a test to distinguish the lexical and conceptual contributions to noun/verb and action/object dissociation. Preliminary results in patients with frontotemporal dementia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 16(2), 169–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0911-6044(02)00011-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bates, D., Maechler, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cho-Reyes, S., & Thompson, C. K. (2012). Verbs and sentence production and comprehension in aphasia: Northwestern assessment of verbs and sentences (NAVS). Aphasiology, 26(10), 1250–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1080/026887038.2012.693584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky, D. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dickey, M. W., & Warren, T. (2015). The influence of event-related knowledge on verb-argument processing in aphasia. Neuropsychologia, 67, 63–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillon, B., Clifton, C., & Frazier, L. (2014). Pushed aside: Parentheticals, memory, and processing. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 29(4), 483–498.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2013.866684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and montague grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in generative semantics and in Montagues’s PTQ. Dordrecht: D. Reidle.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.  https://doi.org/10.2307/415037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dresang, H. C., Dickey, M. W., & Warren, T. (submitted). Semantic memory for objects and events: A novel test of event-related conceptual semantic knowledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferretti, T. R., Kutas, M., & McRae, K. (2007). Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(1), 182–196.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 516–547.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  14. Frazier, L. (1987). Theories of sentence processing. In J. L. Garfield (Ed.), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding (pp. 291–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Frazier, L., Carlson, K., & Clifton, C. (2006). Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(6), 244–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frazier, L., & Clifton, C. (1996). Construal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution (1st ed., pp. 275–293). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Katz, J. J., & Fodor, J. A. (1963). The structure of a semantic theory. Language, 39(2), 170–210.  https://doi.org/10.2307/411200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kertesz, A. (2006). Western aphasia battery-revised. Toronto: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, M., & Thompson, C. K. (2000). Patterns of comprehension and production of nouns and verbs in agrammatism: Implications for lexical organization. Brain and Language, 74(1), 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim, M., & Thompson, C. K. (2004). Verb deficits in Alzheimer’s disease and agrammaticism: Implications for lexical organization. Brain and Language, 88(1), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00147-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lei, C., Dresang, H., Holcomb, M., Warren, T., & Dickey, M. W. (2016). Neural bases of semantic-memory deficits for events. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3026–3031).Google Scholar
  23. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 913–934.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., & Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2–3), 137–176.  https://doi.org/10.1080/016909697386835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McRae, K., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., & Ferretti, T. (2005). A basis for generating expectancies for verbs from nouns. Memory & Cognition, 33(7), 1174–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McRae, K., & Matsuki, K. (2009). People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(6), 1417–1429.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00174.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milburn, E., Warren, T., & Dickey, M. W. (2016). World knowledge affects prediction as quickly as selectional restrictions: Evidence from the visual world paradigm. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31(4), 536–548.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1117117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paczynski, M., & Kuperberg, G. R. (2012). Multiple influences of semantic memory on sentence processing: Distinct effects of semantic relatedness on violations of real-world event/state knowledge and animacy selection restrictions. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 426–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pylkkänen, L., Oliveri, B., & Smart, A. J. (2009). Semantics vs. world knowledge in prefrontal cortex. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(9), 1313–1334.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960903120176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistic computing [Computer software]. 536 Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistic Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
  32. Rayner, K., Warren, T., Juhasz, B., & Liversedge, S. (2004). The effects of plausibility on eye movements in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(6), 1290–1301.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.6.1290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime: User’s guide. Psychology Software Incorporated.Google Scholar
  34. Swinburn, K., Porter, G., & Howard, D. (2004). CAT: Comprehensive aphasia test. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Warren, T., & McConnell, K. (2007). Investigating effects of selectional restriction violations and plausibility violation severity on eye movements in reading. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 770–775.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warren, T., McConnell, K., & Rayner, K. (2008). Effects of context on eye movements when reading about plausible and impossible events. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(4), 1001–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warren, T., Milburn, E., Patson, N. D., & Dickey, M. W. (2015). Comprehending the impossible: What role do selectional restriction violations play? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 30(8), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1047458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Willits, J. A., Amato, M. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2015). Language knowledge and event knowledge in language use. Cognitive Psychology, 78, 1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michelle Colvin
    • 1
  • Tessa Warren
    • 1
  • Michael Walsh Dickey
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Communication Science and DisordersUniversity of Pittsburgh, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare SystemPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations