<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
   xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
   xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
   xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
   xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/"
   xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"

>
<channel rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/about">
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:26:59 BST</pubDate>


	<title>CiteULike: UWerplab's semantics</title>
	<description>CiteULike: UWerplab's semantics</description>


	<link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/tag/semantics</link>
	<dc:publisher>CiteULike.org</dc:publisher>
	<dc:language>en-gb</dc:language>
	<dc:rights>Copyright &#169; 2004-2008 citeulike.org</dc:rights>
	<items>
    <rdf:Seq>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277042"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277024"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277017"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277002"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/257388"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/256110"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252320"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252314"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252311"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251664"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251658"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251657"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251654"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251652"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251624"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251610"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251588"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251584"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251583"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251235"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/165591"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/250388"/>
        <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/250387"/>

	</rdf:Seq>
	</items>
	</channel>


<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277042">
    <title>Event-related potentials, semantic processes, and expectancy factors in word recognition.</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277042</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Brain Lang, Vol. 31, No. 2. (July 1987), pp. 308-327.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Electrophysiological activity was recorded at 16 scalp locations during a word recognition task in order to investigate the effect of expectancy factors on ERPs. In each of 160 trials two stimuli (S1 and S2) were presented with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 1500 msec. There were four experimental conditions. In the word-antonym (W-A) and the word-nonantonym (W-NA) conditions, both S1 and S2 were words. The subjects' task was to think of the antonym to S1 and respond as fast as possible after the presentation of S2 by pressing a &#34;YES&#34; button if S2 was an antonym to S1 (in the W-A trials), or a &#34;NO&#34; button if S2 was not an antonym to S1 (in the W-NA trials). In the nonword-word (NW-W) and nonword-nonword (NW-NW) conditions S1 was a nonword, while S2 was either a word (in NW-W trials) or a nonword (in NW-NW trials). If S1 was not a word, the subjects were instructed to wait for S2, and respond as fast as possible by pressing the &#34;YES&#34; button if it was a word an the &#34;NO&#34; button if it was not a word. EEG was sampled during a time epoch that started 100 msec before the onset of S1 and continued for another 2560 msec. The ERPs were analyzed separately for each experimental condition and for time epochs related to S1, to S2, and to the SOA. Expected antonyms were recognized significantly faster than any other words or nonwords. The RTs to words in the W-NA and NW-W condition, and to nonwords in the NW-NW condition did not differ significantly from each other. The ERP difference between the four conditions following S2 was interpreted in terms of a negative-going potential which appeared prior to the P300, during a time period which started 200 msec and ended 550 msec from stimulus onset. The negativity related to nonwords was significantly larger than the negativity related to words. The negativity related to the expected antonym was almost nonexistent. It is speculated that this negativity has the same origin as N400, and that it might be related to the process of lexical access.</description>
    <dc:title>Event-related potentials, semantic processes, and expectancy factors in word recognition.</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>S Bentin</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Brain Lang, Vol. 31, No. 2. (July 1987), pp. 308-327.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-08-09T00:49:32-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1987</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Brain Lang</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0093-934X</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>31</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>308</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>327</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>cksearch</prism:category>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordrecognition</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277024">
    <title>Linking semantic priming effect in functional MRI and event-related potentials</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277024</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;NeuroImage, Vol. 24, No. 3. (1 February 2005), pp. 624-634.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The aim of this study is to examine the neural substrates involved in semantic priming using a combined event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and event-related potentials (ERP) study. Twelve subjects were instructed to judge whether the presented target word was a real word or a nonword. Under the related condition, target words were preceded by a semantically related prime word. On the other hand, under the unrelated condition, prime words did not have semantic relatedness with the target word. The reaction time for reaching a judgment was longer under the unrelated condition than under the related condition, indicating that the recognition of target words is promoted by semantic priming under the related condition. In the fMRI results, we found reduced activity in the dorsal and ventral left inferior frontal gyrus, the anterior cingulate, and left superior temporal cortex for related versus unrelated conditions (i.e., the repetition suppression effect). ERP analysis revealed that the amplitude of the N400 component was reduced under the related condition compared with the unrelated condition (i.e., the N400 priming effect). Correlation analysis between the BOLD repetition suppression effect and the N400 priming effect decomposed by independent component analysis (ICA) across subjects showed significant correlation in the left superior temporal gyrus. This finding is consistent with the recent MEG data suggesting that the source of N400 is judged to be the bilateral superior temporal lobe. We discussed this finding herein in relation to the modulation of access to the phonological representation caused by semantic priming.</description>
