Cargando…

How Is Sentence Processing Affected by External Semantic and Syntactic Information? Evidence from Event-Related Potentials

BACKGROUND: A crucial question for understanding sentence comprehension is the openness of syntactic and semantic processes for other sources of information. Using event-related potentials in a dual task paradigm, we had previously found that sentence processing takes into consideration task relevan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schacht, Annekathrin, Martín-Loeches, Manuel, Casado, Pilar, Abdel Rahman, Rasha, Sel, Alejandra, Sommer, Werner
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2840031/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20305820
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009742
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: A crucial question for understanding sentence comprehension is the openness of syntactic and semantic processes for other sources of information. Using event-related potentials in a dual task paradigm, we had previously found that sentence processing takes into consideration task relevant sentence-external semantic but not syntactic information. In that study, internal and external information both varied within the same linguistic domain—either semantic or syntactic. Here we investigated whether across-domain sentence-external information would impact within-sentence processing. METHODOLOGY: In one condition, adjectives within visually presented sentences of the structure [Det]-[Noun]-[Adjective]-[Verb] were semantically correct or incorrect. Simultaneously with the noun, auditory adjectives were presented that morphosyntactically matched or mismatched the visual adjectives with respect to gender. FINDINGS: As expected, semantic violations within the sentence elicited N400 and P600 components in the ERP. However, these components were not modulated by syntactic matching of the sentence-external auditory adjective. In a second condition, syntactic within-sentence correctness-variations were combined with semantic matching variations between the auditory and the visual adjective. Here, syntactic within-sentence violations elicited a LAN and a P600 that did not interact with semantic matching of the auditory adjective. However, semantic mismatching of the latter elicited a frontocentral positivity, presumably related to an increase in discourse level complexity. CONCLUSION: The current findings underscore the open versus algorithmic nature of semantic and syntactic processing, respectively, during sentence comprehension.