Event-related potential (ERP) responses to violations of inflectional and derivational rules of Finnish

Leinonen, Alina; Brattico, Pauli; Järvenpää, Miika; Krause, Christina M.

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.04.049

Cited by 45 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Leinonen, Brattico, Järvenpää and Krause (2008) found an anterior negativity in the 450-550 ms time window and a late positive (P600) effect for inflectional violations, whereas derivational violations elicited an N400-like negativity effect, followed by the P600 effect. Lehtonen et al (2007) used monomorphemic words and inflected nouns in a visual lexical decision task to study recognition of morphologically complex words in Finnish.…”

Section: Electrophysiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Behavioural and ERP effects of paradigm complexity on visual word recognition

Nikolaev

Pääkkönen

Niemi

et al. 2014

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Electrophysiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Behavioural and ERP effects of paradigm complexity on visual word recognition

Nikolaev

Pääkkönen

Niemi

et al. 2014

Language, Cognition and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Besides, several studies have reported an N400 component, a centroparietal negativity with a peak latency of around 400 msec after stimulus onset, in response to morphological anomalies (Leinonen, Brattico, Jarvenpaa, & Krause, 2008;Hahne, Müller, & Clahsen, 2006;Morris & Holcomb, 2005). Because the N400 is mainly known to reflect lexical-semantic processes, observations of an N400 for irregularizations of regular noun plurals (e.g., *Waggon-en vs. Waggon-s) have been claimed to reflect enhanced lexical processing with the irregularized plural forms being treated as nondecomposable units, which are processed like pseudowords (Lück et al, 2006;Weyerts et al, 1997).…”

Section: Erpsmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Past Tense Debate Revisited: Electrophysiological Evidence for Subregularities of Irregular Verb Inflection

Regel

Opitz

Müller

et al. 2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuropsychological research investigating mental grammar and lexicon has largely been based on the processing of regular and irregular inflection. Past tense inflection of regular verbs is assumed to be generated by a syntactic rule (e.g., show-ed), whereas irregular verbs consist of rather unsystematic alternations (e.g., caught) represented as lexical entries. Recent morphological accounts, however, hold that irregular inflection is not entirely rule-free but relies on morphological principles. These subregularities are computed by the syntactic system. We tested this latter hypothesis by examining alternations of irregular German verbs as well as pseudowords using ERPs. Participants read series of irregular verb inflection including present tense, past participle, and past tense forms embedded in minimal syntactic contexts. The critical past tense form was correct (e.g., er sang [he sang]) or incorrect by being either partially consistent (e.g., *er sung [*he sung]) or inconsistent (e.g., *er sing [*he sing]) with the proposed morphological principles. Correspondingly, in a second experimental block, pseudowords (e.g., tang/*tung/*ting) were presented. ERPs for real words revealed a biphasic ERP pattern consisting of a negativity and P600 for both incorrect forms in comparison to the correct equivalents. Most interestingly, the P600 amplitude for the incorrect forms was gradually modulated by the type of anomaly with medium amplitude for consistent past tense forms and largest amplitude for inconsistent past tense forms. ERPs for pseudoword past tense forms showed a similar gradual modulation of N400. The findings support the assumption that irregular verbs are processed by rule-based mechanisms because of subregularities of their past tense inflection.

show abstract

“…For example, Leinonen et al (2008) directly compared violations of inflectional and derivational morphology in Finnish: in the former violation LAN was elicited, while the latter elicited an N400 in the same time window, a component classically related to semantic processing difficulties (Kutas, Van Petten, & Kluender, 2006). The LAN is thus considered to reflect a stage of processing related to the early detection of a morphosyntactic violation (Bornkessel & Schlesewsky, 2006;Friederici, 2002;Munte, Matzke, & Johannes, 1997).…”

Section: Erp Evidence On Syntactic Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%