4.4 Article

Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing

期刊

BRAIN AND COGNITION
卷 103, 期 -, 页码 38-49

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandc.2016.01.001

关键词

Language comprehension; Semantic violations; World-knowledge violations; N400; EEG/ERP

资金

  1. Margarete-von-Wrangell Fellowship
  2. University of Tubingen (German Research Foundation) [ZUK 63]
  3. German Research Foundation [SFB833/A1]
  4. [SFB833/B4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge is particularly relevant because it is related to the principle of compositionality during sentence comprehension. Hagoort, Hald, Bastiaansen, and Petersson (2004) challenged the distinction between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge. Here, we investigate how linguistic and non-linguistic violations are processed in a setting adapted from Hagoort et al., whilst in contrast to Hagoort, keeping the critical word identical. In line with the findings by Hagoort et al., our results showed largest N400 amplitudes for semantic violations (Journeys are stripy'), followed by non-linguistic world-knowledge violations ('Ladybirds are stripy') and contingent sentences ('Trousers are stripy'), and finally by correct sentences ('Zebras are stripy'). Traditional fractional area and relative criterion measures of peak and onset latencies showed no effect of violation type. Interestingly, the semantic violation condition crossed a fixed criterion earlier than the word-knowledge violation condition. In conclusion, our data suggests that the question regarding the distinction between linguistic- and non-linguistic knowledge in terms of language integration remains open. Implications for future studies addressing the difference between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge are discussed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据