Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:25:13.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phi-features reloaded: An event-related potential study on person and number agreement processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

ADAM ZAWISZEWSKI ,
MIKEL SANTESTEBAN  and
ITZIAR LAKA
ADAM ZAWISZEWSKI*
Affiliation:
University of the Basque Country
MIKEL SANTESTEBAN
Affiliation:
University of the Basque Country
ITZIAR LAKA
Affiliation:
University of the Basque Country
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Adam Zawiszewski, Department of Linguistics and Basque Studies, Unibertsitateko Ibilbidea 5, Vitoria-Gasteiz 01006, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Linguistic analysis claims that verb agreement is composed of distinct phi-features such as person and number, but are these different phi-features processed distinctly or similarly? We used a sentence grammaticality task to explore the electrophysiological responses of Basque speakers when processing subject–verb person and number phi-feature agreement violations. We generated grammatical structures (grammatical control) and ungrammatical structures in which the verb disagreed with the subject in person (person violation), in number (number violation), or in both person and number features (person+number violation). Behavioral data revealed that, overall, participants were faster and more accurate detecting person and person+number violations than violations involving only number. Event-related potential responses revealed a N400–P600 pattern for all violation types. Person and person+number violations elicited larger P600 effects than number violations. These findings reveal different costs related to the processing of person and number phi-feature agreement and indicate that these features are distinct components of agreement computation.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 601 - 626
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. (2008). The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique génerale. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2007). Minimalism (with Juan Uriagereka). In Ramchand, G. & Reiss, C. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces (pp. 541–573). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., Kretzschmar, F., Tune, S., Wang, L., Genç, S., Philipp, M., et al. (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain and Language, 117, 133–152.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., & Schlesewsky, M. (2009). Processing syntax morphology: A neurocognitive perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carminati, M. N. (2005). Processing reflexes of the feature hierarchy (person > number > gender) and implications for linguistic theory. Lingua, 115, 259–285.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1983). Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. (2009). Morphosyntactic features: The special contribution of the Slavonic languages. In Birzer, S., Finkelstein, M., & Mendoza, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International Perspectives on Slavistics Conference (Regensburg 2006) (pp. 68–74). Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Cysouw, M. (2003). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Studies in typology and linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Rijk, R. (2008). Standard Basque: A progressive grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Díaz, B., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Erdocia, K., Mueller, J., & Laka, I. (2011). On the cross-linguistic validity of electrophysiological correlates of morphosyntactic processing: A study of case and agreement violations in Basque. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24, 357–373.Google Scholar
Dillon, B., Mishler, A., Sloggett, S., & Phillips, C. (2013). Contrasting intrusion profiles for agreement and anaphora: Experimental and modeling evidence. Journal of Memory and Language, 69, 85–103.Google 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.Google Scholar
Frenck-Mestre, C., Osterhout, L., McLaughlin, J., & Foucart, A. (2008). The effect of phonological realization of inflectional morphology on verbal agreement in French: Evidence from ERPs. Acta Psychologica, 128, 528–536.Google Scholar
Friederici, A., Mecklinger, A., Spencer, K., 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, 305–323.Google Scholar
Frisch, S., & Schlesewsky, M. (2001). The N400 reflects problems of thematic hierarchizing. NeuroReport, 12, 3391–3394.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (1995). Who are we? The natural semantics of pronouns. Language Sciences, 17, 99–121.Google Scholar
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55, 468–484.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1966). Language universals with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenhouse, S., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24, 95–112.Google Scholar
Grosvald, M., Gutierrez, E., Hafer, S., & Corina, D. (2012). Dissociating linguistic and non-linguistic gesture processing: Electrophysiological evidence from American Sign Language. Brain and Language, 121, 12–24.Google 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.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Pertersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441.Google Scholar
Harley, H., & Ritter, E. (2002). Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language, 78, 482–526.Google Scholar
Hinojosa, J., Martín-Loeches, M., Casado, P., Muñoz, F., & Rubia, F. (2003). Similarities and differences between phrase structure and morphosyntactic violations in Spanish: An event-related potentials study. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 113–142.Google Scholar
