바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.19 No.4

Citation Share

ERP Reflections of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in English Embedded Sentence as a Foreign Language

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2007, v.19 no.4, pp.299-312
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.003


& (2007). ERP Reflections of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in English Embedded Sentence as a Foreign Language. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 19(4), 299-312, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2007.19.4.003

Abstract

This study was conducted to find how to process an ambiguous sentence related with garden-path sentence(GPS) and early closure sentence(ECS), and to reveal the difference of contribution between their syntactic and semantic informations using ERPs. Task to be required is to read silently and respond to the presented English phrase by self-paced reading method. Analyses on behavioral response time show the significant delayed response to the controlled GPS and ECS condition. The current ERP results showed that embedded GPS sentences elicited more enhanced P600 but a slight difference of N400 while ECS sentences were more sensitive to N400 than small difference of P600. These results signify that on-line processing of ambiguity-related embedded sentence can be diverged based on the burden of interpretation of the given ambiguous word. Differential ERPs components in each type of experimental sentences suggest that the difficulty of sentential reanalysis as reflected on P600, and the need of the shift on thematic role indexed as N400 respectively were differently involved in processing English ambiguous-embedded sentences.

keywords
미로문장, 늦은종결문장, 통사적 중의성, 사건관련전위, N400, P600, garden-path sentence, early closure sentence, syntactic ambiguity, Event-related potentials(ERPs), N400, P600

Reference

1.

남기춘, 김태훈, 문성실, 서용원 (1999). 한국어 구문 중의성 해결과정: 용례기반 즉시적 해결. 언어정보 2, 5-25.

2.

정유진, 이윤형, 황유미, 남기춘 (2000). 외국어로서의 영어 구문 중의성 해결 과정, 2000년도 한국인지과학회 춘계학술대회 논문집, 한국인지과학회, 261-266.

3.

Altmann, G. T. M. (1998). Ambiguity in sentence processing. Trends in cognitive sciences 2, 146-152.

4.

Bornkessel, I., McElree, B., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2004). Multi-dimensional contributions to garden path strength: Dissociating phrase structure from case marking. Journal of Memory and Language 51(4), 495-522

5.

Brown C. M., & Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration process in language comprehension: evidence from brain-imaging research. In M. S. Gazzaniga, (Eds.), The Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 881-895.

6.

Coulson, S., King, J. W., & Kutas, M. (1998). Except the unexpected: Event-related brain response to morphosyntactic violations. Language and Cognitive Process 13, 21-58.

7.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

8.

Faust, M. and Lavidor, M. (2003). Semantically convergent and semantically divergent priming in the cerebral hemispheres: lexical decision and semantic judgment. Cognitive Brain Research, 17(3). 585-597.

9.

Frazier, L.(1987). Theories of sentence processing. In j. L. Garfield(Ed.), Modulrarity in knowledge representation and natural language understanding(pp. 291-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Frazier, L. (1989). Against Lexical Generation of Syntax. In W. Marslen-Wilson, Lexical Representation and Process. MIT Press.

11.

Friederici, A. D., Mechlinger, A., Spencer, K. M., Steinhauer, K., Donchin, E. (2001). Syntactic parsing preferences and their on-line revisions: a spatio-temporal analysis of event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research 11(2), 305-323.

12.

Kutas, M. & Hillyard, S. A. (1980a). Event-related brain potentials to semantically inappropriate and surprisingly large words, Biological Psychology, 11, 99-116.

13.

Kutas, M., & Van Patten, C. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In M. Gensbacher, (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 83-144.

14.

Lewis, R. L. (2000). Specifying architectures for language processing: Process, control, and memory in parsing and interpretation. In M. Crocker, M. Pickering, & C. Clifton (Eds.), Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

15.

MacDonald, M. (1992). Working memory constrains on the processing of syntactic ambiguity, Cognitive Psychology 24, 56-98.

16.

Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1995). Event-related potential and language comprehension. In M. D. Rugg and M. G.. H. Coles, (Eds.), Electrophysiology of Mind. Event-related Brain Potentials and Cognition, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 171-215.

17.

Patel, S. H. & Azzam, P. N. (2005). Characterization of N200 and P300: Selected studies of the Event-related potential., International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2(4), 147-154.

18.

Trueswell, J.C.,Tanenhaus,M.,&Garnsey,S.(1994.) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.

19.

Taraban, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1988). Constituent attachment and thematic role assignment in sentence processing: Influences of content-based expectations. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 597-632.

20.

Titone, D. (1998). Hemispheric Differences in Context Sensitivity During Lexical Ambiguity Resolution, Brain and Language, 65(3), 361-394.

21.

Swinney,D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re) condideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 645-659.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy