Concurrent Use of Animacy and Event-Knowledge During Comprehension
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Concurrent use of animacy and event-knowledge during comprehension: Evidence from event-related potentials Mariana Vega-Mendoza1, Martin J. Pickering1, & Mante S. Nieuwland1,2 1Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh 2 Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, the Netherlands Corresponding author: Mariana Vega-Mendoza e-mail: [email protected] 1Department of Psychology University of Edinburgh 7 George Square Edinburgh EH8 9JZ United Kingdom Author Note: We have made all data, stimulus materials and data analysis files publicly available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/se3pc), in accordance with the Peer Review Openness Initiative (http://opennessinitiative.org; Morey et al., 2016) RUNNING HEAD: Animacy priority and ERPs 2 Abstract In two ERP experiments, we investigated whether readers prioritize animacy over real-world event-knowledge during sentence comprehension. We used the paradigm of Paczynski and Kuperberg (2012), who argued that animacy is prioritized based on the observation that the ‘related anomaly effect’ (reduced N400s for context-related anomalous words compared to unrelated words) does not occur for animacy violations, and that animacy violations elicit additional P600 effects. Participants read passive sentences with plausible agents (e.g., The prescription for the mental disease was written by the psychiatrist) or implausible agents that varied in animacy and semantic relatedness (schizophrenic/guard/pill/fence). In Experiment 1 (plausibility judgment task), animate words and related words elicited smaller N400s than inanimate and unrelated words, respectively. Crucially, the related anomaly effect did not depend on animacy. We observed a P600 effect of relatedness, not of animacy. In Experiment 2 (no judgment task), we observed a similar animacy effect, and no other effects. Our results fail to support a prioritized role of animacy information over real-world event-knowledge. Keywords: Semantic processing, selection-restrictions, real-world knowledge, semantic relatedness, N400 RUNNING HEAD: Animacy priority and ERPs 3 Introduction People can process different forms of semantic information during sentence comprehension in an incremental and sometimes predictive fashion (e.g., Altmann & Mirković, 2009). There is evidence that one particular form of semantic information, namely animacy, plays an important role in incremental processing. ERP results suggest that comprehenders rapidly assess the animacy of incoming arguments and its compatibility with selectional restrictions imposed by preceding verbs (Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2005, 2006; Paczynski & Kuperberg, 2012; Szewczyk & Schriefers, 2013). However, it is an open question whether or not animacy selection restrictions are prioritized – that is, whether they are processed prior to and independently of other forms of semantic information, such as general real-world event knowledge that allows people to evaluate sentence plausibility (e.g., McRae & Matsuki, 2009; Milburn, Warren & Dickey, 2016; Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2006). To investigate this question, we used the paradigm developed by Paczynski and Kuperberg (2012; henceforth, PK12), who investigated whether animacy- selection restrictions are prioritized over real-world event knowledge. Their approach was to test whether a word’s semantic relatedness to sentence context has a different impact on how people process violations of animacy compared to violations of real- world event-knowledge. Participants read passive sentences with post-verbal arguments that rendered the sentences plausible or implausible (Table 1), when asked to evaluate sentence plausibility as in PK12 (Experiment 1) or when not (Experiment RUNNING HEAD: Animacy priority and ERPs 4 2). In the following sections, we briefly review relevant research on semantic aspects of sentence comprehension and then outline our predictions for the current study. Research in psycholinguistics has shed light onto how semantic information is used during sentence comprehension (e.g., Marslen-Wilson, Brown & Tyler, 1988; Marslen-Wilson & Tyler, 1980; Pickering & Traxler, 1998). It has been suggested, for example, that sentence comprehension occurs in an incremental fashion, in that the meaning of each new word is integrated into the unfolding meaning of the sentence as soon as it is encountered (e.g., Marslen-Wilson, 1973). This enables comprehenders to rapidly realize when a word is semantically incompatible with prior context, incurring a processing cost relative to compatible words. Previous research has tried to elucidate whether certain types of semantic incompatibility between a word and its sentence context incur greater