    <dc:title>Linking semantic priming effect in functional MRI and event-related potentials</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Atsushi Matsumoto</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Tetsuya Iidaka</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Kaoruko Haneda</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Tomohisa Okada</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Norihiro Sadato</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.09.008</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>NeuroImage, Vol. 24, No. 3. (1 February 2005), pp. 624-634.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-08-09T00:22:49-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2005</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>NeuroImage</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>24</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>624</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>634</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>cksearch</prism:category>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>n400</prism:category>
    <prism:category>nonword</prism:category>
    <prism:category>priming</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277017">
    <title>Automatic vs. controlled processes in semantic priming - differentiation by event-related potentials</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277017</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 44, No. 3. (June 2002), pp. 197-218.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Semantic network models propose that automatic (e.g. spreading activation) and controlled processes are involved in semantic priming. Behavioural studies propose that the influence of each of these processes depends on the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). To investigate this hypothesis with a more sensitive method, we applied high-resolution event-related potential (ERP) measures to a word-pseudoword lexical decision task that contained direct, indirect, and non-related prime-target pairs. SOAs consisted of 150 or 700 ms. The results showed that independently of SOA, increasing semantic distance prolonged reaction times and enlarged N400 amplitudes. Furthermore, the word-pseudoword decision evoked a parieto-central late positive complex (LPC respectively delayed P300), which was sensitive for semantic relatedness in the short SOA only. In addition, we found two early frontal components: a P250 in the short SOA only and a N310 sensitive to semantic relatedness more prominent in the short SOA. We conclude that ERP-differences between both SOAs indicate two separate processes: (1) an access to semantic memory, which is facilitated by spreading activation in the short SOA only; and (2) an SOA-independent, controlled process, which integrates prime and target words into a semantic context.</description>
    <dc:title>Automatic vs. controlled processes in semantic priming - differentiation by event-related potentials</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>H Hill</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>M Strube</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>D Roesch-Ely</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>M Weisbrod</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(01)00202-1</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>International Journal of Psychophysiology, Vol. 44, No. 3. (June 2002), pp. 197-218.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-08-08T23:27:01-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2002</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>International Journal of Psychophysiology</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0167-8760</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>44</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>197</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>218</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>cksearch</prism:category>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>priming</prism:category>
    <prism:category>pseudowords</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277002">
    <title>An ERP study of continuous speech processing: II. Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in non-native speakers</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/277002</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 15, No. 3. (February 2003), pp. 214-227.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Behavioral and electrophysiological studies indicate that altered language experience has different effects on distinct subsystems within language. In this study, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) in native Japanese late-learners of English listening to English sentences. ERP indices of semantic processing, syntactic processing, and speech segmentation were compared and contrasted for native Japanese and previously tested native English speakers. Native and non-native speakers showed similar semantic processing effects including an N400 for words as opposed to nonwords. In contrast, native Japanese speakers showed none of the effects associated with syntactic processing in native English speakers including an anterior negativity to nonwords presented in a syntactic context. Furthermore, the ERP word-onset effect evident in native English speakers was not found for the native Japanese speakers in this study. These data contribute additional and specific evidence to the proposal that subsystems within language display varying degrees of plasticity.</description>
    <dc:title>An ERP study of continuous speech processing: II. Segmentation, semantics, and syntax in non-native speakers</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Lisa Sanders</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Helen Neville</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00194-5</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 15, No. 3. (February 2003), pp. 214-227.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-08-08T23:16:40-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2003</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognitive Brain Research</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>15</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>214</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>227</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>cksearch</prism:category>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>nonword</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>syntax</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/257388">
    <title>Neural substrates of processing syntax and semantics in music</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/257388</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol. 15, No. 2. (April 2005), pp. 207-212.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Growing evidence indicates that syntax and semantics are basic aspects of music. After the onset of a chord, initial music-syntactic processing can be observed at about 150-400 ms and processing of musical semantics at about 300-500 ms. Processing of musical syntax activates inferior frontolateral cortex, ventrolateral premotor cortex and presumably the anterior part of the superior temporal gyrus. These brain structures have been implicated in sequencing of complex auditory information, identification of structural relationships, and serial prediction. Processing of musical semantics appears to activate posterior temporal regions. The processes and brain structures involved in the perception of syntax and semantics in music have considerable overlap with those involved in language perception, underlining intimate links between music and language in the human brain.</description>
