Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing
{"title":"Is there a difference between stripy journeys and stripy ladybirds? The N400 response to semantic and world-knowledge violations during sentence processing","authors":"Carolin Dudschig, Claudia Maienborn, Barbara Kaup","doi":"10.1016/j.bandc.2016.01.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55331,"journal":{"name":"Brain and Cognition","volume":"103 ","pages":"Pages 38-49"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.bandc.2016.01.001","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027826261630001X","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
Brain and Cognition is a forum for the integration of the neurosciences and cognitive sciences. B&C publishes peer-reviewed research articles, theoretical papers, case histories that address important theoretical issues, and historical articles into the interaction between cognitive function and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in cognition. Coverage includes, but is not limited to memory, learning, emotion, perception, movement, music or praxis in relationship to brain structure or function. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of cognitive function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import, formulating new hypotheses or refuting previously established hypotheses. Clinical papers are welcome if they raise issues of theoretical importance or concern and shed light on the interaction between brain function and cognitive function. We welcome review articles that clearly contribute a new perspective or integration, beyond summarizing the literature in the field; authors of review articles should make explicit where the contribution lies. We also welcome proposals for special issues on aspects of the relation between cognition and the structure and function of the nervous system. Such proposals can be made directly to the Editor-in-Chief from individuals interested in being guest editors for such collections.