23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Information Structure Influences Depth of Syntactic Processing: Event-Related Potential Evidence for the Chomsky Illusion

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Information structure facilitates communication between interlocutors by highlighting relevant information. It has previously been shown that information structure modulates the depth of semantic processing. Here we used event-related potentials to investigate whether information structure can modulate the depth of syntactic processing. In question-answer pairs, subtle (number agreement) or salient (phrase structure) syntactic violations were placed either in focus or out of focus through information structure marking. P600 effects to these violations reflect the depth of syntactic processing. For subtle violations, a P600 effect was observed in the focus condition, but not in the non-focus condition. For salient violations, comparable P600 effects were found in both conditions. These results indicate that information structure can modulate the depth of syntactic processing, but that this effect depends on the salience of the information. When subtle violations are not in focus, they are processed less elaborately. We label this phenomenon the Chomsky illusion.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Overlapping dual ERP responses to low cloze probability sentence continuations.

          In 2005, DeLong, Urbach, and Kutas took advantage of the a/an English indefinite article phonological alternation and the sensitivities of the N400 ERP component to show that readers can neurally preactivate individual words of a sentence (including nouns and their prenominal indefinite articles) in a graded fashion with a likelihood estimated from the words' offline probabilities as sentence continuations. Here we report an additional finding from that study: a prolonged ERP frontal positivity to less probable noun continuations. We suggest that this positivity is consistent with hypotheses that additional neural processing may be invoked when highly expected continuations are not encountered in the input and speculate briefly on possible functional correlates. Copyright © 2011 Society for Psychophysiological Research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Semantic focus and sentence comprehension.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The P600 as an indicator of syntactic ambiguity.

              In a study using event-related brain potentials, we show that the current characterization of the P600 component as an indicator of revision processes (reanalysis and repair) in sentence comprehension must be extended to include the recognition of syntactic ambiguity. By comparing the processing of ambiguous and unambiguous sentence constituents in German, we show that the P600 is elicited when our language processing system has syntactic alternatives at a certain item given in the input string. That the P600 is sensitive to syntactic ambiguity adds crucial evidence to current debates in psycholinguistic modelling, as the results clearly favour parallel models of syntactic processing which assume that ambiguity is recognized and costly.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2012
                24 October 2012
                : 7
                : 10
                : e47917
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
                [2 ]Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                University of Bern, Switzerland
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: LW MB YY PH. Performed the experiments: LW MB. Analyzed the data: LW MB. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: LW MB PH. Wrote the paper: LW MB YY PH.

                Article
                PONE-D-11-06660
                10.1371/journal.pone.0047917
                3480462
                23110131
                2c70f49e-6d7d-49b6-81b9-4bdbdf1e6600
                Copyright @ 2012

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 13 April 2011
                : 21 September 2012
                Page count
                Pages: 9
                Funding
                This work was supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)- Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) Joint PhD Training Program ( http://www.knaw.nl/Pages/DEF/27/259.bGFuZz1FTkc.html). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Neuroscience
                Cognition
                Behavioral Neuroscience
                Neurolinguistics
                Neuropsychology
                Medicine
                Mental Health
                Psychology
                Neuropsychology
                Neurology
                Cognitive Neurology
                Social and Behavioral Sciences
                Linguistics
                Psycholinguistics
                Syntax
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Experimental Psychology
                Neuropsychology

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article