    <dc:title>Neural substrates of processing syntax and semantics in music</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Stefan Koelsch</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.005</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Current Opinion in Neurobiology, Vol. 15, No. 2. (April 2005), pp. 207-212.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-15T22:31:13-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2005</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Current Opinion in Neurobiology</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>15</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>207</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>212</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>music</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>syntax</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/256110">
    <title>Selectional restriction and semantic priming effects in normals and Broca's aphasics</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/256110</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Neurolinguistics, Vol. 18, No. 3. (May 2005), pp. 277-296.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Three experiments explored the extent to which patterns of abnormal comprehension in Broca's aphasia can be attributed to a disruption of information encoded in the selectional restrictions of verbs. An auditory lexical decision paradigm was used to examine sensitivity to selectional restriction relations between verbs and their noun arguments as well as to associative semantic relations. Experiment I explored these effects at the lexical level. Experiment II examined these effects in a simple syntactic context, and Experiment III compared these effects in grammatical and ungrammatical sentence contexts. Both normal and Broca's aphasic subjects showed sensitivity to selectional restrictions and semantic associates in both lexical and sentential contexts. However, although Broca's aphasics did show sensitivity to selectional restriction information associated with verbs, unlike normal subjects they failed to show a selection restriction effect in ungrammatical sentences, suggesting that access to selectional restriction information was less stable than access to semantic associative information. Implications of the results for normals and Broca's aphasics are discussed in relation to parallel and serial theories of sentence processing and to lexically based theories of aphasic language comprehension deficits.</description>
    <dc:title>Selectional restriction and semantic priming effects in normals and Broca's aphasics</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Emily Myers</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Sheila Blumstein</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2004.05.001</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Neurolinguistics, Vol. 18, No. 3. (May 2005), pp. 277-296.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-14T16:04:15-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2005</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Neurolinguistics</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>18</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>277</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>296</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>aphasia</prism:category>
    <prism:category>brocas</prism:category>
    <prism:category>patients</prism:category>
    <prism:category>priming</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>syntax</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252320">
    <title>Tense and Agreement dissociations in German agrammatic speakers: Underspecification vs. hierarchy</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252320</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Brain and Language, Vol. 94, No. 2. (August 2005), pp. 188-199.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The aim of the present paper was to investigate whether German agrammatic production data are compatible with the Tree-Pruning-Hypothesis (TPH; Friedmann &#38; Grodzinsky, 1997). The theory predicts unidirectional patterns of dissociation in agrammatic production data with respect to Tense and Agreement. However, there was evidence of a double dissociation between Tense and Agreement in our data. The presence of a bidirectional dissociation is incompatible with any theory which assumes a hierarchical order between these categories such as the TPH or other versions thereof (such as Lee's, 2003 top-down hypothesis). It will be argued that the data can better be accounted for by relying on newer linguistic theories such as the Minimalist Program (MP, Chomsky, 2000), which does not assume a hierarchical order between independent syntactic Tense and Agreement nodes but treats them as different features (semantically interpretable vs. uninterpretable) under a single node.</description>
    <dc:title>Tense and Agreement dissociations in German agrammatic speakers: Underspecification vs. hierarchy</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Frank Burchert</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Maria Swoboda-Moll</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Ria Bleser</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.12.006</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Brain and Language, Vol. 94, No. 2. (August 2005), pp. 188-199.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T19:12:14-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2005</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Brain and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>94</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>188</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>199</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>agreement</prism:category>
    <prism:category>aphasia</prism:category>
    <prism:category>german</prism:category>
    <prism:category>patients</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>syntax</prism:category>
    <prism:category>tense</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252314">
    <title>Pronoun comprehension in aphasia: a comparison of three languages.</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252314</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Brain Lang, Vol. 41, No. 2. (August 1991), pp. 289-310.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The research reported here investigated the effect of phonological and syntactic factors on the processing of pronouns by aphasics. The comprehension of these &#34;closed-class&#34; elements was studied in three different languages: French, Dutch, and German. The cross-linguistic design made it possible to vary phonological status (clitic/nonclitic) and phrasal category (noun phrase/prepositional phrase) as well as grammatical relation (direct/indirect object) while keeping class membership (closed class) and meaning constant. A sentence-picture matching task was given to 20 German-speaking, 16 Dutch-speaking, and 14 French-speaking aphasics, half of each language group being classified as agrammatic Broca's and half as paragrammatic Wernicke's aphasics. The results suggest that Broca's aphasics' limitations in retrieving pronouns, and therefore other closed-class elements, are not a function of either phonological status, phrasal category, or grammatical relation. These subjects' observed high level of performance on pronouns in language comprehension appears due to the kind of semantic and syntactic information they encode. Our findings indicate that a more refined distinction than closed class vs. open class is necessary.</description>
