Chapter published in:
Typical and Impaired Processing in Morphosyntax
Edited by Vincent Torrens
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 64] 2020
► pp. 75–90

Brain responses elicited by implausible fillers and filled object gaps in German

| University of Potsdam
| University of Potsdam
We report the results from two experiments on the processing of filler-gap dependencies in German using event-related potentials (ERPs). Our aim was to identify and isolate brain responses linked to semantic vs. syntactic integration processes. Using maximally parallel stimulus materials, we examined ERPs at the subcategorising verb in sentences containing either a semantically implausible direct object filler or a filled direct object gap. Whilst the processing difficulty associated with trying to integrate an implausible filler with its subcategoriser was reflected in an enhanced N400 response, encountering a filled preverbal object gap elicited a P600 response at the verb but no negativity. These results confirm that the semantic and syntactic integration of displaced constituents are dissociable and qualitatively distinct processes.
Keywords: ERPs, filler-gap dependency, plausibility, filled gaps, German
Published online: 21 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.64.04fel
References

References

Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
(1993) The CELEX Lexical Database (CD ROM). Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bach, E.
(1962) The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Language, 38, 263–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M.
(2008) An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension. Brain Research Reviews, 59, 55–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen H., & Featherston S.
(1999) Antecedent priming at trace positions: Evidence from German scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 415–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clifton, C. Jr., & Frazier, L.
(1989) Comprehending sentences with long-distance dependencies. In M. Tanenhaus & G. Carlson (Eds.), Linguistic structure in language processing (pp. 273–317). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dallas, A., DeDe, G., & Nicol, J.
(2013) An event‐related potential (ERP) investigation of filler‐gap processing in native and second language speakers. Language Learning, 63, 766–799. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Felser, C., Clahsen, H., & Münte, T. F.
(2003) Storage and integration in the processing of filler-gap dependencies: An ERP study of topicalization and wh-movement in German. Brain and Language, 87, 345–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D.
(2002) Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D.
(2002) Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A. D., & Frisch, S.
(2000) Verb argument structure processing: The role of verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 476–507. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garnsey, S. M., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Chapman, R. M.
(1989) Evoked potentials and the study of sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18, 51–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson E., & Hickok, G.
(1993) Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 147–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., & Warren, T.
(2004) Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax, 7, 55–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J.
(1993) The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 439–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A., Bradley, E., & Bradley, C.
(2012) Working memory effects of gap-predictions in normal adults: An event-related potentials study. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 425–438. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hestvik, A., Maxfield, N., Schwartz, R. G., & Shafer, V.
(2007) Brain responses to filled gaps. Brain and Language, 100, 301–316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jessen, A., & Felser, C.
(2019) Reanalysing object gaps during non-native sentence processing: Evidence from ERPs. Second Language Research, 35, 285–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jessen, A., Festman, J., Boxell, O., & Felser, C.
(2017) Native and non-native speakers’ brain responses to filled indirect object gaps. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 46, 1319–1338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaan, E., Harris, A., Gibson, E., & Holcomb, P.
(2000) The P600 as an index of syntactic integration difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes, 15, 159–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mak, W. M., Vonk, W., & Schriefers, H.
(2002) The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 50–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G.
(2001) Order preservation, parallel movement, and the emergence of the unmarked. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, & S. Vikner (Eds.), Optimality-theoretic syntax (pp. 279–313). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nakano, Y., Felser, C., & Clahsen, H.
(2002) Antecedent priming at trace positions in Japanese long-distance scrambling. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 531–571. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, J.
(1993) Reconsidering reactivation. In G. Altmann & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Cognitive models of speech processing: The second Sperlonga meeting (pp. 321–350). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J.
(1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M., & Barry, G.
(1991) Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, C., Kazanina, N., & Abada, S. H.
(2005) ERP effects of the processing of syntactic long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 407–428. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rommers, J., & Federmeier, K. D.
(2017) Electrophysiological methods. In A. M. B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide (pp. 247–265). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., & Drury, J. E.
(2012) On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies. Brain and Language, 120, 135–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A.
(1986) Parsing wh-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language and Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tanner, D., Norton, J. J., Morgan-Short, K., & Luck, S. J.
(2016) On high-pass filter artifacts (they’re real) and baseline correction (it’s a good idea) in ERP/ERMF analysis. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 265, 166–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van de Koot, H., Silva, R., Felser, C., & Sato, M.
(2015) Does Dutch A-scrambling involve movement? Evidence from antecedent priming. The Linguistic Review, 32, 739–776. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Herten, M., Kolk, H., & Chwilla, D.
(2005) An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies. Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 241–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar