Semantic Reversal Anomalies under the Microscope: Task and Modality Influences on Language-Associated Event-Related Potentials

Abstract

Semantic reversal anomalies (SRAs)sentences where an implausibility is created by reversing participant roleshave attracted a great deal of attention in the literature on the electrophysiology of language. In spite of being syntactically well-formed but semantically implausible, these structures unexpectedly elicited a monophasic P600 effect in English and Dutch rather than an N400 effect.Subsequent research revealed variability in the presence/absence of an N400 effect to SRAs depending on the language examined and the choice of verb type in English. However, most previous studies employed the same presentation modality (visual) and task (acceptability judgement). Here, we conducted two experiments and three statistical analyses to investigate the influence of stimulus modality, task demand, and statistical modelling on ERP response patterns to SRAs in English. We reproduced a previous study's procedure and analysis (Bourguignon et al., 2012), aiming to replicate their findings. We further introduced between-subjects factors of task type and modality and conducted linear mixed effects modelling to analyse the data. We observed an N400 effect to typical English SRAs, in contrast to the existing literature and not predicted by existing theories that accounts for SRA processing. Task demand quantitively and qualitatively modulated the ERPs elicited by SRAs, while auditory presentation led to increased comprehension accuracy and a more broadly distributed ERP. Finally, the statistical methods used influenced the presence/absence of ERP effects.Our results suggest the sensitivity of language-related ERP patterns to methodological parameters and we conclude that future experiments should take this into careful consideration.(b) At the first noun, a significant N400 was elicited for inanimate compared to animate Subject NPs, most prominent at the midline. (c) At the verb, animacy reversals elicited an N400 effect for ESV only, and elicited a P600 effect for both ASV and ESV.### Table 1 here ### 1.3.1. Experiment 1: Task. We included the between-subjects factor of task to compare the ERPs elicited in a judgement versus comprehension task. The crucial difference between tasks is that the comprehension question could not be predicted prior to presentation. The judgement task employed the same question after each sentence, therefore a decision could be made during sentence presentation. If the P600 observed in SRA studies relates to task-relevance, it should be diminished when the task is unpredictable. We hypothesise (H2) that a P600 will be elicited at the Verb with an Animacy effect and that the amplitude of this P600 will be larger for the Judgement compared to Comprehension condition. Experiment 2:Modality. Experiment 2 matched Experiment 1, but sentence stimuli were presented auditorily via loudspeakers rather than with RSVP. To test the predictions of current models of sentence processing which are based on auditory processing, we developed an auditory stimulus set with the same sentences as Experiment 1. We hypothe...

Thematic role assignment in non-default verb classes: A cross-linguistic comparison of English and German

“…Where experiencer-subject (2b) and experiencerobject (3b) violations are directly compared, similar ERPs are observed at the point of animacy violation-for experiencer subject, at the verb, and for experiencer object, at the second noun phrase (Paczynski & Kuperberg 2011;Bourguignon et al 2012). This neural response is qualitatively different compared to that elicited by violations of agent subject verb constructions (1b) (Kolk et al 2003;Kuperberg et al 2003;Hoeks et al 2004;Kim & Osterhout 2005;Van Herten et al 2005;Bourguignon et al 2012;Kyriaki et al 2020). The observed ERP differences to violations of differing verb classes support the conception that agent and experiencer verbs are comprehended differentially at the neural level.…”

“…The observed ERP differences to violations of differing verb classes support the conception that agent and experiencer verbs are comprehended differentially at the neural level. Behavioural results showed judgement accuracy was higher for ASV compared to ESV (Bourguignon et al 2012;Kyriaki et al 2020) and comprehension accuracy was generally better for ASV than ESV sentences (Kyriaki et al 2020). However, response accuracy results are not able to provide insight into role assignment.…”

“…While cross-linguistic (e.g. Kim & Osterhout 2005;Van de Meerendonk et al 2009, Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al 2011) and verb class (Bourguignon et al 2012, Kyriaki et al 2020 differences in the neurophysiological response to TRAs have been observed, role assignment has not been examined in detail. English and German were selected for investigation as both cue prominence (MacWhinney et al 1984) and the observed neurophysiological response to TRAs (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al 2011) contrast between the two languages.…”

“…Currently, research shows a verb class difference in the English neural and behavioural response to TRAs (Bourguignon et al 2012;Kyriaki et al 2020). Cross-linguistic comparisons can also be drawn via differential neural responses for English versus German speakers to agent-subject TRAs (Bornkessel-Schlesewsky et al 2011).…”

“…English stimuli were drawn from Kyriaki et al (2020) which were adapted from Bourguignon et al (2012). We divided critical stimuli between four lists, each containing twenty ASV (10 A-I, 10 I-A) and twenty ESV (10 A-I, 10 I-A).…”