    <dc:title>Pronoun comprehension in aphasia: a comparison of three languages.</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>AD Friederici</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>J Weissenborn</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>M Kail</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Brain Lang, Vol. 41, No. 2. (August 1991), pp. 289-310.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T18:55:06-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1991</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Brain Lang</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0093-934X</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>41</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>289</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>310</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>aphasia</prism:category>
    <prism:category>brocas</prism:category>
    <prism:category>comprehension</prism:category>
    <prism:category>dutch</prism:category>
    <prism:category>french</prism:category>
    <prism:category>german</prism:category>
    <prism:category>patients</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>syntax</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wernickes</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252311">
    <title>Language processing: functional organization and neuroanatomical basis.</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/252311</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Annu Rev Psychol, Vol. 54 (2003), pp. 55-89.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Earlier formulations of the relation of language and the brain provided oversimplified accounts of the nature of language disorders, classifying patients into syndromes characterized by the disruption of sensory or motor word representations or by the disruption of syntax or semantics. More recent neuropsychological findings, drawn mainly from case studies, provide evidence regarding the various levels of representations and processes involved in single-word and sentence processing. Lesion data and neuroimaging findings are converging to some extent in providing localization of these components of language processing, particularly at the single-word level. Much work remains to be done in developing precise theoretical accounts of sentence processing that can accommodate the observed patterns of breakdown. Such theoretical developments may provide a means of accommodating the seemingly contradictory findings regarding the neural organization of sentence processing.</description>
    <dc:title>Language processing: functional organization and neuroanatomical basis.</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>RC Martin</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145201</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Annu Rev Psychol, Vol. 54 (2003), pp. 55-89.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T18:33:29-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2003</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Annu Rev Psychol</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0066-4308</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>54</prism:volume>
    <prism:startingPage>55</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>89</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>imaging</prism:category>
    <prism:category>patients</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>syntax</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251664">
    <title>Conditional Root Uniqueness Points: Psychological Validity and Perceptual Consequences</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251664</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 45, No. 1. (July 2001), pp. 39-57.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Wurm (1997) introduced a construct called the Conditional Root Uniqueness Point (CRUP), which was defined as the uniqueness point of the free root of a prefixed word, given the prefix in question. Prefixed words with free roots can be divided into two mutually exclusive categories: those with the CRUP at the same phoneme as the full-form uniqueness point (UP), and those where the CRUP precedes the full-form UP by one or more phonemes. Results of two reaction-time experiments indicate a substantial processing advantage for the latter group of words. Regression analyses revealed effects of the number of auditory competitors a target word had, semantic transparency and prefix likelihood. Finally, semantic transparency, root frequency, and number of competitors had different effects, depending upon whether the CRUP of a word coincided with or preceded the full-form UP. Existing models of word recognition need to be modified to accommodate the current results. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.</description>
    <dc:title>Conditional Root Uniqueness Points: Psychological Validity and Perceptual Consequences</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>LH Wurm</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>SE Ross</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 45, No. 1. (July 2001), pp. 39-57.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T01:47:05-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2001</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Memory and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>45</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>1</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>39</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>57</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>competition</prism:category>
    <prism:category>frequency</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordlevel</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251658">
    <title>On the Distinctiveness, Independence, and Time Course of the Brain Responses to Syntactic and Semantic Anomalies</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251658</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 14, No. 3. (1 June 1999), pp. 283-317.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; We evaluated the distinctiveness, independence, and relative time courses of the event-related brain potentials (ERPs) elicited by syntactically and semantically anomalous words. ERPs were recorded from 13 scalp electrodes while subjects read sentences, some of which contained a selectional restriction violation (semantically anomalous), a verb tense violation (syntactically anomalous), or a doubly anomalous word that violated both selectional restriction and verb tense constraints. Semantic anomalies elicited a monophasic increase in N400 amplitude, whereas syntactic anomalies elicited a late positive shift with an onset around 500 msec and a duration of several hundred msec. Doubly anomalous words elicited both an increase in N400 amplitude and a late positive wave, and these effects summated in an approximately (but not perfectly) linear manner. These results are discussed with respect to the hypotheses that syntactic and semantic processes are separable and independent.</description>
    <dc:title>On the Distinctiveness, Independence, and Time Course of the Brain Responses to Syntactic and Semantic Anomalies</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>L Osterhout</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>J Nicol</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 14, No. 3. (1 June 1999), pp. 283-317.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T01:17:08-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1999</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Language and Cognitive Processes</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0169-0965</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>14</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>3</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>283</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>317</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>agreement</prism:category>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>n400</prism:category>