Hirsch, L. J., & Brenner, R. (eds.). (2010). Atlas of EEG in critical care. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1978). Typology and universals of personal pronouns. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of human language: Word structure (Vol. 3, pp. 214–247). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Selected writings: Vol. 2. Word and language. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1933). Essentials of English grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google 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.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203–205.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mancini, S., Molinaro, N., Rizzi, L., & Carreiras, M. (2011). A person is not a number: Discourse involvement in subject–verb agreement computation. Brain Research, 1410, 64–76.Google Scholar
Martín-Loeches, M., Muñoz, F., Casado, P., Melcón, A., & Fernández-Frías, C. (2005). Are the anterior negativities to grammatical violations indexing working memory? Psychophysiology, 42, 508–519.Google Scholar
Meltzer, J. A., & Braun, A. R. (2013). P600-like positivity and left anterior negativity responses are elicited by semantic reversibility in nonanomalous sentences. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 129–148.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Barber, H., & Carreiras, M. (2011). Grammatical agreement processing in reading: ERP findings and future directions. Cortex, 47, 908–930.Google Scholar
Munte, T. F., Heinze, H. J., & Mangun, G. R. (1993). Dissociation of negative ERP components produced by incongruities in grammatical and semantic judgment tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 335–344.Google Scholar
Münte, T., Matzke, M., & Johannes, S. (1997). Brain activity associated with syntactic incongruencies in words and pseudo-words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 318–329.Google Scholar
Nevins, A. (2011). Multiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. ominvorous number. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 29, 939–971.Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Dillon, B., Malhotra, S., & Phillips, C. (2007). The role of feature-number and feature-type in processing Hindi verb agreement violations. Brain Research, 1164, 81–94.Google Scholar
Niedermayer, E., & Lopes da Silva, F. H. (Eds.). (2005). Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications and related fields. New York: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Núñez-Peña, M. I., & Honrubia-Serrano, M. L. (2004). P600 related to rule violation in an arithmetic task. Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 130–141.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., McKinnon, R., Bersick, M., & Corey, V. (1996). On the language specificity of the brain response to syntactic anomalies: Is the syntactic positive shift a member of the P300 family? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 8, 507–526.Google Scholar
Osterhout, L., & Mobley, L. (1995). Event-related brain potentials elicited by failure to agree. Journal of Memory and Language, 34, 739–773.Google Scholar
Paololahti, M., Leino, S., Jokela, M., Kopra, K., & Paavilainen, P. (2005). Event-related potentials suggest early interaction between syntax and semantics during on-line sentence comprehension. Neuroscience Letters, 384, 222–227.Google 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.Google Scholar
Picton, T. W. (1992). The P300 wave of the human event-related potential. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 9, 456–479.Google Scholar
Rezac, M. (2011). Phi-features and the modular architecture of language. Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 81. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150–176.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., & Stowe, L. A. (2004). Memory effects in syntactic ERP tasks. Brain & Cognition, 55, 392–395.Google Scholar
Sabourin, L., Stowe, L. A., & de Haan, G. J. (2006). Transfer effects in learning a second language grammatical gender system. Second Language Research, 22, 1–29.Google Scholar
Sammler, D., Novembre, G., Koelsch, S., & Keller, P. E. (2013). Syntax in a pianist's hand: ERP signatures of “embodied” syntax processing in music. Cortex, 49, 1325–1339.Google Scholar
Sigurdsson, H. Á. (2009). Remarks on features. In Grohman, K. (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory: Features and arguments (interface explorations) (pp. 21–52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silva-Pereyra, J. F., & Carreiras, M. (2007). An ERP study of agreement features in Spanish. Brain Research, 1185, 201–211.Google Scholar
Sørensen, H. S. (1958). Word-classes in modern English. Copenhagen: Gad.Google Scholar
Stassen, L. (1997). Intransitive predication. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Steele, S. (1978). Word order variation: A typological study. In Greenberg, J. H. (Ed.), Universals of human language: Vol. 4. Syntax (pp. 585–623). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, D. (2014). On the left anterior negativity (LAN) in electrophysiological studies of morphosyntactic agreement. Cortex. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Tanner, D., & Van Hell, J. G. (2014). ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic processing. Neuropsychologia, 56, 289–301.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. (2004). Number as person. Paper presented at the 5th Syntax and Semantics Conference, Paris.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1972). Semantic primitives. Frankfurt, Germany: Athenaum.Google Scholar
Wu, Y. J., Athanassiou, S., Dorjee, D., Roberts, M., & Thierry, G. (2012). Brain potentials dissociate emotional and conceptual cross-modal priming of environmental sounds. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 577–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zawiszewski, A., & Friederici, A. D. (2009). Processing canonical and non-canonical sentences in Basque: The case of object–verb agreement as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain Research, 1284, 161–179.Google Scholar