3.8 Article

Does discourse congruence influence spoken language comprehension before lexical association? Evidence from event-related potentials

Journal

LANGUAGE AND COGNITIVE PROCESSES
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 698-733

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/01690965.2011.577980

Keywords

Discourse congruence; Lexical association; Connected speech; N400

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R01 HD060440-06A2, R01 HD060440] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R24 MH081807-03, R01 MH066271-01A1, R24 MH081807, R01 MH066271] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The goal of this study was to examine how lexical association and discourse congruence affect the time course of processing incoming words in spoken discourse. In an event-related potential (ERP) norming study, we presented prime-target pairs in the absence of a sentence context to obtain a baseline measure of lexical priming. We observed a typical N400 effect when participants heard critical associated and unassociated target words in word pairs. In a subsequent experiment, we presented the same word pairs in spoken discourse contexts. Target words were always consistent with the local sentence context, but were congruent or not with the global discourse (e. g., Luckily Ben had picked up some salt and pepper/basil,'' preceded by a context in which Ben was preparing marinara sauce (congruent) or dealing with an icy walkway (incongruent). Event-related potential effects of global discourse congruence preceded those of local lexical association, suggesting an early influence of the global discourse representation on lexical processing, even in locally congruent contexts. Furthermore, effects of lexical association occurred earlier in the congruent than incongruent condition. These results differ from those that have been obtained in studies of reading, suggesting that the effects may be unique to spoken word recognition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available