    <prism:category>p600</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251657">
    <title>Thematic Roles as Verb-specific Concepts</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251657</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 12, No. 2. (1 March 1997), pp. 137-176.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Thematic roles are typically viewed as slot and filler m echanisms in which the slots are devoid of content, or the content is limited to a few syntactically relevant features. This traditional view excludes important knowledge that people possess about who tends to do what to whom in specific situations. Thus it was extended here by treating thematic roles as verb-specific, feature-based concepts. In Experiment 1, subjects produced features for agent and patient roles such as &#34;someone who is frightened&#34;. Role/filler typicality ratings, in which subjects provided judgements for questions such as &#34;How common is it for a monster to frighten som eone?&#34; (i.e. monster as an agent of frighten), were collected in Experiment 2A. In Experiment 2B, different subjects were presented with the role features from Experiment 1 and the typical agents and patients from Experiment 2A . They were asked to rate how central each of the role features was to the nominal concepts, and role/filler featural similarity was calculated from these ratings. Analogous to studies of object concepts, role/filler featural similarity predicted role/filler typicality, thus suggesting that thematic roles and nominal concepts are represented in similar forms. Experiment 3 was a self-paced reading study in which adjectival features were used to bias an initial noun concept towards being a good agent or patient of the past participle of a reduced relative clause (&#34;The shrewd heartless/young naive gambler manipulated by the dealer had bid more than he could afford to lose&#34;). Featural bias modulated ambiguity resolution. The present work, in conjunction with other recent results, suggests that thematic roles might best be viewed as verb-specific concepts, and that this conceptual/world knowledge is computed and used immediately in on-line language processing. Results are discussed in relation to other recent treatments of thematic roles as well as constraint-based and garden path models.</description>
    <dc:title>Thematic Roles as Verb-specific Concepts</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>K Mcrae</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>TR Ferretti</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>L Amyote</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 12, No. 2. (1 March 1997), pp. 137-176.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T01:13:29-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1997</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Language and Cognitive Processes</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0169-0965</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>12</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>137</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>176</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordlevel</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251654">
    <title>Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251654</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 19, No. 2. (April 2004), pp. 181-224.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; Linguistic and psycholinguistic research has documented that there exists a close relationship between a verb&#039;s meaning and the syntactic structures in which it occurs, and that learners and comprehenders take advantage of this relationship both in acquisition and in processing. We address implications of these facts for issues in structural ambiguity resolution, arguing that comprehenders are sensitive to meaning-structure correlations based not on the verb itself but on its specific senses, and that they exploit this information on-line. We demonstrate that individual verbs show significant differences in their subcategorisation profiles across three corpora, and that cross-corpora bias estimates are much more stable when sense is taken into account. Finally, we show that consistency between sense-contingent subcategorisation biases and experimenters&#039; classifications largely predicts results of recent experiments. Thus comprehenders learn and exploit meaning-form correlations at the level of individual verb senses, rather than the verb in the aggregate.</description>
    <dc:title>Admitting that admitting verb sense into corpus analyses makes sense</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>M Hare</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>K Mcrae</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>J Elman</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1080/01690960344000152</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Language and Cognitive Processes, Vol. 19, No. 2. (April 2004), pp. 181-224.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T01:07:07-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2004</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Language and Cognitive Processes</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0169-0965</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>19</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>181</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>224</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>ambiguity</prism:category>
    <prism:category>corpora</prism:category>
    <prism:category>frequency</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>verbs</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251652">
    <title>Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251652</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 4. (June 2001), pp. 368-407.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; In the literature dealing with the reanalysis of garden path sentences such as While the man hunted the deer ran into the woods, it is generally assumed either that people completely repair their initial incorrect syntactic representations to yield a final interpretation whose syntactic structure is fully consistent with the input string or that the parse fails. In a series of five experiments, we explored the possibility that partial reanalyses take place. Specifically, we examined the conditions under which part of the initial incorrect analysis persists at the same time that part of the correct final analysis is constructed. In Experiments 1a and 1b, we found that both the length of the ambiguous region and the plausibility of the ultimate interpretation affected the likelihood that such sentences would be fully reanalyzed. In Experiment 2, we compared garden path sentences with non-garden path sentences and compared performance on two different types of comprehension questions. In Experiments 3a and 3b, we constructed garden path sentences using a small class of syntactically unique verbs to provide converging evidence against the position that people employ some sort of &#8221;general reasoning&#8221; or pragmatic inference when faced with syntactically difficult garden paths. The results from these experiments indicate that reanalysis of such sentences is not always complete, so that comprehenders often derive an interpretation for the full sentence in which part of the initial misanalysis persists. We conclude that the goal of language processing is not always to create an idealized structure, but rather to create a representation that is &#8221;good enough&#8221; to satisfy the comprehender that an appropriate interpretation has been obtained.</description>
