Advertisement

Diagnosis and Reanalysis: Two Processing Aspects the Brain May Differentiate

  • Angela D. Friederici
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 21)

Abstract

A two stage parsing system is proposed in which the first stage is compatible with the initial stage of garden-path models held responsible for the build-up of the simplest structure justified by the input. The second stage consists of two subprocesses taking place once the initial structure has to be revised. The initial subprocess comprises the diagnosis of the need for reanalysis, the subsequent subprocess represents the actual reanalysis, i.e., the structural alterations necessary to recover from the structure that has been identified as being incorrect. On the basis of findings from studies using event-related brain potential measures it is hypothesized that these two subprocesses may be reflected in two different parameters of the positivity correlated with the processing of garden-path sentences, namely its onset latency and its duration.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Relative Clause Revision Process Complement Clause Relative Pronoun 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bader, M. & Lasser, I. 1994. German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, 225–242. New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Blumstein, S.E., Milberg, W., & Shrier, R. 1982. Semantic processing in aphasia: Evidence from an auditory lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 17, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Vincenzi, M. 1991. Syntactic Parsing Strategies in Italian. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fodor, J.D. 1996. Garden path recovery: The grammatical dependency principle. Paper presented at Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing (AMLaP) Conference 1996, Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. Fodor, J.D. & Inoue, A. 1994. The diagnosis and cure of garden paths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23, 407–434.Google Scholar
  6. Frazier, L. 1978. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Distributed by the Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  7. Frazier, L. 1987. Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frazier, L. 1990. Exploring the architecture of the language processing system. In G.T. Altmann (ed.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 409–433.Google Scholar
  9. Frazier, L. & Flores d’Arcais, G.B. 1989. Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frazier, L. & Rayner, K. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 178–210.Google Scholar
  11. Friederici, A.D. 1983. Aphasics’ perception of words in sentential context: Some real-time processing evidence. Neuropsychologia, 21, 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 259281.Google Scholar
  13. Friederici, A.D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. 1996. The temporal structure of syntactic parsing: Early and late effects elicited by syntactic anomalies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 5, 1219–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friederici, A.D. & Mecklinger, A. 1996. Syntactic parsing as revealed by brain responses: First pass and second pass parsing processes. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 25, 157176.Google Scholar
  15. Friederici, A.D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. 1993. Event-related brain potentials during natural speech processing: Effects of semantic, morphological and syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, E.A.F. 1991. A Computational Theory of Human Linguistic Processing: Memory Limitations and Processing Breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Available as Center for Machine Translation Technical Report CMU-CMT-91–125.Google Scholar
  17. Gorrell, P. 1987. Studies in human syntactic processing: Ranked-parallel versus serial models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.Google Scholar
  18. Gorrell, P. 1995. Syntax and Parsing. Cambridge, MA: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gorrell, P. 1996. Parsing theory and phrase-order variation in German V2 clauses. Journal of Psychologistic Research, 25, 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gunter, T.C., Vos, S.H., & Mulder, G. 1995. Syntactic violations and ERPs: P600 or P3b? Paper presented at Eighth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  21. Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. 1993. The syntactic positive shift as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hemforth, B. 1993. Kognitives Parsing: Repräsentation and Verarbeitung sprachlichen Wissens. Sankt Augustin: Infix.Google Scholar
  23. Hickok, G. 1993. Parallel parsing: Evidence from reactivation in garden-path sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 22, 239–250.Google Scholar
  24. Inoue, A. & Fodor, J.D. 1995. Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (eds.), Japanese Sentence Processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 6–63.Google Scholar
  25. Kutas, M. & Hillyard, St.A. 1983. Event-related brain potentials to grammatical errors and semantic anomalies. Memory and Cognition, 11, 539–550.Google Scholar
  26. Kutas, M. & Van Petten, C. 1988. Event-related potential studies of language. In P.K. Ackles, J.R. Jennings, & M.G.H. Coles (eds.), Advances in psychophysiology, Vol. 3, 139–187. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  27. MacDonald, M.C. 1994. Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacDonald, M.C., Perlmutter, N.J., & Seidenberg, M. S. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mecklinger, A., Schriefers, H., Steinhauer, K., & Friederici, A.D. 1995. Processing relative clauses varying on syntactic and semantic dimensions: An analysis with event-related potentials. Memory and Cognition, 23, 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Münte, T.F., Heinze, H.J., & Mangun, G.R. 1993. Dissociation of brain activity related to syntactic and semantic aspects of language. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Neville, H.J., Nicol, J., Barss, A., Forster, K., & Garrett, M. 1991. Syntactically based sentence processing classes: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P.J. 1992. Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language31, 785–804.Google Scholar
  33. Osterhout, L. & Holcomb, P.J. 1993. Event-related potentials and syntactic anomaly: Evidence of anomaly detection during the perception of continuous speech. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 413–437.Google Scholar
  34. Osterhout, L., Holcomb, P.J., & Swinney, D.A. 1994. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 768–803.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Rösler, F., Friederici, A.D., Pütz, P., & Hahne, A. 1993. Event-related brain potentials while encountering semantic and syntactic constraint violations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 345–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Krems, J. 1996. Preferences for grammatical functions in the processing of locally ambiguous wh-questions in German. Manuscript, Department of Linguistics, University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
  38. Schriefers, H., Friederici, A.D., & Kühn, K. 1995. The processing of local ambiguous relative clauses in German. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 499–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Travis, L. 1991. Parameters of phrase structure and verb-second phenomena. In R. Freidin (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 339–364.Google Scholar
  40. Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M., & Garnsey, S. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Meaning and Language, 33, 285–318.Google Scholar
  41. Van Petten, C. & Kutas, M. 1991. Electrophysiological evidence for the flexibility of lexical processing. In G.B. Simpson (ed.), Understanding word and sentence. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 129–174.Google Scholar
  42. Zurif, E., Swinney, D., Prather, P., Solomon, J., & Bushell, C. 1993. An on-line analysis of syntactic processing in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 45, 448464.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela D. Friederici
    • 1
  1. 1.Max-Planck-Institute of Cognitive NeuroscienceLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations