Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from...
-
Upload
peter-wright -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
2
Transcript of Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from...
![Page 1: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML
The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials
![Page 2: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Background• Everyone believes
– N400 reflects semantic processing difficulty– P600 reflects form-related processing difficulty
• However, 2 studies have found P600 when they expected to find N400– Kolk et al. (2003) found P600 at joeg
• De vos die op de stropers joeg …
• The fox that the poachers hunted …
• = The fox that hunted the poachers …
– Kuperberg et al. (2003) also found P600 at eat
• For breakfast, the eggs would only eat …
• In both cases, there was a noun that was plausible in some role of the verb’s event, just not the role its position indicated it had
![Page 3: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Experiment 1 - Stimuli
• Active Control– The hungry boy was DEVOURING the cookies.
• Passive Control– The hearty meal was DEVOURED by the kids.
• Anomaly– The hearty meal was DEVOURING the kids.
![Page 4: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Procedures/Design• Sentences presented word-by-word centrally • SOA = 650 msec (slow!)• End-of-sentence acceptability judgments
• Expt 1– N = 24– 96 sets of 3 sentence versions (32)– 107 distractors, some sem anom, some ungramm
• Numbers varied across lists to make acceptability ~50/50
– 96 + 107 – 203 trials (58% acceptable, 42% unacceptable)
• Expt 2– N = 29– 96 sets of 3 sentence versions (32)– 112 distractors, some sem anom, some ungramm
• Numbers varied across list to make acceptability ~50/50
– 96 + 112 = 208 (50% acceptable, 50% unacceptable
![Page 5: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Experiment 1 - Results
P600 P600
![Page 6: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Experiment 1 - Discussion
• Why does “The hearty meal was devouring…” evoke P600 rather than N400?– Because hearty meal can play SOME thematic role
in a devouring event?– Maybe the fact that hearty meal fits so well with
devouring makes the processing system think there’s a grammatical error, like the wrong inflection on devouring, rather than a semantic anomaly
![Page 7: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Experiment 2 - Stimuli
• Passive Control– The hearty meal was DEVOURED …
• No-attraction Violation– The dusty tabletops were DEVOURING …
• Attraction Violation– The hearty meal was DEVOURING …
![Page 8: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Experiment 2 - Results
N400
![Page 9: Kim & Osterhout (2005) JML The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022082818/56649f135503460f94c27e3f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Experiment 2 - Discussion
• Argue that these results show that– Semantic processing can “drive” sentence
comprehension– Rather than always having to wait for
structural processing to give the relationships among words before their semantic combination can proceed