    <dc:title>Thematic Roles Assigned along the Garden Path Linger</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>K Christianson</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>A Hollingworth</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>JF Halliwell</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>F Ferreira</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0752 </dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 4. (June 2001), pp. 368-407.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-12T01:03:08-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2001</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognitive Psychology</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:issn>0010-0285</prism:issn>
    <prism:volume>42</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>4</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>368</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>407</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>ambiguity</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251624">
    <title>Dissociating Brain Responses to Syntactic and Semantic Anomalies: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251624</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 38, No. 1. (January 1998), pp. 112-130.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two experiments investigated the influence of anomaly type and presentation rate on the occurrence and appearance of the event-related brain potentials (ERPs) known as the N400 and P600. In Experiment 1, sentences containing either a syntactic anomaly, a semantic anomaly, or a compound syntactic and semantic anomaly were presented at the rate of 1000 ms per word. Consistent with previous findings, syntactic anomalies elicited a P600, while semantic anomalies elicited an N400. Compound anomalies evoked an N400 P600 waveform complex. Experiment 2 investigated the effect of presentation rate on ERPs using the syntactic anomaly materials from Osterhout and Holcomb (1992; Experiment 1) at the 650 ms SOA from the original study and a new 1000 ms SOA. Although the amplitude and latency of the P600 waveform differed slightly between the two presentation rates, reliable P600s were found at both the 650 and the 1000 ms SOA.</description>
    <dc:title>Dissociating Brain Responses to Syntactic and Semantic Anomalies: Evidence from Event-Related Potentials</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Kim Ainsworth-Darnell</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Harvey Shulman</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Julie Boland</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2537</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 38, No. 1. (January 1998), pp. 112-130.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-11T22:36:02-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1998</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Memory and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>38</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>1</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>112</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>130</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>n400</prism:category>
    <prism:category>p600</prism:category>
    <prism:category>parsing</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251610">
    <title>Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251610</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2. (01 February 2002), pp. 78-84.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Functional dissociations within the neural basis of auditory sentence processing are difficult to specify because phonological, syntactic and semantic information are all involved when sentences are perceived. In this review I argue that sentence processing is supported by a temporo-frontal network. Within this network, temporal regions subserve aspects of identification and frontal regions the building of syntactic and semantic relations. Temporal analyses of brain activation within this network support syntax-first models because they reveal that building of syntactic structure precedes semantic processes and that these interact only during a later stage.</description>
    <dc:title>Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Angela Friederici</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01839-8</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 2. (01 February 2002), pp. 78-84.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-11T19:35:33-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2002</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Trends in Cognitive Sciences</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>78</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>84</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>elan</prism:category>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>imaging</prism:category>
    <prism:category>lan</prism:category>
    <prism:category>model</prism:category>
    <prism:category>p600</prism:category>
    <prism:category>parsing</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordlevel</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251588">
    <title>How to Prune a Garden Path by Nipping It in the Bud: Fast Priming of Verb Argument Structure</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251588</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 39, No. 1. (July 1998), pp. 102-123.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The syntactic preferences of briefly displayed prime words were found to affect readers' ability to resolve temporary syntactic ambiguities. In two self-paced reading experiments, participants read target sentences containing ambiguous sentence complements (e.g., &#8221;The photographer accepted the fire could not be put out.&#8221;), in which &#8221;the fire&#8221; could be the direct object of the main verb &#8221;accepted,&#8221; or the subject of a sentence complement. A briefly displayed prime verb (duration of 39 ms) appeared immediately prior to reading the main verb, and had a significant impact on syntactic misanalysis effects for the ambiguous sentence complement. Priming the matrix verb with a verb that tends to be used with a direct object (e.g., &#8221;obtained&#8221;) resulted in increased processing difficulty in the disambiguating region of the sentence complement (e.g., &#8221;could&#8221;). Priming the matrix verb with a verb that tends to be used with a sentence complement (e.g., &#8221;realized&#8221;) resulted in significantly less processing difficulty in the disambiguating region. The results are consistent with constraint-based theories of sentence processing that make immediate use of lexically specific information.</description>