processing costs, or are more rapidly detected than others (e.g., Marslen-Wilson et al., 1988; Milburn et al., 2016; Staub, Rayner, Pollatsek, & Hyönä, 2007; Warren & McConnell, 2007). Here, we zoom in on the role of animacy constraints, event-knowledge and of semantic relatedness between words, and on how these relate to more general effects of plausibility. Our introduction focuses on studies that used Event-Related Potentials (ERPs), the technique employed by PK12 and by us. RUNNING HEAD: Animacy priority and ERPs 5 Effects of animacy Most ERP research on animacy processing has used the N400 (Kutas & Hillyard, 1980), an ERP component strongly associated with semantic retrieval and integration processes (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011; Van Berkum, 2009). For example, words that meet the animacy requirements or preferences imposed by the preceding context elicit smaller N400 amplitudes than words that do not, suggesting a processing advantage for words that meet animacy restrictions or preferences (e.g., Nieuwland, Martin, & Carreiras, 2013; Nieuwland & Van Berkum, 2005, 2006; Paczynski & Kuperberg, 2012). Sentence-initial animate nouns elicit smaller N400s than appropriately matched inanimate nouns (Weckerly & Kutas, 1999), consistent with the tendency of English speakers to start sentences with animate entities (e.g., Branigan, Pickering, & Tanaka, 2008; see also Clark, 1965), leading to a preference for sentence-initial animate nouns in listeners and readers. Similarly, Paczynski and Kuperberg (2011; Experiment 1) reported reduced N400s for inanimate patients (e.g., At the homestead the farmer plowed the meadow…) compared to equally plausible animate patients (e.g., At the homestead the farmer penalized the labourer…), consistent with the preference for patient roles to be filled by inanimate entities rather than animate entities. In a study on Polish sentence comprehension, Szewczyk and Schriefers (2011) explored whether animacy violations are processed differently from other semantic violations. In Polish, masculine nouns are marked for animacy through RUNNING HEAD: Animacy priority and ERPs 6 inflectional morphology. They compared ERPs elicited by words that violated both animacy and semantic constraints of the context (‘knitted an employee’) or by words that violated only semantic constraints (‘knitted a medicine’), versus congruent control words (‘knitted a scarf’). The authors reported similar N400 effects to both types of violation, but larger P600 effects for the animacy violations. They concluded that animacy information is processed differently from other forms of semantic information, but the nature of the observed difference remains unclear (cf. Nieuwland et al., 2013). In a later study, Szewczyk and Schriefers (2013) concluded that people anticipate the animacy of upcoming words in Polish. This latter study used discourse contexts that were more predictive of either an animate or an inanimate direct object noun in the story-final sentence. In the final sentence, pre-nominal adjectives (which in Polish are marked for animacy) that matched the presumed animacy of the upcoming direct object noun elicited smaller N400s than adjectives that did not match the presumed animacy. This is suggestive of animacy prediction. However, because animacy information is available through the adjective marking, these findings may merely reflect the incremental use of animacy information as it becomes available, rather than actual pre-activation of animacy features. These findings highlight the prominent role of animacy information in sentence processing. However, the extent to which animacy is prioritized over other forms of semantic information remains unclear, particularly when it is difficult to RUNNING HEAD: Animacy priority and ERPs 7 disentangle whether these effects could reflect processing of (im)plausibility (see also Milburn et al., 2016). Here, like PK12, we address this issue by investigating whether semantic relatedness has the same impact on how people process violations of animacy and those of real-world event-knowledge. Semantic relatedness Words that are semantically related to their context are facilitated during sentence processing (Kutas & Federmeier, 2011). In ERP studies, implausible words that are related to the context elicit smaller N400s than unrelated, equally implausible words. An early demonstration of this ‘related anomaly’ effect was reported by Federmeier and Kutas (1999). Their participants read a context that presumably led to an expectation for a certain word (e.g., At the dinner party, I wondered why my mother wasn’t eating her soup. Then I noticed that she didn’t have a…) followed by the predicted word (spoon), an implausible word from the same semantic category (knife) that shared semantic features with the predicted word, or an implausible word from a different