Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Nieuwland, M.; Van Berkum, J. (2006)
Languages: English
Types: Article
In linguistic theories of how sentences encode meaning, a distinction is often made between the context-free rule-based combination of lexical–semantic features of the words within a sentence (‘‘semantics’’), and the contributions made by wider context (‘‘pragmatics’’). In psycholinguistics, this distinction has led to the view that listeners initially compute a local, context-independent meaning of a phrase or sentence before relating it to the wider context. An important aspect of such a two-step perspective on interpretation is that local semantics cannot initially be overruled by global contextual factors. In two spoken-language event-related potential experiments, we tested the viability of this claim by examining whether discourse context can overrule the impact of the core lexical–semantic feature animacy, considered to be an innate organizing principle of cognition. Two-step models of interpretation predict that verb–object animacy violations, as in ‘‘The girl comforted the clock,’’ will always perturb the unfolding interpretation process, regardless of wider context. When presented in isolation, such anomalies indeed elicit a clear N400 effect, a sign of interpretive problems. However, when the anomalies were embedded in a supportive context (e.g., a girl talking to a clock about his depression), this N400 effect disappeared completely. Moreover, given a suitable discourse context (e.g., a story about an amorous peanut), animacyviolating predicates (‘‘the peanut was in love’’) were actually processed more easily than canonical predicates (‘‘the peanut was salted’’). Our findings reveal that discourse context can immediately overrule local lexical–semantic violations, and therefore suggest that language comprehension does not involve an initially context-free semantic analysis.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264.
    • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
    • Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In E. Bates & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (2000). Postlexical integration processes in language comprehension: Evidence from brain-imaging research. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (2nd ed., pp. 881-895). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1-34.
    • Carpenter, P. A., Miyake, A., & Just, M. A. (1995). Language comprehension: Sentence and discourse processing. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 91-100.
    • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Chwilla, D. J., Kolk, H. H. J., & Mulder, G. (2000). Mediated priming in the lexical decision task: Evidence from event-related potentials and reaction time. Journal of Memory and Language, 42, 314-341.
    • Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    • Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Forster, K. (1979). Levels of processing and the structure of the language processor. In: W. E. Cooper & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Garnham, A. (1981). Mental models as representations of text. Memory and Cognition, 9, 560-565.
    • Gelman, S. A., & Opfer, J. E. (2002). Development of the animate-inanimate distinction. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 151-166). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    • Gibbs, R. W. (1984). Literal meaning and psychological theory. Cognitive Science, 8, 275-304.
    • Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163-189.
    • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3, Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.
    • Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438-441.
    • Hess, D. J., Foss, D. J., & Carroll, P. (1995). Effects of global and local context on lexical processing during language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 62-82.
    • Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    • Jones, D. (1999). Evolutionary psychology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 553-575.
    • Jung, T. P., Makeig, S., Westerfield, M., Townsend, J., Courchesne, E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (2000). Removal of eye activity artifacts from visual event-related potentials in normal and clinical subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology, 111, 1745-1758.
    • Katz, J. (1972). Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.
    • Kempson, R. (2001). Pragmatics: Language and communication. In M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), Handbook of linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
    • Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207, 203-205.
    • Kutas, M., & Van Petten, C. K. (1994). Psycholinguistics electrified: Event-related brain potential investigations. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 83-143). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    • Langacker, R. W. (1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science, 10, 1-40.
    • MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
    • Makeig, S., Jung, T.-P., Bell, A. J., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1997). Blind separation of auditory event-related brain responses into independent components. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 94, 10979-10984.
    • Marslen Wilson, W., & Tyler, L. K. (1980). The temporal structure of spoken language understanding. Cognition, 8, 1-71.
    • McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1998). Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25-42.
    • Millis, K. K., & Just, M. A. (1994). The influence of connectives on sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 128-147.
    • Mu¨nte, T. F., Schiltz, K., & Kutas, M. (1998). When temporal terms belie conceptual order. Nature, 395, 71-73.
    • Nieuwland, M. S., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2005). Testing the limits of the semantic illusion phenomenon: ERPs reveal temporary change deafness in discourse comprehension. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 691-701.
    • Otten, M., & Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2005). The influence of message-based predictability and lexical association on the N400 effect. Annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society (CNS-2005), New York, April 9-12.
    • Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works: New York: W. W. Norton.
    • Rayner, K., Pacht, J. M., & Duffy, S. A. (1994). Effects of prior encounter and global discourse bias on the processing of lexically ambiguous words: Evidence from eye fixations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 527-544.
    • Rugg, M. D., & Coles, M. G. H. (Eds.) (1995). Electrophysiology of mind: Event-related brain potentials and cognition. London: Oxford University Press.
    • Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    • Sedivy, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., Chambers, C. G., & Carlson, G. N. (1999). Achieving incremental semantic interpretation through contextual representation. Cognition, 71, 109-147.
    • St. George, M., Mannes, S., & Hoffman, J. E. (1994). Global semantic expectancy and language comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 6, 70-83.
    • St. George, M., Mannes, S., & Hoffman, J. E. (1997). Individual differences in inference generation: An ERP analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 776-787.
    • Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268, 1632-1634.
    • Temple, J. G., & Honeck, R. P. (1999). Proverb comprehension: The primacy of literal meaning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 28, 41-70.
    • Till, R. E., Mross, E. F., & Kintsch, W. (1988). Time course of priming for associate and inference words in a discourse context. Memory and Cognition, 16, 283-298.
    • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, Jr., L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 155-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    • Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    • Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. M. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 285-318.
    • Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2004). Sentence comprehension in a wider discourse: Can we use ERPs to keep track of things? In M. Carreiras & C. Clifton, Jr. (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 229-270). New York: Psychology Press.
    • Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 443-467.
    • Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1999). Semantic integration in sentences and discourse: Evidence from the N400. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 657-671.
    • Van Berkum, J. J. A., Zwitserlood, P., Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (2003). When and how do listeners relate a sentence to the wider discourse? Evidence from the N400 effect. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 701-718.
    • Van Petten, C. (1995). Words and sentences: Event-related brain potential measures. Psychophysiology, 32, 511-525.
    • Van Petten, C., Coulson, S., Rubin, S., Plante, E., & Parks, M. (1999). Time course of word identification and semantic integration in spoken language. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 394-417.
    • Weckerly, J., & Kutas, M. (1999). An electrophysiological analysis of animacy effects in the processing of objective relative sentences. Psychophysiology, 36, 559-570.
    • Wicha, N. Y. Y., Bates, E. A., Moreno, E. M., & Kutas, M. (2003). Potato not Pope: Human brain potentials to gender expectation and agreement in Spanish spoken sentences. Neuroscience Letters, 346, 165-168.
    • Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 920-933.
    • Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162-185.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article

Collected from