    <dc:title>How to Prune a Garden Path by Nipping It in the Bud: Fast Priming of Verb Argument Structure</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>John Trueswell</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Albert Kim</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2565</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 39, No. 1. (July 1998), pp. 102-123.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-11T18:25:31-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1998</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Memory and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>39</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>1</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>102</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>123</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>ambiguity</prism:category>
    <prism:category>parsing</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordlevel</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251584">
    <title>The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251584</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 7. (July 2003), pp. 293-299.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Brain imaging studies reliably localize a region of visual cortex that is especially responsive to visual words. This brain specialization is essential to rapid reading ability because it enhances perception of words by becoming specifically tuned to recurring properties of a writing system. The origin of this specialization poses a challenge for evolutionary accounts involving innate mechanisms for functional brain organization. We propose an alternative account, based on studies of other forms of visual expertise (i.e. bird and car experts) that lead to functional reorganization. We argue that the interplay between the unique demands of word reading and the structural constraints of the visual system lead to the emergence of the Visual Word Form Area.</description>
    <dc:title>The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Bruce Mccandliss</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Laurent Cohen</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Stanislas Dehaene</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00134-7</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 7, No. 7. (July 2003), pp. 293-299.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-11T18:03:42-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2003</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Trends in Cognitive Sciences</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>7</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>293</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>299</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>fusiform</prism:category>
    <prism:category>imaging</prism:category>
    <prism:category>patients</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordlevel</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251583">
    <title>A Distributed, Developmental Model of Word Recognition and Naming,</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251583</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Psychological Review, Vol. 96, No. 4. (October 1989), pp. 523-568.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A parallel distributed processing model of visual word recognition and pronunciation is described. The model consists of sets of orthographic and phonological units and an interlevel of hidden units. Weights on connections between units were modified during a training phase using the back-propagation learning algorithm. The model simulates many aspects of human performance, including (a) differences between words in terms of processing difficulty, (b) pronunciation of novel items, (c) differences between readers in terms of word recognition skill, (d) transitions from beginning to skilled reading, and (e) differences in performance on lexical decision and naming tasks. The model's behavior early in the learning phase corresponds to that of children acquiring word recognition skills. Training with a smaller number of hidden units produces output characteristic of many dyslexic readers. Naming is simulated without pronunciation rules, and lexical decisions are simulated without accessing word-level representations. The performance of the model is largely determined by three factors: the nature of the input, a significant fragment of written English; the learning rule, which encodes the implicit structure of the orthography in the weights on connections; and the architecture of the system, which influences the scope of what can be learned.</description>
    <dc:title>A Distributed, Developmental Model of Word Recognition and Naming,</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Mark Seidenberg</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>James Mcclelland</dc:creator>
    <dc:source>Psychological Review, Vol. 96, No. 4. (October 1989), pp. 523-568.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-11T18:01:31-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1989</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Psychological Review</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>96</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>4</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>523</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>568</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>computational</prism:category>
    <prism:category>model</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>wordlevel</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251235">
    <title>Semantic Influences on Thematic Role Assignment: Evidence from Normals and Aphasics,</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/251235</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Brain and Language, Vol. 62, No. 2. (April 1998), pp. 255-297.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We report two studies that examine the role of semantic influences in the assignment of thematic roles. Semantic factors were manipulated by contrasting sentences in which one noun argument was a plausible filler of only one thematic role (e.g., the painting inThe artist disliked the painting) with sentences in which both noun arguments were plausible fillers of both thematic roles (e.g.,The robin ate the insect). Subjects were required to make plausibility judgments to sentences presented auditorily. Experiment 1 examined RTs of normal subjects on the plausibility judgment task. In Experiment 2, the same sentences were presented to aphasic patients identified as &#34;asyntactic&#34; comprehenders. In Experiment 1, RTs were speeded by semantic constraints on thematic assignment, particularly when the role-constrained NP occurred early in the sentence (as inThe painting was disliked by the artist). The aphasic performance patterns in Experiment 2 paralleled those of normal subjects, but in greatly exaggerated fashion. The patients exhibited high error rates on sentences where semantic constraints conflicted with the syntactically based assignments, even on sentences with canonical (S-V-O) word order (e.g., #The deer shot the hunter).</description>
    <dc:title>Semantic Influences on Thematic Role Assignment: Evidence from Normals and Aphasics,</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Eleanor Saffran</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Myrna Schwartz</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Marcia Linebarger</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1918</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Brain and Language, Vol. 62, No. 2. (April 1998), pp. 255-297.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-10T06:57:43-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1998</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Brain and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>62</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>255</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>297</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>aphasia</prism:category>
