An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) paradigm was used to specify those brain areas supporting the processing of sentence-level semantic and syntactic information. Hemodynamic responses were recorded while participants listened to correct, semantically incorrect and syntactically incorrect sentences. Both anomalous conditions recruited larger portions of the superior temporal region than correct sentences. Processing of semantic violations relied primarily on the mid-portion of the superior temporal region bilaterally and the insular cortex bilaterally, whereas processing of syntactic violations specifically involved the anterior portion of the left superior temporal gyrus, the left posterior frontal operculum adjacent to Broca's area and the putamen in the left basal ganglia. A comparison of the two anomalous conditions revealed higher levels of activation for the syntactic over the semantic condition in the left basal ganglia and for the semantic over the syntactic condition in the mid-portion of the superior temporal gyrus, bilaterally. These data indicate that both semantic and syntactic processes are supported by a temporo-frontal network with distinct areas specialized for semantic and syntactic processes.

The present study investigated different aspects of auditory language comprehension. The sentences which were presented as connected speech were either correct or incorrect including a semantic error (selectional restriction), a morphological error (verb inflection), or a syntactic error (phrase structure). After each sentence, a probe word was presented auditorily, and subjects had to decide whether this word was part of the preceding sentence or not. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from 7 scalp electrodes. The ERPs evoked by incorrect sentences differed significantly from the correct ones as a function of error type. Semantic anomalies evoked a 'classical' N400 pattern. Morphological errors elicited a pronounced negativity between 300 and 600 ms followed by a late positivity. Syntactic errors, in contrast, evoked an early negativity peaking around 180 ms followed by a negativity around 400 ms. The early negativity was only significant over the left anterior electrode. The present data demonstrate that linguistic errors of different categories evoke different ERP patterns. They indicate that with using connected speech as input, different aspects of language comprehension processes cannot only be described with respect to their temporal structure, but eventually also with respect to possible brain systems subserving these processes.

In this study we examined the properties of the processes involved in the structural analysis of sentences using event-related brain potential measures (ERP). Previous research had shown two ERP components to correlate with phrase structure violations: an early left anterior negativity (ELAN), which is assumed to reflect first-pass parsing processes, and a late parietally distributed positivity (P600), assumed to reflect second-pass parsing processes. We hypothesized that the first-pass parsing processes are highly automatic, whereas second-pass parsing processes are more controlled. To test this hypothesis we varied the proportion of correct sentences and sentences containing phrase structure violations with incorrect sentences being either of a low (20% violation) or a high (80% violation) proportion. Results showed that the early left anterior negativity was elicited and equally pronounced under both proportion conditions. By contrast, the late positivity was elicited for a low proportion of incorrect sentences only. This data pattern suggests that first-pass parsing processes are automatic, whereas second-pass parsing processes are under participants' strategic control.

Event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded from participants listening to or reading sentences that were correct, contained a violation of the required syntactic category, or contained a syntactic-category ambiguity. When sentences were presented auditorily (Experiment 1), there was an early left anterior negativity for syntactic-category violations, but not for syntactic-category ambiguities. Both anomaly types elicited a late centroparietally distributed positivity. When sentences were presented visually word by word (Experiment 2), again an early left anterior negativity was found only for syntactic-category violations, and both types of anomalies elicited a late positivity. The combined data are taken to be consistent with a 2-stage model of parsing, including a 1st stage, during which an initial phrase structure is built and a 2nd stage, during which thematic role assignment and, if necessary, reanalysis takes place. Disruptions to the 1st stage of syntactic parsing appear to be correlated with an early left anterior negativity, whereas disruptions to the 2nd stage might be correlated with a late posterior distributed positivity.

Abstract& The present study investigated the role of proficiency in late second-language (L2) processing using comparable stimuli in German and Italian. Both sets of stimuli consisted of simple active sentences including a word category violation, a morphosyntactic agreement violation, or a combination of the two. Four experiments were conducted to study high-and lowproficiency L2 learners of German as well as high-and lowproficiency L2 learners of Italian. High-proficiency L2 learners in both languages showed the same event-related potential (ERP) components as native speakers for all syntactic violations. For the word category violation, they displayed an early anterior negativity (ELAN), an additional negativity reflecting reference-related processes, and a late P600 evidencing processes of reanalysis. For the processing of the morphosyntactic error, an anterior negativity (LAN) and a P600 were observed, whereas for the combined violation, the same ERP components were found as in the pure category violation. In high-proficiency L2 learners, the timing of the processing steps was equivalent to that of native speakers, although some amplitude differences were present. Low-proficiency L2 learners, however, showed qualitative differences in the agreement violation characterized by the absence of the LAN and quantitative differences reflected in a delayed P600 in every violation condition. These findings emphasize that with a high proficiency, late L2 learners can indeed show native-like neural responses with the timing approximating that of native speakers. This challenges the idea that there are fundamental differences in language processing in the brain between natives and late L2 learners. &