    <prism:category>parsing</prism:category>
    <prism:category>patients</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/165591">
    <title>The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/165591</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 52, No. 2. (February 2005), pp. 205-225.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;We recorded event-related brain potentials (ERPs) while participants read sentences, some of which contained an anomalous word. In the critical sentences (e.g., The meal was devouring...), the syntactic cues unambiguously signaled an Agent interpretation of the subject noun, whereas the semantic cues supported a Theme interpretation. An Agent interpretation would render the main verb semantically anomalous (as meals do not devour things). Conversely, the Theme interpretation would render the main verb syntactically anomalous (as the -ED form, not the -ING form, is syntactically appropriate for this interpretation). We report that the main verbs in such sentences elicit the P600 effect associated with syntactic anomalies, rather than the N400 effect associated with semantic anomalies. We conclude that, at least under certain conditions, semantic information is &#34;in control&#34; of how words are combined during sentence processing.</description>
    <dc:title>The independence of combinatory semantic processing: Evidence from event-related potentials</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Albert Kim</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Lee Osterhout</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.10.002</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 52, No. 2. (February 2005), pp. 205-225.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-04-20T20:24:22-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2005</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Memory and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>52</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>205</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>225</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>n400</prism:category>
    <prism:category>p600</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/250388">
    <title>An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/250388</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 22, No. 2. (February 2005), pp. 241-255.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Syntactic anomalies reliably elicit P600 effects. Recent studies, however, reported P600 effects to semantic anomalies. These findings are difficult to reconcile with the common view on the P600 as a purely syntactic component. The present study--carried out in Dutch--tested the possibility that a P600 to semantic anomalies would nevertheless reflect syntactic processing. We presented semantic reversal anomalies in syntactically correct and unambiguous sentences, like #The cat that fled from the mice.... If participants would use a plausibility strategy and combine the lexical items in the most plausible way, they would--in the case of the example--assume that the mice were fleeing from the cat. Furthermore, this interpretation could lead them to expect a particular inflection of the verb (here: plural inflection). The violation of this expectation could have elicited the P600 effect. Such a syntactic mismatch can occur only in sentences in which the number of theme and agent are different. Therefore, in the present study, the number of theme and agent was either different or the same. A centroparietal P600 effect was present not only in different number sentences but also in same number sentences. Consequently, the P600 effect was not due to a syntactic mismatch, thereby challenging a purely syntactic account of the P600. An alternative view concerning the functional significance of the P600 is discussed, i.e., that it reflects a monitoring component that checks upon the veridicality of ones sentence perception.</description>
    <dc:title>An ERP study of P600 effects elicited by semantic anomalies</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Marieke van Herten</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Herman Kolk</dc:creator>
    <dc:creator>Dorothee Chwilla</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.09.002</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Cognitive Brain Research, Vol. 22, No. 2. (February 2005), pp. 241-255.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-08T23:42:06-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>2005</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Cognitive Brain Research</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>22</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>2</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>241</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>255</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>erps</prism:category>
    <prism:category>p600</prism:category>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
</item>



<item rdf:about="http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/250387">
    <title>Thematic Role Assignment in Context,</title>
    <link>http://www.citeulike.org/user/UWerplab/article/250387</link>
    <description>&lt;i&gt;Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 41, No. 1. (July 1999), pp. 124-145.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Two experiments are described in which participants read sentences of the form &#34;He drank some ...&#34; in contexts which either did or did not introduce something drinkable. Participants were more likely to report that the sentence stopped making sense at the verb &#34;drank&#34; if nothing drinkable had been introduced. When participants responded, in this case, that the verb did make sense, their reaction times tended to be elevated relative to when the context did introduce a suitable antecedent. The experiments were modeled on a series of studies reported by Boland, Tanenhaus, Garnsey, and Could not link Carlson (1995), who used the same stop-making-sense judgment task to investigate the processing of filler-gap dependencies of the form &#34;I wondered which food the man drank ... .&#34; They observed increased &#34;no&#34; responses on the verb when the prior filler was an implausible recipient of the patient role associated with the verb and concluded that the wh-phrase is assigned a thematic role as soon as the verb &#34;drank&#34; is encountered. In the studies reported here, with materials which did not contain obligatory syntactic (filler-gap) dependencies, the equivalent phenomenon was observed--thematic information conveyed by a verb's lexical entry was apparently evaluated, at the verb, with respect to its fit with whatever contextually introduced entities were available to receive the associated role. The data suggest that thematic roles may be assigned at a verb on the basis of thematic fit with context.</description>
    <dc:title>Thematic Role Assignment in Context,</dc:title>

    <dc:creator>Gerry Altmann</dc:creator>
    <dc:identifier>doi:10.1006/jmla.1999.2640</dc:identifier>
    <dc:source>Journal of Memory and Language, Vol. 41, No. 1. (July 1999), pp. 124-145.</dc:source>
    <dc:date>2005-07-08T23:41:18-00:00</dc:date>
    <prism:publicationYear>1999</prism:publicationYear>
    <prism:publicationName>Journal of Memory and Language</prism:publicationName>
    <prism:volume>41</prism:volume>
    <prism:number>1</prism:number>
    <prism:startingPage>124</prism:startingPage>
    <prism:endingPage>145</prism:endingPage>
    <prism:category>semantics</prism:category>
    <prism:category>sentence</prism:category>
</item>



</rdf:RDF>

